Another of the five novels I wanted to see adapted is getting an adaptation (see, I knew you Hollywood producers were keeping tabs on me). This news is both delightful and disturbing and I will touch on both here in a moment. According to my really good and personal friends over at Variety, another adaptation of John Steinbeck’s magnum opus East of Eden is getting made for Universal Pictures.
Tom Hooper, who directed the very successful John Adams, is on board and Atonement and The Quiet American writer Christopher Hampton is helming the screenplay. They’re hoping to get into production later this year.
“There is an opportunity to show the sex, violence and darkness of Steinbeck’s work, along with the optimism and celebration of love,” Hooper was quoted.
Now, why do I find this news delightful? Well, every adaptation so far has sucked. Yes, even the James Dean version. While I will never be able to view the film without having read the novel first, it is barely even the same story (there are so many more layers and the film leaves out a good two-thirds of the novel, at least). Main characters are completely left out that (Lee) and themes and essential plot points that made the story so powerful are completely overlooked. Sure, James Dean is cool, but the movie is mediocre.
So, why does it disturb me? Well, adapting East of Eden is not only ambitious. It’s almost suicide. There is just too much to tackle in one feature film. I feel a lot of it can certainly be cut, but there are two essential story lines (the life of Adam, his brother and Cathy, then the life of his sons) that have to be focused on in order for the story’s ending to have meaning. As with Dean’s version, they left out the story of Adam before his children completely. Granted, this is a favorite novel, so there is some personal attachment to the story, but thematically, both story lines are needed to complement each other.
This is great news still. I remember quite a few years back, Ron Howard was on board to direct. Back then, I was all gung ho on a young Ryan Gosling playing the lead character of Cal (or even James Franco, I remember thinking, although the James Dean parallel was a little much to get past). Unfortunately, they are both way too old now. Regardless, Cal is the essential casting here, and not just because he is one of my favorite literary characters, but he is essential to the core messages of the novel. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is definitely too old, but he still looks young and has the chops – could he pull off being in a period drama like this?
I don’t know. Once again, there is a lot of personal attachment to the novel, so I’m going to naturally be very critical, although I am almost always forgiving of novel-to-film changes, as they are a necessity. It only becomes a problem when the changes destroy the core themes and messages of the original work that I get disturbed. And obviously, I’m hypocritical, because it is always only when it is novels I care dearly about – but aren’t we all that way?
East of Eden readers, non-East of Eden readers – what do you think of this news?
i watched the 1955 version right after I read the book and was quite disappointed. Dean’s performance was exceptional, but the film lacked so may key parts of the book-like Lee’s character. I mean, a person called Lee was present but his incredible impact on the characters and the story itself wasn’t. I’m a bit skeptical about that new version. It’s a very long novel. Told in two hours? Really?
agreed Victoria.
yeah. Lee is probably the most important character in the novel all because of one word he utters. but leaving that out of the movie was an insult to both John Steinbeck and the general movie going public. leaving it out didn’t make sense at all is the most frustrating part.
i wonder if Dean had read the book before he signed on the part, or he would have been appalled.
i saw the movie before i read the book too and it still doesn’t stand too strongly on its own. once you’ve read the book, you realize the true potential of the story though.
this will have to be a damn long movie to do the story justice.
Exactly. A four hour/two parter is the only way you could do Steinbeck’s work any justice. Realistically, the scope of the story is probably too large for film.
I don’t even think a person called Lee was present in the ’55 film at all, was there, Victoria? At least not that I remember.
The scope is certainly too large for film it seems – unless Christopher Hampton pulls off a divine adaptation, which I’m willing to be open-minded about.
Agreed though. Needed at all costs: Lee.
Now, listen up casting directors.
You’re going to need the brothers Adam and Charles, of course. Someone that can pull off both younger and older men. Adam, the idealist. The naive. The mild. Years ago, I pictured Daniel Day-Lewis or Tim Robbins, but they are too old now if they want to do both ages of the character. Charles. Angry. Vengeful. Just plain mean. The next generation of Cal. Aron. Abra. I can think of a few people I may want to see in these parts, but nobody that stands out as perfect for the roles.
Then there is Cathy, oh, Cathy. Someone beautiful, yet can play cold and bitter. Soulless. Cate Blanchett or Kate Winslet are the only women for the job.
Sam Hamilton, the old Irish man, I always envisioned Liam Neeson. Now that he’s older, he’s an even better fit for the character. The Chinese servant Lee… hmm… Honglei Sun?
I’m pretty sure they had that Chinese servant who was in only one scene. But now that you brought it up, I don’t remember them calling him Lee. I could be wrong though.
You very well could be right too. I haven’t watched the movie in a few years. Looking on IMDb just now, there is no one credited as “Lee,” so they probably just showed the Chinese servant. What an insult to a great character, ha!
I have to agree. I think the movie would have to be made in two parts or run four hours to do the work any justice. Otherwise characters are going to wind up being cut and plot lines trimmed. Not the best thing to do when adapting a classic.