Barry’s Comments (group member since Jul 29, 2013)

Barry’s comments from the Ask Joseph Finder and Barry L. Levy - August 5th! group.

Hi Eric,
I've done a little tv but I'm fascinated with it. My wife and I are avid Good Wife viewers... and a host of other shows. As for favorite actors, Harrison Ford (obviously).

Morgan Freeman is right up there. I just saw 2 Guns last night and I was reminded of just how compelling both of the leads in that movie are as well. Too many to list here.

Merle wrote: "Barry wrote: "Merle wrote: "Aloha Joe and Barry!

First of all, I would like to offer my congratulations on Paranoia, releasing on August 16! I am so excited about Paranoia hitting the big screen!
..."

My pleasure... it has been fun! Enjoy the film!

Eric wrote: "Barry wrote: "Eric wrote: "How difficult is it to turn a 400 plus page novel into a screen play? Are you worried that fans of the book will not see the movie? Jack Reacher fans were not happy seein..."

Wow. Good question. Before answering, I should probably explain that I have a rather unique opinion/perspective on adaptations based on two personal experiences.

On an earlier film I was involved in, I struggled mightily with the finished film. (For anyone wondering which film it is, all I can say is that for better or worse my imdb profile is incomplete :)). Days after viewing the rough cut, I sat in a producer's office and expressed as much and he gave me piece of advice that I have since passed along to a half-dozen other writers. He told me that the problem for most writers is that we see the movie that ISN'T on screen. We are among the first ones involved in a film and we therefore have a wholly unadulterated view of the world, the dialogue, the tone, style, etc. Then part of the job is to invite 500-1000 of our "closest friends," in to make themselves at home :) Well, all you can do is hope that those friends insist on improving upon what you have given them.

To me, this advice has shaped and changed how I view all films (but especially adaptations of preexisting material). Everyone reads something their own way and if the author has done his/her job, the reader has a specific vision in mind. But no one's vision is the same... and this leads me to my second experience.

Years ago when I was in grad school, I read the screenplay for Twelve Monkeys. The movie was in production at the time and I fell in love with the script. I thought it was brilliant. Masterful. Then I saw the movie -- a movie that I think we can all agree was critically well received and I really didn't like it. I hated it. It didn't look at all like the vision I had in my head. Years later, when the script itself became nothing more than a distant memory, I saw it again and I totally dug the movie. In large part because I wasn't bound by my own vision for the material. But herein, I realized just how strongly my enjoyment of a film was based on my expectations going on. I have a vision for it. I saw it a certain way. It just happened to be very different than how the filmmakers interpreted the material.

Alright, so what does this all mean for the question you asked? My favorite novel adaptations and my least favorite are judged on a less than traditional criteria than most.

See, I'm someone who marveled at the first Transformers movie. Not because I thought it was Oscar worthy but because I couldn't believe how unbelievable difficult the job of adaptation on that had to have been -- semi-coherent (in my humble opinion) mythology from 30 years ago, toys, lame tv episodes. And yet the screenwriters (and the filmmakers in total) turned it into something incredibly alive and emotionally honest. The counter argument would be to simply say: so, I had pretty low expectations... :) But that's sort of an injustice to the screenwriters. They took the source material, found what sparked inside them and they owned it. I loved that. Was it an accurate adaptation? I have no idea.

So for me, I love it when filmmakers tackle material -- whether they're scripts or books, etc -- and bring something of themselves to it. They aspire to elevate material. Perhaps it is (as my first point was hopefully illustrating) my desire that my collaborators strive for as much with my screenplays.

With that in mind, I'd rate among the best thriller adaptations I've ever seen: Die Hard. The book bares only passing resemblance to the finished film. BUT... that finished film owns it's world. It's not weighed down by its tribute to the source material. But more importantly, it took many of the strengths of the book -- and added to it. I thought that was great.

As for my least favorite... I'd have to say Before & After. I want to be clear, I don't think it's because the movie was good or bad. But if you'd read the book itself, the hook was so powerful... so resonant, and yet there were some real problems later in the novel -- it doesn't really go anywhere. Well, I thought the screenplay delivered on all that worked well in the book, but it didn't solve the problems. See, unfortunately in my own nutty criteria for adaptations, I think it's my job (and my fellow screenwriters job) to aspire to elevate things. I so wanted to believe that the filmmakers collectively -- not just the writer -- would've aspired to deliver more.

hope that answers the question...

B

Hey all! Great questions... thanks so much. Hope you all enjoy the film --

B

Eric wrote: "How difficult is it to turn a 400 plus page novel into a screen play? Are you worried that fans of the book will not see the movie? Jack Reacher fans were not happy seeing Tom Cruise as Jack Reache..."

Hi Eric,
As for adapting a 400 page plus novel -- any adaptation is a challenge. Especially since there is no perfect adaptation. We all know people who scratch their heads at some of the Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum adaptations because of the liberties those writers may have taken. For the record, I'm not one of those "head-scratchers" -- I believe those adaptations captured the essence of the underlying work and to that end -- honor the novels from which they came. Equally, I've heard the sniping among my contemporaries about the first Harry Potter films being too faithful to the books... so that the movies themselves become weighed down in their tribute.

In this particular instance, I made certain that Joe knew from our first conversations that part of my job was making certain that the voice and tone of his book appeared on the pages of my script.

charity wrote: "Hi Joe and Barry (and everyone else)!
I am so excited to see how the movie plays out in comparison to the novel.

Barry what would you say was the most difficult scenario/scene to take from novel..."

For me, there really wasn't one difficult scenario or scene. The biggest challenge over all was preserving and honoring Adam's voice. The novel is written in first person. But film-goers can't possible know everything that readers understand about what Adam is thinking. So how does one create all of this visually?

The playful quality of Adam's voice (even amid mortal danger) is what what drew me to the book from the get-go... and it is a credit to all of the filmmakers (the director, my fellow writer, the actors, etc) that Adam Cassidy remains such a vibrant character.

Merle wrote: "Aloha Joe and Barry!

First of all, I would like to offer my congratulations on Paranoia, releasing on August 16! I am so excited about Paranoia hitting the big screen!

I have read Paranoia and am..."

Hi Merle. Thanks so much...
To answer your question: I believe the first step in adaptation is to find where it resonates within me. I'm of no use to anyone if I don't have strong feelings for (and about) the characters. I still remember the first time I read Paranoia. I remember the first page as Adam Cassidy spoke about being careful what you wish for. It wasn't the theme per se that hooked me. It was how Adam spoke... "I believe in all of those cautionary proverbs now." As I kept reading, I felt like I knew the voice.

The whole process of reading it and then writing down my thoughts came faster on Paranoia than any project before or since. I got the book on Monday. Finished by Wednesday. Was sitting with the producer two days later. I practically reached across the table in expressing my passion.

From there, I knew I had to speak with Joe... it was just a matter of when. To me, the key/the challenge for screenwriters who adapt other people's work is that before they bring other voices, other opinions, even other agendas -- we need to work through our own internal process of figuring it out. I needed to know what sparked for me... where were the sacred cows and where were the elements where I felt I needed to make things around.

From there, I usually build a bulletin board with every scene in the film. Once I had that... I felt like I was ready to speak with Joe. Not only because I knew what was important to me, but also because I had done the necessary work that I could speak intelligently to an author who had spent countless hours writing a novel I greatly admired.

Joe was terrific. We spoke at length. I talked about where I saw it going. He was both supportive and candid about what he liked and didn't like. As is often the case, much of both of these areas changed significantly as I worked.

Hope the above helps answer your question.

Deb wrote: "HI Joseph we meet at the Rindge, NH Lib. when Buried Secrets came out. I hope it has been optioned. Would you like Barry to be the screen writer for it?"

Joe, I hope you don't mind if I answer...
"Yes."
Kidding. Kidding.
The truth is, working with Joe was amazing. He's a great collaborator who clearly knows this world better than anyone and yet possesses incredible patience to allow someone else to come in a novice and slowly pick up on all of the nuance within his novel.