- Position1 of 3›
- Books should be adapted into movies
- Argument1 of 5›
Adapting movies gives screenplay writers creative freedom
How the book is presented can be altered, giving screenwriters a 'jumping off point' from which to showcase their creativity.
The argument
The opportunity to make a classic accessible in a contemporary format is appealing, especially to modern audiences. Seemingly dated works become highlighted again with the help of a modern-era film. There is also the flexibility for the contents of a dated book to be presented in accordance to modern trends and values, from portraying themes like sexuality to dressing actors in 21st-century fashion. To provide a specific example, the 2019 rendition of Little Women by Greta Gerwig showed an ending different from Louisa May Alcott's original book. The film was heavily focused on feminism, exploring the choices each March sister makes in their lives (such as Jo's struggle with her career as a writer). This echoes feminist movements we have in our society today.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Sceptics reply that the 'creative freedom' to alter a source is precisely what critics of adaptation object to: reworking a book's ending or themes to fit contemporary values can distort or supersede the author's intent, and the film then displaces the original in the public imagination, so many people 'know' a story only through a version its author never wrote. They add that a film's ability to modernise aesthetics does not require adapting a specific beloved book — an original screenplay could explore the same themes without appropriating and rewriting an existing work — and that many adaptations flatten interior, literary qualities that do not translate to screen. The Little Women example, they note, reads as easily as evidence that adaptation licenses departure from the source as that it honours it.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The freedom to reframe a work's themes and endings can distort the author's intent, and the film often displaces the original, so this 'freedom' is exactly what critics of adaptation object to. [Rejecting P2] Reviving classics and exploring modern themes does not require adapting a specific book; original screenplays can do the same without rewriting an existing work, so the benefit does not establish that books should be adapted.