Why is it then, that when the movie is made (and I'm generally talking about the made-for-TV movies), the characters have no personality, or depth. The actors don't seem to carry the story along, as if they never even read the book. They just say their lines without the emotion the book portrayed.
Now, I know, having written the screenplay to Eyes of Garnet, how difficult capturing the essence of the book is. You only have 120 pages to tell the entire story. But I also know that it can be done.
So, is it the actors' fault, or the directors' fault?
Case in point. Montana Sky, by Nora Roberts. A fairly lengthy book filled with the vastness of Montana, the ranching life of cows and men, and three sisters who've never met, reuniting, per se, over the one thing they had in common; their father's funeral. Oh, and of course, lot's of passion.
Each woman has their own story, and each is dysfunctional in their own way. However, they are bonded by a cause: a murderer in their midst, and a multi-million dollar ranch that is to be divided three ways, but only after they all live there together for 1 year.
In the movie, these actresses never for one minute made you want to know them, and by the middle of the show, you sort of hoped the killer would just off them and put us out of their misery! And as for the romance part? Well, suffice it to say sparks never once flew enough to light a candle, never mind give us the notion these men had anything on their minds but a fleeting peck on the cheek. Soap operas do a better job of conveying lust than those actors did.
Why? In the book, there was a plausible plot, characters who grew on you, budding lusty romance, and great visuals.
Yet the movie fell so far short, it was like watching an outline attempt to come to life. It just couldn't. And Nora Roberts was a consultant for the movie. Really? How could she approve that?
I also happen to say the very same thing each time a new Stephen King movie appears on the big screen. Crap. I mean, the books are so vivid and frightening, but there hasn't been a movie made yet from his books that conveys that. Plus, the writers always seem to change so much of it, they really push the envelope by saying it was based upon the novel by Stephen King.
The major motion pictures do a better job of bringing the story into life, such as Horse Whisperer. The movie followed the story line very well, except, once again, the ending was changed, but it made you believe the story. It came to life even better than the book. Robert Redford may have had something to do with that...
But, the point to my rant is why such lack-luster performances when a book is worthy of being seen in life?
Share your thoughts.