What does a popular country music artist have in common with an impoverished 19th century French girl? That’s what fans from all over have been asking upon hearing the news that Taylor Swift has accepted the role of Éponine in the upcoming film adaptation of the classic musical “Les Misérables.” Now, I love Taylor as much as the next person: I own most of her music, still cheer for her at award shows and have been heard belting “Picture to Burn” on more than one occasion. But although “On My Own” and “Teardrops on My Guitar” may have similar themes, they are incredibly different vocally, and Swift’s signature Southern accent is just about as geographically removed from revolutionary France as one can get.
As far as I can tell, the major similarity between Swift’s music and “Les Mis” is their rabid fan bases, and so I’m sure Swift’s fans will flock to the film in droves. In fact, the new film, with cast such as Amanda Seyfried, Anne Hathaway and Russell Crowe, is swiftly proving to be more concerned with bringing in crazed fans than in supporting the world’s longest-running musical.
The idea of using previous material to create a movie is not a new one. The musical “Les Misérables” itself is an adaptation of Victor Hugo’s novel. Some of the best movies of all time have been adapted from books, including “The Wizard of Oz,” “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “The Big Sleep,” all of which deviated greatly from the original work. However, lately there seems to have been a huge influx of movies based on books. “The Help” was recently released on DVD, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” was released Dec. 20 and “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close” was released Jan. 20, all of which enjoyed time on the New York Times Bestseller List as novel before being picked up by Hollywood. “The Hunger Games” and “The Lorax” come out this March, with “Perks of Being a Wallflower” following. Filmmakers look to be taking advantage of the public domain as well as current bestsellers, with upcoming movies like “On the Road,” “Anna Karenina” and “The Bell Jar,” all sporting star-studded casts, soon to join the ranks of Neil Gaiman’s “Beowulf” adaptation and the Kiera Knightley “Pride and Prejudice.” Add to that the recent phenomena of the Twilight and Harry Potter movies, as well as the upcoming adaptation of “The Hobbit” to round out the Lord of the Rings trilogy, all of which were highly successful book series before they were movies, and “I’ll just wait until the movie comes out,” once laughable, seems like a viable strategy.
What happens to books when Hollywood is determined to make a blockbuster out of every novel that has enough of a following? While I believe books will always be more valuable than movies because of their ability to delve into characters’ minds more deeply, I don’t think the shift has to be a bad thing. Film can lend a new life to a book when done correctly, and especially when the audience reads the source material as well. But what separates the good adaptations, like “The Help” and “The Wizard of Oz” from the bad ones? The secret is not, as many book fans would have you believe, to include every moment from the source material and avoid changing anything. Film is a drastically different medium and must express the same themes in different ways.
The secret is to understand what makes the book so well-loved and to tell the story using film, while respecting, and not misusing, the original material and its fans. Unfortunately, directors are often more interested in capitalizing on a book’s success than representing the book in a new and exciting way. And when movies are sloppily done with actors who are popular instead of right for the part and moments left in for the action rather than the message, the book suffers.