[Rick Mullin]

No strong opinion on KB here. And I liked Lincoln despite really despising Spielberg!~,:^) But I completely agree that a film being faithful to a book is hardly a measure of the film’s quality. Quite the opposite. I heard Richard Price, the author of Clockers, interviewed once. He was asked if he was bothered by the fact that Spike Lee turned the great Essex County, NJ-based novel into another Spike Lee “Brooklyn Pastorale.” Price’s answer sticks with me: “When you are making a film about a book, the last thing you want to make is Sophie’s Choice.” Making a film of a novel is an act of ekphrasis, really—you have the chance to make something new in a different medium that is true to the source. Why paint a slavish copy of a sculpture when you have all the things that come with painting to work with? (Note: Price was an executive something on Lee’s film, which I think underscores his conviction that one does not make Sophie’s Choice). An example of how the direct copy approach tends to fare: The brother of a friend of mine was involved in the making of the film “The Road,” based on Cormac McCarthy’s novel. The film didn’t do as well as everyone had hoped in the theater or with the Oscars. My friend told me said, “Well, the good news is that the movie is true to the book. The bad news is that the movie is true to the book.” His point may have been that the subject matter was too much for people to take. But I take it to be an observation that, while you may be catering to a broad audience with a Sophie’s Choice approach, you have no guarantee of a broad audience for having done so. Your lack of commitment to something new might just get you a so-so turnout. Better to crack ekphrastic.