Characters from books to screen: good, bad, misguided

About 30 minutes into the first Lord of the Rings movie, I was ticked off, and spent the next three hours fuming. Now, for that movie my problem wasn’t with the casting – except for the ridiculous choice of actress to play Lady Arwen – but with the many, many changes to the plot and tone. For example, some odd reason, Peter Jackson chose to reveal the wizard Saruman’s corruption at the very beginning, when that was meant to be a stunning revelation later in the books. I couldn’t see that it improved the story at all. And that’s just one error.

But although I’ve been digressing a smidge, the anecdote illustrates how fans can react when a film production makes radical changes to some of their favourite elements.

We all understand that some changes must be made to translate a beloved novel to the big screen. Opinions can be sharply divided no matter what choices the producers and casting directors make. I recall the kerfuffle when Michelle Pfeiffer was cast as Cat Woman in Batman Returns (1992), but I thought she was fantastic in the role and wore that slinky, black vinyl catsuit like nobody’s business.

I also thought that Danny DeVito did an amazing job as the Penguin; unfortunately his part was written in such a strange way that I don’t think it resonated with the audience.

Let’s look at a very divisive movie series, the Twilight saga. I will go on record that I think the casting was excellent. I felt that Kristen Stewart was perfectly cast as Bella Swan, pretty enough pre-vampirisim (sorry, spoiler alert) to convey why a lot of the males in her new high school were interested in her, carrying off the endearing clumsiness of the character well, etc. The movies were well made and had great musical accompaniment. The ONLY problem I have with them lies outside of Hollywood’s transformation – it has to do with the original novels, which portrayed vampires as having to avoid sunlight because they “sparkle” in it. As a long-time fan of the vampire canon, it makes absolutely no sense at all for vampires to sparkle. If Stephenie Meyer wants to ‘splain her logic to me, she’s welcome to try.

When our family visited the “Bloomland in Oz” exhibit at the Royal Botanical Gardens in Burlington, Ontario this past weekend, I was wondering if they were going to pattern the look of the two main female Ozian characters after the hugely-successful Wicked books/musicals/movies, but instead they went back to L. Frank Baum’s original books, which didn’t actually provide much of a description.

It made the displays really interesting. I think my favourite was the Wicked Witch of the West. In the books, she was described only as “the Wicked Witch of the West had but one eye, yet that was as powerful as a telescope, and could see everywhere.” Not much to go on at all.

When Hollywood produced its iconic movie, they had fourteen Oz novels to contend with, containing a complicated plot that outshines even my own! Much of Baum’s tales didn’t make it into the movie – Princess Ozma, the rightful ruler of Oz; the great Deadly Desert that completely surrounds Oz; the fact that Glinda the Good Witch has a large army of female soldiers…

Most of the Wicked Witch’s power lies in the creatures she controls, which in the movie consisted only of the terrifying Flying Monkeys and her troop of soldiers. However, in the books she also had a swarm of black bees, a flock of forty crows, a pack of forty great wolves and an army of Winkies. An enchanted  Golden Cap gave her the ability to compels the winged monkeys to do her bidding.

The producers cherry-picked aspects of the entire tale, and created one of the most beloved movies of all time.

But in the process, they also created an almost indelible image of an evil witch, dressed all in black and hunched over a broom, with a long hooked nose and startling green skin, stirring a big black cauldron when she’s not flying about and cackling.

I have a friend who came to one of our Halloween parties dressed as just such a witch, with a long putty nose. As more people arrived and the rooms of our house grew warmer, her nose began to soften and drift off to one side or the other. It was impossible to talk to her with a straight face!

RBG did a wonderful job of bringing the Wicked Witch to life in a stunning garment of elegant purple. If I were a witch, I think I might wear something equally chic. There’s no reason a wicked witch can’t be stylishly dramatic, is there?

Actress Margaret Hamilton’s portrayal of the Wicked Witch came to represent an archetype of human wickedness, even transmuting the normally soothing colour of green into something fearsome. To up the stakes very quickly once Dorothy arrives in Munchkinland, the movie made the Wicked Witch even meaner and malevolent, and she appeared in the film much sooner and more often than in Baum’s original story.

The same characterization carried over to the 2013 film Oz the Great and Powerful, vibrant green skin and all. In that movie, the Witch started out as the beautiful young Theodora, nice and wanting peace in the land, but tricked by her malicious older sister Evanora into thinking she’s been betrayed by the man she fell in love with. Theodora then turns poisonously green, and even her facial features distort because of her terrible anger.

As far as Glinda goes, she wore white in Baum’s novels. She was depicted as a beautiful young woman with long, red hair and blue eyes. She was, interestingly, much older than her appearance would suggest, but knowing how to keep young-looking (one presumes by magical means). She had ruled the Quadling Country ever since she overthrew the Wicked Witch of the South when Princess Ozma’s grandfather was “King of Oz”.

However, an early illustration of Glinda in pink cemented that image through almost all the movies, especially in the most recent two Wicked films – except for the 2013 movie, which restored her white dress.

People have asked me how I might cast some of my characters if a movie or series were ever made of my books, and I truly don’t know. The characters are very diverse, and their heritage is a significant part of their background, so I’d be quite perturbed if a producer wanted to change anything. As to the plot, over the trilogy it’s so layered that the books would work best as a series. There’s not a wasted word or scene in any of the books, but perhaps a producer could see a way to condense them into film format while still retaining the sense of the story.

I’ve been thoroughly enjoying the Percy Jackson series on Disney Plus, much more so than the movies, which simply didn’t have the time to portray all the nuances of the mythology. But there’s been quite a fuss made about the casting of black actress Leah Sava’ Jeffries in the role of Percy’s friend Annabeth Chase, who was Caucasian in the books. However, author Rick Riordan, a co-producer of the series, is happy with her casting, saying that she captures the spirit of the character.

There’s been plenty of controversy about the new Wuthering Heights movie, from Heathcliff’s appearance to the transmogrification of the story into more of a romance. I haven’t seen it myself, but I’ve been told it at least retains the nastiness of Heathcliff’s relentless vengeance.

So what’s the answer for an author who signs on to have their book(s) made into film? (Of course, Emily Brontë no longer has a say in the matter.)

Do we get our socks in a knot if too many changes are made, or just be happy that our work is coming to the big screen? Do we balk, or take the money and run? What if the movie turns our work into a timeless classic?

Well, if I’m ever thrust into that enviable position, I’ll fill you in on how I sweat out those decisions. In the meantime, what are some of your favourite character translations onto the big screen, OR which did you absolutely loathe?

You can read Baum’s Oz stories for free by downloading from https://gutenberg.org/ebooks/55.