the intersection by
caleb bollenbacher
A Study In Synthesis
Adaptation gets a pretty bad reputation these days. It’s easy to see why, what with Hollywood growing increasingly dependent on sequels, remakes, or film versions of popular television shows/comics/ books, etc.. People are constantly decrying the lack of originality, and there’s a lot of merit to that complaint. But it’s not such a bad thing, adaptation. At least, it isn’t always. As a writer I am obviously in favor of original content, but I will defend a good adaptation until the cows come home. Why? Because I think a good adaptation can be original in its own way. Let me explain. I’ve recently jumped aboard the “Sherlock” bandwagon, and it was absolutely worth the wait. I was hooked almost instantly, and the obsession only grew as I watched. But here’s the thing: Sherlock Holmes is one of my favorite literary heroes, and has been since I was a kid. As a result, I was dubious about a ‘reboot’ of the material, especially one with episodes that are about 50 minutes longer than my attention span. But “Sherlock” is so utterly fresh – in spite of the fact that it’s populated by characters I have been reading about and watching on screen for years – that I couldn’t tear my eyes away. Sherlock and Watson aren’t just narrative devices. They have become dynamic: playing off each other with such natural energy that they seem like people you might run into at work, while maintaining their larger than life air. Moriarty is no longer a distant threat shrouded in mystery. In his place, “Sherlock” gives us a Moriarty (played by the fantastic Andrew Scott) who devours every scene with a madman’s flair. And Irene Adler… don’t even get me started on the sheer perfection that is Adler. The beauty here is that these are all characters who have worked effectively for over a century, and yet the creators of Sherlock have abandoned all but their essence in order to give us something that rings true in the now, rather than a stale repetition. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” has been thrown out the window, and it is a truly sweet development. The stories feel like they could have been a part of the modern world all along, because they are now filled with access 16 BLEEP
points that the viewer can relate to. Sherlock Holmes is not one of us, but he feels agonizingly close. Sure, there are plenty of plot lines in the show that are lifted straight off the page of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original literature, but through all this the show runners refuse to play it safe. Familiar elements are merely used as jumping off points, and classic plots are synthesized into a meld that is patched together seamlessly with original content. This is how you adapt. Merely supplanting a story from one form to another is rarely a worthy pursuit. For example, there are few adaptations that are as true to their original source material as the film version of “Watchmen.” That being said, the movie is just okay. It was neat to see the graphic novel translated to the screen, but it was essentially just a moving version of the comic. On the other hand, two of my favorite movies, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” and “The Perks of Being A Walllflower” are book adaptations that people malign for straying from the source material. The criticism doesn’t ring true though. “Perks” is so much more vibrant for letting the characters live in front of us instead of forcing us to experience them all through the narrator’s point of view. “Half-Blood Prince” may be the farthest from the original books out of all the Potter movies, but it stays faithful to the essence of the story and communicates all the pertinent points as they should fit within the context of the already established film franchise. It works because it is different from the book, not in spite of its difference. The key to adaptation is in letting the story adapt to a new form. Books are books and television/film is not. There is no point in trying to shoehorn something, so why would you? Story should evolve to fit its container, and when that is allowed to happen then we are left with something worthwhile. If that isn’t going to be the case, more often than not I would rather stick to the original. After all, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?