Novels vs films

Now there's a profound thought, but it needs to be stated. To understand why most adaptations fail, we need to take a look at how novels and movies work in different ways. Just remember the fundamental difference between novel and film is that the novel uses words to tell a story, and a film uses images.

The launch of FoxFaith spells good news for that one-time oxymoron, the Evangelical moviegoer. No longer will these God-fearing Bible-readers have to choke down a diet of violence, fornication and dubious moral practices when they visit their local Mulitiplex. Instead, the new Hollywood division promises major motion pictures promoting "Christian values" and "religious themes", and resulting in "great family films that they can trust won't be offensive".

In the early days of cinema, plays were the art form most closely associated with film. On the surface this makes sense. And back then, with a stationary camera cranking away, it made sense too. But along came Griffith writing history with lightning, and telling stories with close ups and reverse angle shots, tracking shots and inserts. Suddenly the language of film changed, and in that change came a fundamental shift in where films would get their material.