Walter Kirn Quotes

I know a movie and a book are two different things and you are going do different media in different ways. No author can want a movie to be exactly like the book because then it will be a bad movie.

As an author, you can't expect a movie to be an illustration of the book. If that's what you hope for, you shouldn't sell the rights.

I'm also a huge cinephile, and I have witnessed that to honor the book literally word-for-word never makes a good movie.

It is customary for the writer to sneer that Hollywood has traduced their book. Well, I adore my film.

Movies can't ruin books. They can only ruin movies.

Unfortunately, the author of a book pretty much gives up control of the story when the producers take over a book to make it into a movie.

Authors of books are not given very much control over the films that are made from their books.

I recently watched Peter Brook's Lord of the Flies, and it wasn't a favorite film. Then I saw the one that was made in 1990, which in my opinion didn't match up to the original.

A movie is not a book. If the source material is a book, you cannot be too respectful of the book. All you owe to the book is the spirit.

When a movie is being made out of a book, there is a mixed reaction on the part of fans because they are both extremely excited and they are also terrified. 'They are going to take my story, and they are going to mess it up; they are going to ruin it; they're going to do this; they're going to do that.'

I don't hold with the notion that only bad books make good movies.

All I can say is that I am not one of those writers who want 100% of their book in the film. I recognize that film is a different medium and the filmmaker must have the right to bring some new elements to the table, provided the soul of the book is preserved.

Particularly when you're making a movie of a book, people are always waiting with their knives - you know?

I always felt once it goes into movie land, the book belongs to someone else.

Adapting a book doesn't mean the book stops just because you've made a film out of it.

I felt I should also contrast Visconti's treatment of the novella - usually damned by Mann fans (who typically respect Britten's more "faithful" adaptation). The Visconti film does many quite wonderful things, although there are good reasons for the condemnation.

Often in the past, there have been authors that were deeply disappointed in their adaptation, but that's because they haven't accepted the fact that a movie is a different thing, and it can't possibly be the same as the book.

An adaptation leads the cinema-goer to the original to find out what they're missing and if they already know the book, it can still illuminate a theme, a character, an idea.

I'm not of the opinion that the next logical step for a book is for it to be made into a film.

I guarantee you that two directors that are any good can take the same story, change the name of the characters, change the name of the town, and make an entirely different picture.

The truth is that I know very few novelists who have been satisfied with the adaptation of their books for the screen.

Films are always different from books.

The question I ask myself when adapting a book is how do I be true to the spirit and soul of the character? How would I describe this character in my medium? If you asked one person to do a painting of something and another to create a sculpture of it, you'll never ask, 'Why doesn't the painting look like the sculpture?'

I felt like I haven't had the typical experience of a novelist whose book becomes a movie.

I'm all for whatever transitions the book properly to a movie.