Why are film adaptations of big books so often bad?

Earlier this month, Vulture published a detailed article on the award-winning novel by Donna Tartt's Pulitzer Prize The goldfinch had made his way to the big screen. It's a fascinating examination of the corporate contortions needed to secure the financing of an ambitious literary adaptation – not to mention the difficulty of adapting a door-sized novel to a manageable door for a film audience. .

Unfortunately, the record of The goldfinch can be more convincing than the movie itself. At the time of writing these lines, he is currently recording 25 percent on rotten tomatoes. The Metacritic score is slightly better, but 41 is not very popular. And yet, Tartt's novel was a huge commercial and critical success. Nothing about it, except perhaps its size, indicates that it would be difficult to film: there are many sequences that lend themselves to cinematographic treatment, to a crowd of memorable characters and to a narrative global.

If the film The goldfinch ends up being classified under "good ideas, poor execution", it will not be alone. Annie Proulx The news of the expedition – winner of the Pulitzer Prize and the National Book Award – was adapted in 2001 with a cast of stars, enhanced by a questionable disciple, Kevin Spacey. The film arrived at mediocre reviews and mediocre business. Two of Philip Roth's masterpieces at the end of his career, winner of the PEN / Faulkner Award The human spot and Pulitzer Prize winner American pastoral, have been adapted for the big screen and have received similar fates.

To be honest, a "meh" reaction always seems better than the fate of other high-level book-movie adaptations. Ron Rash's novel Serena – finalist of the 2009 PEN / Faulkner Award – it is about a woman whose ambition and determination led to a series of poignant and bloody events, all in a historical context breathtaking. The 2014 adaptation of director Susanne Bier was led by Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper – their third association on the screen after Reading book of silver liners and American Hustle. And the film arrived with a thud. Adam Sternbergh, who wrote for Vulture, said: "Unlike the most famous movie disasters, this does not happen as the product of a monstrous uncontrolled ego, but a thousand little decisions that went wrong.

On the other side, there is the famous adaptation made by Brian De Palma in 1990 to Tom Wolfe's satirical novel The bonfire of vanities – so complex a production, with such a frustrating end product, that it has resulted in one of the best filming books ever made behind the scenes. It is not difficult to draw parallels between this and the mishap that surrounds The goldfinchBoth books were extremely successful novels that seemed to lend themselves to cinematographic adaptations. Both have attracted leading players. And both triggered disappointed receptions.

This does not mean that all literary adaptations of high level are doomed to failure. Director Stephen Daldry's vision of Michael Cunningham's Pulitzer winner Hours critical success, as did Jonathan Demme's 1998 adaptation of Toni Morrison's award-winning novel to the Pulitzer Beloved. More recently, the adaptation by Barry Jenkins of James Baldwin If Beale Street could speak got impressive reviews and many nominations.

And there is always television – but even some of the leading literary adaptations for the small screen have had a very different problem. Both The servant's tale and Big little lies received an impressive reception for their respective first seasons, which were inspired by the intrigues of the novels of which they were adapted. But as everyone entered a more unexplored territory, everyone also encountered critical bumps on the road, metaphorically.

In his criticism of The goldfinch for Vox, Alissa Wilkinson explores the question of what enables a faithful literary adaptation – and how it can really conflict with the real themes of a given story. Wilkinson cites Tartt's penchant for "reminders of the importance that mere objects – such as an antique table or a simple bird painting – can have in a person's life". Point: "In the film, these are examined before we have to move on."

It is interesting to note that another well-publicized adaptation of the book on the screen, planned for the end of the year, although it is clearly a work of love, is not afraid to break with its sources at least in a very significant way. It would be Edward Norton's take on the stylized mystery of Jonathan Lethem Motherless Brooklyn, published for the first time in 1999. Reading the novel, there are many references to New York in contemporary times. Watch the trailer for Norton's adaptation and you'll see a movie unfold in the 1950s. Will this decision work in the end? It's possible, but it's a good sign that filmmakers understand the difference between admiring their source document and treating it as a sacred text.