Stanley Kubrick and the Art of Adaptation: Three Novels, Three Films [Paperback]

I was particularly interested to read this slim volume because unlike most film books I read, which are full of information on films I've never seen, I had actually seen all 3 films, and read all 3 books. I plodded through a rather tedious introduction where he lays down the matrix for which he examines each film/book (I've found that most academic introductions can be skipped) and this is by far the weakest part of the book. In short, he examines the differences and similarites between the respective novels and films. You really don't need to know any more than that.

While well-written for the most part, I kept wondering, why only three films? I don't remember (even in the introduction) why these three were selected? They are not chronological - Lolita comes at the beginning of his film career and the others were the most recent films he had produced. Nor do they have any stylistic or thematic similarities (either the books or the films), so why these three and not all of Kubrick's work? (99% of which has been adapted from novels or short stories).

It could also be argued that the author chose three "lesser" Kubrick films (although, as a huge Kubrick fan, I love all three). Why not Clockwork Orange? Why not Dr. Strangelove? Why not Paths of Glory? All three are considered by most critics and fans to be three superior films to the ones discussed.

That's one question, but the most important is: Why not all of his film adaptations? At 173 pages this is a rather slim volume and when you deduct notes, introduction and space for a few photos, it makes one wonder why more films were not discussed.

Another flaw is that he seems to miss the basic point of Kubrick's adaptations. Kubrick was never trying to make a great adaptation of a novel. He was trying to make a great films. He took what fit his obsessions (as well as the spine of the film) and discarded the rest. In some cases he drastically altered the story, its focus, and its meaning, to meet his ends. In every case for me but the Shining, the one thing Kubrick did achieve is prompting me to read the original work (I had read the Shining a year before the film, but in all other cases, I sought out the book after seeing his film). To me this is the true test of a successful film adaptation, as opposed to what changes are made in the attempt. I've read more books than I can count because I loved the film version. That is the true power of film adaptation.

In the end I can't say that this out of print volume is worth paying the price you'll have to fork out, but for academic Kubrick fans its certainly worth seeking out at your local library.

Jenkins writes a book that needed to be written for the longest time: an in-depth examination of the process by which Kubrick has created his various masterpieces. Save for his films made prior to "The Killing", Kubrick has only worked from adaptation. And he has chosen material that has stumped filmmakers, material that in some cases was considered unfilmable. An outstanding, well written, researched, and thought out book. Highly recommended for writers, students of film, and devotees of Kubrick.

› Go to Amazon.com to see both reviews  4.5 out of 5 stars