The Issues With Adaptation (Part 1)

So, this is going to be an ongoing topic for another post or two, but this is something I've been thinking about a lot, given that I've been doing an in-depth research paper of the film adaptation of No Country for Old Men. I'd like to give you a taste of some of the issues regarding adaptations in general. I feel it is important that this issue be addressed because too many people, myself included until recently, think that a film adaptation is only as good of a film as its reflection to the book. I'd like to use the True Grit films as a case study.

Man, and we think the rating system is screwy today. M for Mature? What does that even mean? At least the video game rating system has an age to go along with the letter. It is incredible to me just how much even the way trailers for films are made these days compared to now. While even today no two trailers are the same, the style and the manner in which they are prepared is markedly different compared to four decades ago. Anyway, this film will forever remain a classic for many people if for no other reason than the fact that this was an Oscar-winning role for the Duke. I have no doubt that many people were very wary of having Jeff Bridges step into the boots of the Duke. 

However, if you'll watch them both, you'll notice that these films are not even comparable really for multiple reasons. One being that the Coens drew inspiration from the book rather than the 1969 film for their screenplay. The tone is markedly different as well. While the 1969 version may have received an M rating, I can recall seeing this film at a very young age, and it wasn't because my parents didn't care what I was watching. The 2010 version on the other hand doesn't appear too family friendly. The Duke's Rooster Cogburn may be rough around the edges, but he also has a very likable demeanor about him. Bridges' Cogburn doesn't seem like the guy you'd want to cross anywhere. Period. Now, another problem you face with adapting a book into a film is perspective. The book is written in first person, entirely from the point of view of the 14-year-old female protagonist Mattie Ross. Immediately, you face the issue of trying to make that voice come out in the film without a constant monologue. This is one of the reasons I found The Hunger Games to be a very well done film adaptation because many of the little changes made to the film opposed to the book were simply because you couldn't inform the audience all the details roaming through Katniss's head, not to mention the little details of how the games worked along the way.

So, is it really even fair to ask how the film compares to the book? To what degree can the two be compared?