On Writing : Today's quote: "We don't need books to make films. It's the last thing we want - it turns cinema into the bastard art of illustration." — Peter Greenaway by Michelle Gordon

Greenaway generally writes his own screenplays and creates very unique film experiences; that may be why books seem irrelevant or unwanted to him. But I can enjoy a film version of a book as much as something that seems impossible to novelize. I adore a lot of Greenaway's work because it is more like poetry and less like prose--if that makes sense to anyone.

That guys comment is about a hundred years too late...

I would say to Mr. Greenaway that, as an author of several books myself, films are the last thing we need to create relevant literature. Literature that stands the test of time and inspires people to read more is sorely needed today. Films are entertaining, but rarely promote self-reflection or a moral inventory that can move a person to a higher level of awareness. How many people can say a film changed their lives? Great literature has accomplished this since antiquity.

Everything has come from a book, from Ancient greece/rome til the world wars. otherwise all the stories and events would all have been forgotten

serial killers were put in books, they all help the backbone which can be later evolved into something unique and different

thats what i meant but different wording -__-

(Backbone - depth)

As a novice screenwriter there has to be a story there, in my view. What I mean is I cannot just write a story from scratch as a screenplay. I am currently working on two screenplays, one an adaptation of a 150 year-old novella and one from my own novel, which I wrote last year. The latter is proving much easier

Neil's got it right: story trumps all. If the story is good enough, it'll be a book, a movie, a lunchbox, a decal on my car, and an app on my iPhone. Great topic Michelle!

Not sure my latest one will be a lunchbox, given its subject matter - it might spark a chain of bereavement counsellors, though

It truly depends on where you start. Transmedia is all the rage these days. Create everything at once, and don't be disappointed if someone sees/reads/plays things in the wrong order.

I totally disagree with Michelle Gordon and totally agree with Peter Greenaway. Peter Greenaway is a very experimented and serious film-maker and, like him, I'm completely persuaded by the fact a film has not to be a book and has not to illustrate a book. (Filming and writing a book are 2 different means of communication and these 2 means are important). I think that the greatest film-makers are those who write their own scripts or at least participate to the screenplay. I know many great films which were not made upon best-sellers. I always written my own story and scripts and however I won many international awards. I love to read H.P Lovecraft but I never copy his stories. An indie film-maker must create and imagine his own style.

I agree and disagree. It's definitely true that some of the best films have been adapted from books. But at the same time, that also doesn't mean, contrary to what many people do tend to believe these days, that you can't have a good film with a screenplay that was written as an original piece. In fact, many great films - like Citizen Kane and It's A Wonderful Life, for example, have come from original screenplays...

I would say over 50% of the Movies come from Books, including many of the award winning ones. So the quote is not accurate.

I find it depends on the film - not all book to films are good. I read The Firm years ago and disliked the movie. Eragon was terrible however I loved the book. Someone like Peter Jackson would be great for Eragon and I want a better version. I find Hollywood has run out of idea's and are remaking everything in sight but we have to think that money comes first. Very few directors do their own thing and are successful in the long run. Book's, comic books, video games, TV and films give us future story's .

I am 75% in agreement with you Michelle I think most of the best movies I've watched came from books. #SWEETWEETS

The highest rated film of 2012 according to Rotten Tomatoes came from a guy with a cell phone, not based a book. But on the other hand some of my favorite films were inspired by books. I really don't see any correlation between the quality of the film and whether or not it was an adaptation.

what film was that evan?

Yes I would like to know the name of the film. Just one question : is because Michelle is a girl that no one here dares to disagree with her ? I'm a little surprised because It's incredible that most people here on Stage 32 (which was created for indie people) doesn't seem to respect indie films.

I'm very happy for people to disagree with me, I was simply voicing my opinion. I have great respect for all Indies, I just felt it was wrong to label some the best movies of recent times as 'bastard illustrations'. It's also pretty offensive to illustrators!

constant reboots, book to film, game to film and other remakes are symptoms of a lack of talent and creative thinking. Original thinking, though difficult, offers the very best in emotional storytelling and multi-decade success. However, some book to film translations can be very successful, gone with the wind, sound of music etc are still selling copies many decades after production came to an end. But it's not because they were based on books and other stories that they were successful, it's because they were very good films, that were very well made.

Now that I agree with. there is such thing as a good film because it is based on a book, or a bad film because it isn't, just good films and clunkers

I would, one day, like to edit that post to help it make sense - so much for putting myself down as a writer!

I got the gist of it. a good writer can put their point across in-spite of the words they use.

Is writing a screenplay not a book? Is a clay tablet not a book? All are words of road directions to the art of emotions and learning. A director travelling down the byways of his or her mind can follow the various routes the screenplay's words offer, however, the author of any book to screenplay is the genius who allows both the art participant and the director the circuitous magic road to the emotions. The author is the authority... if it works and transcends the words to stimulate hormones and body chemicals that fool us simple humans into that special place called fascination or knowledge gained. And of course, a film auteur can be the authority; there is room for both if the message is valid. At some point in our futures a new technology will replace film making, just as the book replaced the oral traditions of storytelling, chiselling on rocks and cave painting. Future direct interface to my brain synapses may place me in the real mind of Richard Bransen or Charles Manson or Sheldon Adelson or Marilyn Monroe... However, once there, I want a story arc of compelling human interactions that excites, stimulates or teaches. All messages, in any media, is really only a metaphor method telling us to not come too close to the fire or how to use it creatively and safely. The media form is not the message, the message is the message. Many brilliant messages (Auster's, Vonnegut's, Malapart's, Zoroaster's, Siddhartha's, Hamsun's, Conrad's, Tolstoy's and others) penned sophisticated messages far too expansive and cerebral to be rendered to a film based media. Conversely, some visual media can never be expressed meaningfully in words (9/11 or Rush Limbaugh). In every sense, a book is the bastardized art of true experience or allegory (as is film). The original form of the novel was popularized by lonely teenage girls sequestered in pre-Victorian attitudes and platitudes and central nervous system yearning for a visceral experience in love and romance based on hormonal awakenings. Was Heathcliff not a vampire, just of a different aspect? Let's take a look at Tolkien's , The Hobbit. The true message intended by the author (and reiterated by Pete) will be long forgotten over time (the story being a metaphor of events leading to world war 2- the Hobbits being the British, Elves the French, dwarves the Russians, the orc's the NAZIS, etc.). No matter what media, the message is tyranny, the mad abuse of power over others that can be defeated by self sacrifice and like-mindedness of purpose. In other words, an age-old story (once chiselled on rocks by Rhames , his best boys, script consultants and grips) that will be told over and over and placed in the most convenient media forms to sway the young, the uninitiated and the clueless in this never-ending battle. Speaking of illustration, the NAZIs, Riefenstahl and Gobbles were the spark, the mother and father of a cinema monster devoid of meaningful words and based on the art of tyrannical illustrations to be viewed as the ultimate visual word and worlds in xenophobic truths. As humans, all we have that separates us from slugs (and the Republicans in the HoR) is the word and the colour image screen of evaluation in our highly-adaptive brains. We must use them wisely, as the orc's of every ordination and inclination are always scheming on today's and tomorrow's horizons.

I rather like the comment of Matt Milne. But I'm persuaded that many great films were (and continue to be) made without a best seller for story. Especially in supernatural and horror. For example the excellent horror psycho film of Bigas Luna "Anguish" was a total creation of Bigas Luna (and the film won several great awards (Avoriaz, Paris...). John Carpenter too is a real great indie film-maker (he always made its films with the indie mind). That's right also that some famous subjects (like Dracula for example) written by some great writers (Bram Stoker in this example) give many excellent very high level films (by the Universal of the Hammer especially) so sometimes a great book gives great films. Matt is fine also to say that the only important thing is the quality of the film (the fact it's based upon or not a best seller or a humble book or original story is not important. Only the style is important). The words of Peter Greenaway are fine and clever and, if many great classical films were made by real and honest professional film-makers I have unfortunately to say that nowadays practically all the new (non indie) films released officially are only shit. The new good cinema will be the indie cinema, I'm sure of that. By the way I wish to thank Michelle Gordon : this discussion and subject are very interesting !

Max Keanu you are pessimist but your comments are clever and subtle

well, History would tell you otherwise. Many of the best films come from novel adaptations, or plays. For instance PSYCHO. But go even further back to the beginning of film. People looked to the Bible and Greek tales, stories they felt every one already knew but wanted to see, for inspiration on the silver screen. I mean A GOOD make of a currently popular novel would be a nice change from all the BAD remakes of films less than 25 years old, and Horrible remakes of comic books that had the potential to wow audiences for years to come. First, Id like to see care put into the quality of the film making. Consider it art once again and not just tasteless media being force fed to the masses waiting at the other end of the Netflix line. -That's where Id like us to start. ~Jack

Me a pessimist? No way! I'm an existential nihilist my good man! Ha-ha-ha and woe-woe-woe is me!

O I apologize ! Yes you are existential nihilist and even more !

Ouch!

That is a compliment indeed as I am only what I can make of myself and if you saw something in me then it must exist in your gained existence of self also. YEAH BROTHER!

There are very few adaptions that ever satisfy patrons of authors. But there are many great films based on books. Peter Greenaway approaches film as an artist rather than an illustrator... I love his work. I can watch his work over and over again. it's like a painting hanging in a room. You notice more and more of the layers every time you watch.. He creates a great synergy of sight sound and thought.. What he says is very true only for a few film makers. Very few have what it takes to have such complete vision.

Yes Noel you wrote a great comment, I agree with you, Peter Greenaway is a rare film-maker and he has his own style, he's a real and true indie artist. Fortunately there are also many film-makers with style : Terence Fisher, David Cronenberg, rené Clément, Jean Renoir, John Carpenter, Franck Henenlotter, Bigas Luna, mario Bava, and so on... and so on

Yes Eric you're right, the comment of that guy is self sufficient. He's writer ? OK then others are film-makers and many indie film-makers are also writers of their own stories. Artists must help each other and work with each other, they don't have to despise each other. A discussion to know if the more clever art would be the cinema or the litterature is totally stupid and useless

I think you guys would dig my first feature film. Ringside Rosary, based on the greatest graphic novel NEVER written. http://ringsiderosary.com/RR_Welcome.html

That sounds great, Jack. I'd love to see it when it's done. Do you have a distribution deal yet? Will it be going directly to DVD? Festivals?

We are going to DVD now, but still looking for distribution to get it on Netflix, itunes, some stores maybe. Its tough cause we are a tiny company doing big things. Currently in post on our 2nd features, working on a pilot, and several new film scripts.

A world without books - not a pretty picture! Sounds like F451 all over again!

Hmm... We don't 'NEED' them but they help retain a writer's rights over the film and easier to make money from for Hollywood.

We don't need Peter Greenaway, and I have no clue who he is. There are a lot more authors that stick in my mind than there are producers and directors. When people make stpid statements like Greenaway, they prove their worth.

Sorry John I guess you saying you don't know who Peter Greenaway is, explains your statement. He definitely approaches film in a different manner. His films are creations in themselves not illustrations and interpretations. I'm not saying either is better than the other but you shouldn't dismiss what you don't know. You should at least watch The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover.

I don't think we should have to research the context of a statement in order to evaluate it. Would Mr. Greenaway dismiss the value of "Gone with the Wind" as a novel? Did it get in the way of a great movie? A lot of movies these days would not even get made if a book had not been written and demonstrated that a certain story had an audience.

@Noel, did you consider how inconsistent it is to say "you shouldn't dismiss what you don't know" when the person you are attempting to defend (Greenaway) is doing just that?

@ James, Are you thinking Peter Greenaway has never read a book. It would be interesting to see a list of the really great films that have come from books. I'm not saying I agree with Greenaway but I do think he makes great films and that dismissing him because you haven't heard of him is pretty narrow minded. That would mean if you haven't heard of an author you should dismiss them as well. Perhaps you should start a blog of all the things you've heard of so we can know what's really important and what we can dismiss as non essential.

@Noel, I would like to believe that Greenaway has read some books. However his comment clearly indicates that he thinks books should not be used for films. I dismiss him because of his comment; another poster dismissed him because he hadn't heard of him. What my thoughts of other things is not relevant to this discussion. What's relevant is the quote itself. Can you stick to the subject rather than slinging snide innuendos?

@james Sorry, I shouldn't have been slinging. There are several directors who write their own screen plays. Creating a complete experience for the viewer on their own. I think Wes Anderson is another who comes to mind. I agree there is a place for books in Hollywood. I do think that making movies based on optioning the best selling books can lead to a kind of made for TV cookie cutter approach to film making in which any director producer and crew cranks out a product.

@Noel - Let's follow your logic forward a little bit. So you think "Twelve Years a Slave" shouldn't have been made into a movie? You think the Bond movies should never have been made because there were already books written? You think "Gone with the Wind" shouldn't have been made into a movie? I really don't want to pursue this. It's a waste of my time. Greenaways' statement is absurd. If you can't see that or won't admit that, I don't want to spend any more time communicating with you. I bow to your superior intelligence, but I am going to exercise my constitutional rights to think otherwise. You are welcome to respond once again with flawed logic, as you have several times above. Or you can admit that, no matter how good a filmmaker might be, his statement has no merit. It's up to you. If Greenaway prefers to make movies that don't arise from books, that's fine with me. "Her" was an original screenplay, although according to Greenaways' logic that shouldn't have been made either (a script is a book). But even if we don't count original screenplays as books, there are many great movies that started out as books. Lots of authors write a book (fiction and non-fiction) in order to show general audience interest and gain funding for a movie. Many people admire Greenaways' movies; but that doesn't mean everything he says or does should automatically be respected. Walt Disney did many great things in the entertainment industry. Recently some of his failings have come to international attention. I, for one, am able to admire Disney's successes while despising his personal issues. I feel the same way about Greenaway.

@James- I really don't agree with his statement absolutely. I would love to see the quote in it's original context. I know he has great love of the written word. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102722/ I also see I mistakenly thought you had posted the comment dismissing Greenaway simply because he hadn't heard of him, I apologize for that. There are very few directors who have complete visions. I have great respect for any one who can do any one part of this creative process of creating films. But directors that can conceive and execute it all need to be respected. I guess i got a little protective of one of my favorite directors.

@Noel, do you think people have a right to their own opinions? If so, why not let the other person say what he likes? He may be one of your favorite directors, but that doesn't mean he should be on everybody's. There is no one that everyone likes. IMBD gives Greenaway 68 directing credits at the present time. Very few (perhaps 4) have achieved any wide-spread public notice, and none of them are all that memorable to most people nor did they make huge amounts of money at the box office. And the film awards he has achieved for is work is, for the most part, from second-tier (and below) organizations. To me, you are coming across like someone holding a boom box or driving down the road with your music blaring, invading the eardrums of all those within hearing distance. I, for one, find it offensive. I don't go around shouting to the world about my favorite artists and defending them regardless of their actions. Greenaway's comment speaks for itself. If you think the context will ameliorate its stand-alone impact, why don't you do the research to find out what it is and share it? I doubt it will change my mind about his comment, but maybe others will be swayed in a different direction. By the way, if you don't hear someone say something that you absolutely can't stand at least once a day, you're not living in a free country.

Wow, Michelle, you inspired a firestorm of discussion. Bravo. I'm a devoted reader of books, and as an actress I am always thrilled to have them since the narrative and descriptive passages lend more depth to my preparation to a role. My opinion is that their translation to film also has everything to do with the screenwriter's skill at adaptation and a thousand notes to "improve" it by the studio. I (simplistically, perhaps) believe many a director may be tied to a final draft that has skewed theme, character development, and ending. A good director can't possibly fill in the blanks if a crucial plot point has been dropped or mismanaged, or a role miscast in a "package." As a lover of literature and books, I tend to disagree with Greenaway's statement, but I can understand his position - as in all things, it's not just black and white, books as films being good or bad. Greenaway's skill and visual craft is so developed I would probably trust his decisions. I can't say that a good book or script in the hands of just any director will be successful. All depends on the skill of the entire team. Kubrick was a master at story telling, and he upset a lot of middle class ideas - I say let Greenaway do the same. Let him tell his own stories. An artist needs to challenge the system. They wake us up, shake us out of complacency, and I'd pay for my seat at any of his films.

I have no problem with Greenaway doing whatever he pleases (as long as it is legal!). However, he seems to be dictating what other directors should do as well. He doesn't start off the comment, "As for me, ..." or anything that resembles that. He starts it off: "We don't need book to make films."

I don't disagree, however, you're talking about two sides of the same coin. Books are internal, whereas movies are external. It truly depends on what you want to write first. The screenplay, or the novel? Furthermore, sequential art is a valid pursuit, and career as well. Think Road to Perdition, and someone get back to me when they decide it was a bad idea to illustrate a story.

@Mike - Do you think it would be possible to "bravely go where no one has gone before" and make a movie that does show the internal and the external?

Peter Greenway is a MORON to say that. We all know it.

Yeah, I feel where he is coming from, but as a content creator and someone whose tried to write full length stuff before, I feel as long as I give credit where credit is due ( if the script is a screen play of a book, involve the writer ) books are like gold mines for material. A quarter of my job is done!

Michelle, you are very right. Books give more details than written scripts. Please, add me to your network.

Books are essentially stories. Screenplays are stories in a different form. Movies are the telling of stories. Why would someone suggest that which Mr. Greenaway does? There have been many books that have been transferred to the screen and have been pretty good interpretations of those said books - even "unfilmable" books like American Psycho. There's also been some dreadful transfers - Dune for example. Mind you, I never thought much of Greenaway's work - it seemed, from the stuff I've seen, somewhat arty and self-indulgent and wasn't great story-telling IMO.