There was a marginally frightening article in the Philadelphia Inquirer today (read it here) about why the movie version of “In Her Shoes” has tanked so badly. The article blathers on about how a best-selling novel failed to become a hit movie because of poor marketing of this chick flick. Of course, the possibility that the book and/or the movie might actually suck was never mentioned. Though I’m not surprised about that, since the book was written by a former Inquirer writer, the story was set here in Philly, and part of the movie were filmed here as well.
You see, there’s a Philly bias from the local press (not that should surprise anyone). But this bias extends to the idea that anything made by someone from here and/or made here must be great. For example, one will likely get pilloried should he or she suggest that The Sixth Sense was only an average movie, which it was (like City Paper’s Sam Adams did for his review).
Just because a book was a best seller (which can be manipulated; see an article from Slate on this subject) does not mean that:
- People actually read it. For example, how many of you have a copy of Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time on your shelf just because it was a best seller? Admission: I have a copy, but that’s because I’m a nerd who thinks time travel, etc. is rather interesting.
- It will make a good film.
The latter point is particularly relevant here. For example, my girlfriend would rather read a book than see the movie version of that book. And most of the time I agree with her on that. If I ever read a book and see a movie version of that book, I prefer to read the book first, to get my view “from the source”. Since with movies, the author of the book is hardly ever involved in the screenplay. This leads to divergent elements for screen consideration.
A perfect example of this is Be Cool by Elmore Leonard. The movie introduced characters that weren’t in the book and changed how some of the other characters behaved. Anyone with some level of intelligence knows that Elmore Leonard is a great read, and (to date) with the exceptions of Get Shorty and Out of Sight, most of the movies derived from his books have paled by comparison.
Getting back to my point, without even bringing up the possibility that the source material sucked, the Inky article misses a potential reason for a movie’s box office failures.