Differences Between Fiction and Film

I recently finished reading the novel "White Oleander" and then followed up my reading by watching the movie at home. What an incredible difference! Amazing, how Astrid's mother changed from an author, a poet in the book, to a visual artist in the film. Not only were the characters altered, but entire sections of the plot were eliminated in the movie. I was honestly dumbstruck by the difference, and disappointed as well.

Having said that, I certainly understand that turning fiction into film is a challenge, and using every detail from the book would ultimately result in a five hour movie (an audience of sore behinds), which is not ideal. The producers and directors of White Oleander certainly did a good job, it's a beautiful film that pulls the audience's heart strings just as much as the written work does. It's simply a shame that so much gets "lost in translation" between fiction and film.

There are many examples of this found in media. Even such works as Dante's Inferno are now being used for movies and video games. The unfortunate issue with this is that the entire story is changed to the point where it becomes unrecognizable. Some people might argue that these alterations are necessary to appeal to the audience, to keep the stories alive, but at what cost? When does it become too much, and when do we recognize that we're simply slandarizing great literary work? Maybe never, but hopefully soon, before every book and poem is an inaccurate film or game depiction.