***

I’d like to weigh in on cinematic adaptations, if I may. I speak not only as a novelist and screenwriter myself, but as a journalist who has interviewed a few authors whose work has been adapted to film: most notably Dennis Lehane and Jodi Picoult.

Lehane told me that the novel and the movie have as much in common as apples and giraffes, and should not be considered together. He was quite pleased with “Mystic River,” including the surprise casting of Lawrence Fishbourne as Det. Whitey Powers. Lehane felt that the racial switch added a dimension he never considered. (For that matter, Stephen King has said he wished he’d thought of the ending Brian DePalma used for “Carrie.”)

Jodi generally supports the movie; I've never heard her express disappointment. She has told me on several occasions that she is usually pleased with results, and she recognizes that changes often need to be made to accommodate the differences between the two media. Although she initially disapproved of Nick Cassavetes’ decision to change the ending of “My Sister’s Keeper,” since seeing the film she seems to have come around.

Film is very much a collaborative art, while writing is a solitary and individual artistic endeavor. Legions of decisions must be made to bring a film to life. A screenplay is simply the floor plan. A single casting decision can determine a film’s fate: suppose, for instance, that Warner Bros. cast Ronald Reagan and Ann Sheridan in “Casablanca,” or that MGM had gotten its first choice of Shirley Temple for “The Wizard of Oz”? Would the James Bond films have been as successful had someone other than John Barry written the music for most of them? (Considering how the Bond title tunes have fared without him, I would say not.)

Retaining the tone and spirit of a novel in a screenplay is extremely difficult even when screenwriters and producers care, which most don’t. (We all know that making money for everyone but the writer is the primary purpose of most commercial films.) Alfred Hitchcock concerned himself primarily with the visual aspects of his films far more than he did with fidelity to the source; anyone reading Robert Bloch’s “Psycho” would be surprised to discover that Norman Bates is described as fat, blonde and forty. But casting Anthony Perkins against that proved unforgettable. You wouldn’t recognize “The Birds” from reading Daphne DuMaurier’s story, but did that matter as you gripped the arms of your seat in the dark? Hitchcock was right.

Another example: there have been two adaptations of Patricia Highsmith’s “Ripley’s Game,” one starring Dennis Hopper and one starring John Malkovich as sociopath Tom Ripley. Their two interpretations of the character could not be more different; each actor sees Ripley in a unique light. Hopper’s version is an urban street hustler, which contrasts sharply with the refined and elegant Ripley given us by Malkovich. But both are smooth, remorseless killers. Who is to say which one is right?

Even when the novel’s author is closely involved, the film frequently comes out differently. Take John Irving’s “The Cider House Rules,” which took 15 years to bring to the screen. While Irving himself maintained control over much of the film, most of the book had to be excised because otherwise he would have had a five-hour movie on his hands. (Irving quoted my review in his Oscar acceptance speech, which was quite flattering.) The story had to be stripped to its essentials in order to be filmed.

Finally, the process of writing has to be organic if your fiction, whether on page or screen, is to be any good. Characters have an annoying tendency to blow the author’s wishes off and go in their own directions. A vital discovery in my own pastiche came about when Watson asserted himself during a key bit of exposition – doctors make deductions, too, based on their training and experience. Similarly, I would be willing to bet that Nick Cassavetes changed the ending to “My Sister’s Keeper” because of the way the script evolved during the writing.

In the end, I would say that if you really want to see the book you read on the screen, the best way is to produce the film yourself. Otherwise, a film should be judged on its own merits, regardless of the source material.