Do cinematic re-interpretations of classic novels revive or threaten the original novel?

Question

Do cinematic re-interpretations of classic novels revive or threaten the original novel? Please provide an answer using an example of a classical novel and its contemporary re-interpretation. Ultimately, you should be either promoting the benefits of reinterpretations of classic texts or arguing that they are not effective. This is not a request to engineer an essay in response to this question, a single, concise paragraph is ample.

Answer 1

The actual answer is, well, neither. They engage with it, in much the same way that an ancient Greek play on the death of Agamemnon would be engaging with Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. The original work still exists, and still stands on its own merits. The adaptation can never truly stand on its own, no matter how closely aligned with the original story it is - or how much it changes to fit the new medium.

While your question refers to "classic" novels, I'm going to use two fairly recent stories that have been adapted: Harry Potter and Percy Jackson. Harry Potter traditionally falls under a "good" adaptation: it tells the same story, changes a few things along the way due to the difference in medium, and scatters references throughout the movies to things that the books included, but the movies were unable to adapt fully. Percy Jackson, on the other hand, lies on the other extreme, where the screenwriters simply took the broad premise and wrote their own movie, with almost no reference to the original text.

In neither case have the original books been affected in any way by the existence of their movies; the movies, rather, do not stand on their own, but consistently engage with the book in respect to the audience - and in both cases, how well they engage with them goes a long way in determining how well they are perceived. So, to answer your question, the books are not affected by the movie at all (albeit perhaps a movie may prompt sales, but that's it); in fact, it is the other way around.

Answer 2

Do cinematic re-interpretations of classic novels revive or threaten the original novel? This is an issue that depends on so many factors. In today's market, the bottom line seems to drive all decisions about how closely to keep the script aligned with the original novel, what modern elements to use to make it easier on the audience to follow the story line, which "hot" new stars to bring on board to make it more profitable at the box office, etc. In decades past, studios and executives would often opt to make a prestige picture that followed the original plot fairly closely with prestige actors, directors, writers, etc. Making money on it was great but not the overall drive. The object was to have contributed a great work of art to the cinema vault. Today, I wonder just how many new interpretations of Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Shakespeare we actually need. If a film is of high quality and well-regarded originally and over the years, why remake it? My only answer is laziness and greed. We often don't need to remake classic films of classic novels.

For all the fuss and bother of newer offerings, the 1946 film version of Great Expectations with John Mills unsurpassed in relating a complex story faithful to the novel as far as cinema allows. Two other classic films do the same for the novels they portray: Gone With The Wind (1938) and To Kill A Mockingbird (1962). However, two remakes (both in the miniseries format) of Jane Austen novels have brought fresh life and humor to her stories. I heartily recommend the 1995 miniseries of Pride and Prejudice (Jennifer Ehley, Colin Firth) and the 2006 version of Jane Eyre (Ruth Wilson, Toby Stephens). The miniseries format allows more latitude to tell the full story. Also, writers on both projects sought to be as faithful to the original novels as possible while also providing true depictions of the manners and conventions of the period.