On Wednesday, December 3rd, PEN New England hosted a panel on adaptation of novels to film at the Coolidge Corner Theater. It was a lively, if unruly, group of literary lions and filmmakers. Moderated by Joe Finder, whose best selling novel HIGH CRIMES was made into a big studio movie starring Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd, the panel posed the ultimate question: “Why even bother adapting stories from other mediums into film?”
The obvious answer is that good stories are hard to come by.

One panelist, Cambridge director Jan Egleson, just completed an episode of the PBS mystery series COYOTE WAITS, executive produced by Robert Redford from the novel by Tony Hillerman. Currently shopping a DVD deal for his 1990 feature SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM, in which he elicited a tour-de-force performance from Michael Caine, Egleson quipped, “I’m still waiting for someone to write a book based on one of my movies.” Showing clips from his American Playhouse feature LEMON SKY starring Kevin Bacon and Lindsay Crouse, he described how the use of color and music informed his cinematic interpretation of the Lanford Wilson play.

In the early days, silent films focused on trains and galloping horses. What are the criteria by which we judge films based on novels? We put all these expectations on the material. With so many hands required to make a film, is it any wonder that bad adaptations are the rule more than the exception? And yet, look at the recent titles that have emerged from that process to be deemed masterpieces: THE ENGLISH PATIENT, CIDER HOUSE RULES, THE ICE STORM, ORDINARY PEOPLE, LORD OF THE RINGS, ANGELS IN AMERICA and local hero Andre Dubus III’s HOUSE OF SAND & FOG.

Panelist screenwriter-director Maureen Foley, who worked in the literary world at THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY for years, said the most difficult aspect of adapting material to the screen is deciding what to leave out. Using silence, music and images to tell the story visually, Foley illustrated her point with clips from the film she wrote and shot last summer, AMERICAN WAKE. Beautiful fisherman vistas flavored with a score by Seamus Egan (BROTHERS McMULLIN), the scenes showed the audience how a director translates description from the written word onto the screen and in choosing a palate, sets the mood visually.

Third panelist, Margo Lipsky, related the vicissitudes she weathered to find the appropriate collaborator to adapt her novel CRIMINALS before settling on Maureen Foley. Maureen approached Margo four years ago when Lipsky flew to Cambridge from England for a Harvard reunion. Foley was two weeks too late: Lipsky had just optioned her work to a London company. Two writers and two years later, Lipsky reconnected with Foley. Foley’s quiet persistence paid off. They now have a script they love that Foley will direct for Arcane Pictures.

Scott Heim won a fellowship to the 1997 Sundance Screenwriters Lab for the script he adapted from his novel MYSTERIOUS SKIN. Heim discussed how he tried consolidating locations in an effort to keep costs down for a low budget production.
Boisterous, slightly unwieldy with five participants, the panel did not offer many opportunities for Heim, the youngest of the bunch, to chime in about his experiences.

The big draw of the evening was MYSTIC RIVER novelist Dennis Lehane, not just because of his star power but also because his film is the one most audience members were familiar with. At one point, Lehane left briefly. “I’ll be right back,” he told everybody as he exited the stage. Moderator Finder soldiered on with questions to remaining panelists. Later Lehane admitted, “I’m a last minute editor. I edited six minutes off this panel when I walked out.” Too bad he didn’t edit the final fifteen minutes of his film was what some in the audience voiced. Surprisingly, Lehane fought to keep those scenes in.

Lehane had no interest in cutting a deal with Hollywood for MYSTIC RIVER but, “When Clint Eastwood calls, you pick up the phone, if only to hear the Voice.” Eastwood and Lehane had a meeting of the minds about the material, although some scenes were not what Lehane was expecting.

For example, Eastwood went in another direction with the porch scene between Penn and Robbins. Penn’s lurching breakdown was not the way Lehane had imagined it. Lehane pictured the character stoic, with tears brimming over onto an expressionless face. Yet he was pleasantly pleased with the results.

At the reception given so graciously by Christy Scott Cashman, I mentioned how I’m amazed to see the novelist’s name sometimes overlooked by film reviewers and journalists. Lehane said he has been more than satisfied with the exposure that the film has given his book. No one on the panel could discount the ancillary revenue that a film can generate. It can help them keep writing the books they want to write.