Archive for the ‘Adaptation - Analysis’ Category

Adaptation Analysis – Public Enemies: Emphasizing Theme & Manipulating Truth for Greater Impact

Bryan Burrough’s gripping crime history, Public Enemies, follows the exploits of some of the most notorious outlaws of the 1930’s. Writer-director Michael Mann along with screenwriters Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman, have extrapolated the story of John Dillinger and created a poignant and visually captivating film.

Burrough’s extensively researched 550-page book devotes a great deal of space to Dillinger and his bank robbing cohorts – providing the screenwriters with more than enough vignettes from Dillinger’s real life to create each scene in the script, without having to rely on inventing characters or scenarios to tell the story.

The challenge in adapting Public Enemies for the screen does not come from a lack of exciting tales to tell, but the fact that Dillinger’s story is devoid of any real character development and easily becomes episodic – moving from one bank robbery, shootout, and chase, to the next.

The screenwriters confront this issue by:
1. Focusing on theme (instead of a character arc), and
2. Manipulating the truth to create greater emotional impact

EMPHASIZING THEME
Mann, Bennett, and Biderman focus on dual themes:
* The demise of the lone, individualistic criminal, and
* The rise of the FBI as a national police force

America’s greatest crime wave of 1933 and 1934, which saw the likes of Dillinger, The Barker Gang, Pretty Boy Floyd, Bonnie and Clyde, Machine Gun Kelly, and Baby Face Nelson all operating at the same time, was not actually the beginning of a crime wave, it was the end of one. The golden age of bank robberies ran from 1925 to 1932. By 1933 and 1934, the lone ‘Robin Hood” bank robber and his gang were on the way out and organized crime was moving in.

The writers effectively portray this oncoming extinction, contrasting the modern, sophisticated mob against Dillinger’s rag-tag crew, in a scene in which Dillinger stands in a room filled with people ‘working’ the mobster’s telephones. He is delivered the fateful statement: “Your $74,000 – we make that every morning with our operation here.” The message is clear. Dillinger’s way of life is over.

Hoover’s rise to power was not slow and methodical. It erupted in 1933 among an atmosphere of fear and propaganda and the idea of the heroic “G-man”, which Hoover used to promote his ambitious project – the creation of a national police force: the FBI. The screenwriters deftly weave this thread throughout the script and lay the framework in an early scene depicting Hoover’s attempt to boost his organization (using the crime wave as a means to build his power) at a hearing in front of a congressional subcommittee. In another early scene, Hoover is shown maneuvering to position himself at a press conference, where he introduces Melvin Purvis as the new top dog.

MANIPULATING TRUTH FOR GREATER IMPACT
The writers do an excellent job of closely sticking to historical facts and presenting a realistic portrayal of Dillinger (though they maintain an aloof distance from the main character, perhaps this is due to Mann’s stylistic preferences) – demonstrating his turbulent lifestyle, his well-documented charm and wit, his rise to depression-era anti-hero celebrity status, and his acceptance of the fatal inevitability of his path.

Let’s look at a few key areas where the screenwriters manipulated truth to create a better experience for the audience.

The Opening Sequence
The film opens with a powerful series of scenes depicting Dillinger leading a prison-break. It has all the great elements necessary for an opening scene, and is a wise choice for starting the story. But if the writers had stuck to historical accuracy, the main character would have been absent from the scene. In real life, Dillinger planned the jailbreak while he was out on parole – but a few weeks before the break was to go down, he was re-arrested and incarcerated at a different prison. You can’t have an opening scene without the protagonist, so the writers twisted the facts to allow Dillinger to be present and play a key role in the opening sequence.

Rearranging Chronology
The screenwriters significantly shift the chronology of events throughout the film. Pretty Boy Floyd is shown being chased through a field and shot down by Melvin Purvis less than 20 minutes into the story. Several of Dillinger’s gang and associates, and even Baby Face Nelson are depicted as being killed prior to Dillinger’s demise. In reality, Dillinger went down before most of his gang was killed and both Baby Face Nelson and Pretty Boy Floyd outlived Dillinger.

So why do the writers shift the events to depict so many outlaws being killed prior to Dillinger’s death? Because it raises the stakes. If the audience doesn’t witness any real consequences associated with Dillinger’s lifestyle then they lose interest in the journey. The deaths of his associates foreshadow the inevitable and keep the audience engaged with the dramatic premise.

Maintaining a Love Story
Public Enemies is both a gritty and romantic film. Dillinger’s real life relationship with Billie Frechette may have indeed been a true love story. They were dedicated to one another; he only straying after her arrest, and she never divulging any details about Dillinger until after his death and her release from prison (at which time she toured the country speaking on the topic of Dillinger and the ills of crime – in exchange for a paycheck.)

Still, a good story requires the love relationship to be maintained throughout – or for at least as long as possible. To that end, the screenwriters keep Frechette in the narrative longer than her stay in real life. In actuality, Billie was arrested prior to several bank robberies and the tragic events that unfolded at Little Bohemia. In the script, Frechette is present at Little Bohemia and the couple ultimately reconnects in a dangerous rendezvous (again upping the stakes for Dillinger.)

Another tool the writers use to deepen the impact of the love story and connect the audience are the fabricated final words Dillinger speaks to Agent Winstead: “Tell Billie for me… bye bye blackbird…” This final scene closes the film on a poignantly sad note. The viewer is left with a feeling of loss and regret (as are the characters). In truth, Dillinger never spoke these words. He never spoke any words after he was shot outside the Biograph Theater.

All protagonists need key relationships with other characters for the audience to root for. We need to see the main character care for others and others care for him (especially in the case where the protagonist is a ‘bad guy’). This manufactured scene is necessary to tie the love relationship back into the story and create meaning and emotional impact.

Creating a Consistent and Strong Antagonist
Every protagonist needs a strong and consistent opponent. In reality, even though Dillinger was always pursued by law enforcement, Hoover and the FBI did not become fully engaged in ‘getting their man’ until after the Crown Point murder (in which Dillinger shot and killed a police officer) – fairly late in his criminal career. Melvin Purvis was an utterly incompetent foe, committing one embarrassing and deadly blunder after another throughout Dillinger’s crime spree.

Purvis was eventually demoted by Hoover and replaced in June 1934 by a man named Sam Cowley. Cowley was actually the man in charge of arranging and overseeing the events on the night Dillinger was killed. Of course, none of us has ever heard of Sam Cowley. Melvin Purvis is known as the man that took Dillinger down, and ultimately the screenwriters are forced to turn Purvis into something his was not in real life.

It serves the story to create a clearly identified opponent who consistently and relentlessly pursues Dillinger. Positioning Melvin Purvis as the determined heroic G-man from the beginning of the story through the end raises the stakes and provides the conflict necessary for a compelling story. As Dillinger’s nemesis, Purvis is an opponent who is clearly identified (he has a name, he is not simply a law agency), consistent (he remains the single main opponent throughout the story), and relentless (he is a worthy opponent who is always just one step behind.)

Adaptation is not alliteration. The art of adapting source material into a script requires understanding what is best for the story and carefully selecting those elements to serve the narrative throughline. The revisions the writers made to the true events surrounding Dillinger’s life ultimately worked to create a better screenplay.

Adapting a Self-Help Book: Notes on “He’s Just Not That Into You”

This month I chose to analyze the film He’s Just Not That Into You, not because it is an exceptional film worthy of analysis (it’s not!), but because it’s such a rare occasion that a self-help / how-to book is made into a movie that I thought it would be a good exercise to examine the screenwriters’ adaptation process.

Writers Abby Kohn and Marc Silverstein have taken authors Greg Behrendt’s and Liz Trucillo’s brisk-read-of-a-book and somehow managed to turn it into an overly long 129-minute film (Casablanca and On The Waterfront weren’t even this long!)

(By the way, Behrendt and Trucillo once worked as writers on a little-known show called Sex and the City, an episode of which spawned the basis for the book.)

In their book, the two authors provide upbeat, edgy, irreverent, anecdotes for dealing with men’s behavior set against the backdrop of nifty little stories presented in the form of letters from female readers seeking advice (alongside my favorite section of each chapter, a sidebar highlighting the results of a not-so-scientific poll, in which guys respond to the topic at hand – such as this golden nugget of wisdom: “100% of guys polled said they never accidentally slept with anyone.”  Hmmm, really?)

Because of their wry wit and breezy tone, Behrendt’s and Trucillo’s no-brainer advice works well in print, even if you do wonder as you’re reading along just who really needs this advice unless they’re 12 years-old or stuck on stupid… but that’s another blog post.  Back to the adaptation….

THEME, PLOT, CHARACTER
The structure of the book (with its goofy tales from clueless women and its sharp-tongued replies from counsel) creates a nice jumping-off point for the screenwriters.  Kohn and Silverstein use many of the book’s “stories” to create the intertwining plotline:

* Beth and Neil (Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck) represent the topic: “If He’s Not Marrying You”

* Gigi and Conor (Ginnifer Goodwin and Kevin Connolly) & A Bunch of Other Guys (a bunch of other actors) highlight the ongoing dilemma: “If He’s Not Calling You”

* Anna’s (Scarlett Johannson) and Conor’s relationship presents the issue: “If (S)He’s Not Having Sex With You”

* Gigi’s and Alex’s (Justin Long) friendship conveys the subject: “If He’s Not Dating You”, and “If He’s Not Asking You Out” (but eventually leads to “Here’s What It Should Look Like” territory)

* Anna’s and Ben’s (Bradley Cooper) affair pinpoints the problem: “If He’s Married or Other Insane Variations”

* Janine’s (Jennifer Connolly) and Ben’s situation confronts the age-old what-to-do: “If He’s Sleeping With Someone Else”

(Personally, I would have liked to see a representation of the topic “If He Only Calls You When He’s Drunk”.  Alas, the screenwriters chose to leave that one out.)

Though Kohn and Silverstein develop the numerous characters (even ensuring each character’s story has an inciting incident, turning point, crises, and climax) this is not a character study.  It is a theme-driven film.  The writers chose each element to reinforce that message and deftly weave the book’s main point (stop listening to your girlfriends when they tell you “exception” stories — you’re the rule, not the exception) into the storyline.  Learning this simple truth is the impetus that sends three characters – Gigi, Beth and Janine – on their journey and leads to each of their characters’ transformation.

THE INCITING INCIDENT
The screenwriters created the film’s inciting incident from the book’s Introduction wherein Trucillo recites the story of a group of women discussing guy problems and reassuring one another that guys are just scared, intimidated, confused, busy, blah, blah, blah.  The bottom line: if a guys being a jerk it’s because he like you.  On screen, this became a charming scene with a young boy and girl playing in the schoolyard.  When the little boy is mean to the little girl, the little girl’s mother tells her the boy treated her badly because he has a crush on her.  This evolves into a series of snippets showing women around the world being treated badly by guys, and their girlfriends reinforcing the bizarre belief that if a guy is a jerk — he must like you!

DEVICES
Kohn and Silverstein use a few devices to engage the viewer and help tell the story.

(1) The character of Alex is used as device to inform the intellectually challenged Gigi what I guy really means when he treats a girl badly.

ALEX
Look, you seem like a cool girl, so I’m just gonna be honest – Conor is never going to call you.

GIGI
Oh really?  How do you know?

ALEX
Because I’m a guy.  It’s how we do it.

GIGI
(hopeful)
He said it was nice meeting me.

ALEX
I don’t care if he said you were his favorite female since his mommy and Joanie Cunningham.  Over a week went by – and he didn’t call.

GIGI
But maybe he called me and I didn’t get the message.  Or maybe he lost my number, or was out of town, or was hit by a cab, or his grandma died.

ALEX
Or maybe he just didn’t call because he has no interest in seeing you again.

GIGI
Yeah but my friend Terri once went out with this guy who never called and she totally wrote him off – then like a year later she ran into him –

ALEX
Your friend Terri’s an idiot.  And she’s the exception.

GIGI
OK.  But what if I’m the exception?

ALEX
You’re not.  You’re the rule.

(2) The writers also use titles (taken directly from the book) as a device to break the film into four chapters: ‘If He’s Not Calling’, ‘If He’s Not Marrying You’, ‘If She’s Not Sleeping With You’, and ‘If He’s Sleeping With Someone Else’.

(3) Alongside each chapter introduction, they present a scene with an actor conveying a story related to that topic (a la When Harry Met Sally).

(4) I’m not sure why the screenwriters choose to include a voice-over device at the beginning of the film.  The narration (provided by the character of Gigi) has absolutely no value.  It’s in your face then quickly disappears, never to be heard from again.  Why use it?  The narration simply states what the viewer is seeing on the screen and what the characters are already conveying through dialogue.

WRAP-UP
At the end of the day (or the end of the screenplay), Kohn’s and Silverstein’s script does a brilliant job of retaining the upbeat and motivational tone of the book and presenting story elements that enhance the theme (no doubt viewers “get” what this movie is “about”) but, because the screenplay lacks the wit and edginess of the book and stays in the all-too-familiar-formulaic-zone, we’re left with a film that ultimately falls flat and misses an opportunity to present the familiar in a unique way.

Adaptation Analysis: Finding One’s Place In The World – Some Thoughts On “The Cider House Rules”

Screenwriter John Irving had the formidable task of condensing his own 550-page novel into a 136-page script for the film “The Cider House Rules”.

He achieved this brilliantly – the script won the Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay – by focusing the screenplay on the central conflict.

CENTRAL CONFLICT
The novel revolves around two main characters: Dr. Larch (played onscreen by Michael Caine, who won an Oscar for this film for Best Supporting Actor), an orphanage physician who performs illegal abortions, and his protégé, Homer Wells (an orphan Dr. Larch delivered, portrayed by Tobey Maguire in the film) who refuses to perform abortions.

In the film, Homer becomes the main character. His goal in the book and the script remains the same: to avoid performing abortions (though he has be trained how) and to see and experience something more of the world than just the confines of St. Clouds Orphanage.

Irving sets up the central conflict immediately. He uses a montage over the opening credits to reveal Dr. Larch’s willingness to provide abortions and his personal feelings on the morale doctrine of the day and establishes in the first scene of dialogue between Homer and Dr. Larch, Homer’s disdain for performing abortions.

DR. LARCH
I presume you prefer handling the delivery?

HOMER
All I said was, I don’t want to perform abortions. I have no argument with you performing them.

DR. LARCH
You know how to help these women – how can you not feel obligated to help them when they can’t get help anywhere else?

HOMER
One: it’s illegal. Two: I didn’t ask how to do it – you just showed me.

DR. LARCH
What else could I have showed you, Homer? The only thing I can teach you is what I know! In every life, you’ve got to be of use.

CONDENSING TIME AND PLOT
The plot of the novel is far more complex than the film adaptation. Irving removed any extraneous material that did not convey the central conflict or move Homer’s goal forward.

In the book, Homer remains away from the orphanage for 15 years, during which time, Wally and Homer become best friends, Wally and Candy marry, and Homer and Candy have an affair and a son together. Wally becomes aware of Homer and Candy’s tryst but remains friends with Homer. Homer’s and Candy’s son, Angel, falls in love with Rose Rose and discovers she has been impregnated by her own father.

In the novel, Homer has many more adventures than in the film – there is just no time for them in the movie. In the film, Homer only stays away from the orphanage for 15 months, Wally and Homer do not become best friends, the significance of the affair between Homer and Candy is diminished, and the two do not have a child together. Homer is the one who directly discovers Rose Rose is pregnant by Mr. Rose.

ELIMINATING AND CREATING CHARACTERS
A significant and powerful character in the novel is eliminated from the film. Melony is an older girl Homer meets in the orphanage. She introduces him to his first sexual experience and feelings of love, even eliciting a promise from him never to leave her. Of course, Homer later breaks this promise. Her elimination from the film may have to do with time limitations, but it also allows for Candy to become Homer’s first sexual experience. Candy becomes the sexual aggressor and, thereby, diminishes Homer’s culpability in the affair – making him more sympathetic to viewers.

The script jumpstarts with Homer as a young man, as compared to the novel which details Homer’s early life at the orphanage. The character of the orphan Buster did not exist in the novel and was created for the script to stand-in for Homer’s experiences as a young boy.

LOSS OF BACKSTORY & ITS AFFECT ON THE VIEWER
In both the book and the script, Dr. Larch is an ether-addict. In the novel, Dr. Larch substitutes ether for sex. He is abstinent after only one sexual experience with a prostitute that left him with gonorrhea. He is using the ether to dull the pain associated with the disease. In the screenplay, that backstory is eliminated. The audience is not told why Dr. Larch sniffs ether. They may conclude that his work has left him a deeply sad and troubled man. In the film, he sniffs ether to numb his misery. The subtle change greatly affects the viewer’s perception of his character.

CREATION OF DIALOGUE
In the novel, most of the character’s thoughts are internal – for the film they must be expressed through dialogue.

THE TURNING POINT & RESOLUTION
In the novel and the film it is the same turning point, or event, that causes Homer to return to the orphanage and take over as physician and abortionist. When Homer realizes the he must perform an abortion for Rose Rose, he realizes he cannot deny the procedure for other women. He discovers where he belongs in the world, and what his “use” in the world is. Homer can never escape what Dr. Larch has taught him. His place is at St. Cloud’s.

DR. LARCH
God forgive me. I have made an orphan by loving him too much. Homer Wells will belong to St. Cloud’s forever.