Movie review: Vampire Academy, and translating books to film

Not all good books make for good movies. In fact, a film often pales in comparison to the original source material. This is due to the fact that they are two very different mediums with unique story telling traditions and techniques. There’s a fine line between being too faithful to a book versus making changes that work for the medium. Filmmakers don’t want to offend fans of the book, yet they also want to draw in new audiences. It’s a balancing act. But they shouldn’t treat the mediums the same, because as audiences, we certainly don’t.

Reading a book is a personal, mostly solitary experience; the process can take weeks or hours, depending on our reading habits—or spare time. Movies, on the other hand, are restricted to around two hours of (mostly) uninterrupted viewing. We have limited time to explore the characters and plot. Subtlety is often glossed over and background details and mythology are rushed. Lately mainstream films show preference for action and spectacle over quieter, meaningful story telling. There isn’t the same space to breathe and explore as in novels. There isn’t the same time to read between the lines. Therefore, film is often a much more blunt form of story telling—don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of both film and novels.

Although the mediums are different, much of what works well in a novel should translate easily on screen. A good story, is a good story, right? Often I’ll read a book and think, yes, this would make a great film. Either the scenes are highly visual or the story is immediate and impactful. However, when I read Vampire Academy, whilst I enjoyed the book, I was unsure how well it would translate to the big screen. Much of the novel is spent setting up the characters and their relationships (like many first books in a series) and there were only a few key scenes I could visualise as being successful on the big screen. As I mentioned in my review of the book, the heart of the story focuses on the friendship between two best friends. This personal and intimate focus is hard to replicate within a two-hour movie timeframe, hence I was hesitant to watch the film.

Yesterday, I finally watched Vampire Academy with a group of VA fans. Whilst I had read some negative reviews, I was determined to go in with an open mind. It helped that I was surrounded by VA fans, the buzzing atmosphere was contagious. Yet after the credits rolled, I had to collect my thoughts before I could voice my opinion on the film. Whilst I had no overwhelming love for the big screen rendition, I didn’t dislike the movie either. It was fun and enjoyable, although I was left feeling a little indifferent about the experience. 

Certain parts of the film worked well, I particularly enjoyed Zoey Deutch’s snarky and sassy portrayal of the character Rose, yet other elements were not as successful. Due to the film's restricted duration, there wasn’t enough time to build empathy for Lissa’s plight (played by Lucy Fry). Another element I didn’t fully connect with was the romance between Dimitri  (Danila Kozlovsky) and Rose. Again it felt too rushed, although the end scene was highly enjoyable and succeeded in replicating the book’s blend of romance and humour. Other plot lines that resolved well in the short running time included the character arc of Natalie and her father. However, subplots involving the scheming, revengeful Mia and the confusing behaviour of the school’s headmistress, felt muddled and unresolved.

Whilst Vampire Academy was not the most successful book to film adaptation, it was certainly not a bad film. However, I believe VA would have been more successful as a television series, making the smaller, intimate moments more meaningful. The extended timeframe of a television series would provide the opportunity to delve deeper into characters, allowing us to connect and empathise with them over time. I really wanted to be moved by the emotion in Lissa’s final speech, but unfortunately I felt disconnected from the goings-on. The film was too bogged down by having to introduce the book’s mythology and various characters in a short space of time to allow for a stronger emotional response. If the plot and mythology had unfolded week-by-week on the small screen, this would have greatly improved the audience’s connection to the story and characters.

Unfortunately, due to low box office attendance, it appears that a Vampire Academy sequel may be off the cards, for now, anyway. Whilst I empathise with VA fans’ desire to see more of the series on-screen, I would advocate for a television series, rather than another film. I believe this would provide a more faithful and satisfying rendition for fans and newcomers alike.

What's your favourite book to film adaptation? I loved Warm Bodies, both the novel and the film. Please let me know in the comments.

Review: Vampire Academy by Richelle Mead

Image from http://www.penguin.com.au

Title: Vampire Academy (film tie-in edition)

Author: Richelle Mead

Pages: 352

Published date: 20/12/2013 Penguin Books Australia

Source: Publisher (via Netgalley)

Synopsis (from Publisher):

ONLY A TRUE BEST FRIEND CAN PROTECT YOU FROM YOUR IMMORTAL ENEMIES . . .

Lissa Dragomir is a Moroi princes – a mortal vampire with a rare gift for harnessing the earth's magic. She must be protected at all times from Strigoi: the fiercest vampires – the ones who never die. The powerful blend of human and vampire blood that flows through Rose Hathaway, Lissa's best friend, makes her a Dhampir. Rose is dedicated to a dangerous life of protecting Lissa from the Strigoi, who are hell-bent on making Lissa one of them.

After two years of freedom, Rose and Lissa are caught and dragged back to St. Vladimir's Academy, a school for vampire royalty and their guardians-to-be, hidden deep in the forests of Montana. But inside the iron gates, life is even more fraught with danger . . . and the Strigoi are always close by.

Rose and Lissa must navigate their dangerous world, confront the temptations of forbidden love, and never once let their guard down, lest the evil undead make Lissa one of them forever . . .

Review:

Vampires are everywhere. Twilight. Bluebloods. The Mortal Instruments. The Morganville Vampires. The Vampire Diaries. House of Night. The list goes on and on. And that’s just a sample of Young Adult novels; many other categories feature vampires in some way. It’s difficult not to groan or feel fatigued by even the mention of the word vampire. Perhaps that’s why I didn't pick up Vampire Academy by Richelle Mead for such a long time. Or maybe the cover turned me off—there was little mystery. And vampires are all about mystery: the idea that these dangerous, mythical creatures can live right under our noses without our knowledge. This secretive and seductive mythology continues to lure young adult readers in by the thousands.

For years I’ve avoided books that mentioned the word vampire in the blurb. I’d read my fair share and I was over the trend. I felt there was nothing new to add to the myth. Then, last year, I attended Penguin Teen Australia’s Live event in Melbourne and there were two words I couldn’t avoid or ignore: Vampire Academy. Apparently, the correct response to these words, or to any of the characters’ names in the six-book series and spin off series Bloodlines, was to scream and squeal. I was intrigued. What was this series that had so many people in a frenzy? Then I heard they were making the first book into a movie and I always try to read the book before the movie comes out. But I was still sceptical. What made Vampire Academy different?

I am happy to admit I was pleasantly surprised. What Richelle Mead does with the vampire myth is clever, and different. She demystifies them. Mead doesn’t bring an outsider into the dark, broody and bloody world of vampires, but rather grounds the story world in normalcy. It's all about school, homework, boys and cliques. Whilst there’s a lot of talk about good vampires, bad vampires, the royal hierarchy and Mead's general vampire lore, this is not the true heart of the story. Rather, Vampire Academy is about friendship, responsibilities, growing up and surviving—the often hellish—days of high school. The fact that the characters feed on each other’s blood is more of a sub plot.

This is the point of difference from other vampire novels I’ve read. I loved that no characters made a big deal about drinking each other’s blood or having the ability to manipulate the four elements of earth, fire, water and air. Similar to Harry Potter, where we're introduced to what should be an unrealistic world of magic, it's the detail, likeable characters and worldbuilding that makes it believable. If the author makes the magic seem normal and common place, then the reader is forced to as well. We then focus on the characters, their relationships and development.

Whilst overall I enjoyed Vampire Academy, I would have appreciated more descriptions from Mead, to help further ground me in the story, as I was often lost in dialogue—unable to picture where the characters were. The only other issue I had was with pacing. Unfortunately, for most of the book, the drama and action was off-screen, often told in flashbacks, which diluted the dramatic impact. It wasn’t until the last 40 pages or so that the drama and action was front and centre, cranking up the tension.

I can now understand the appeal Vampire Academy. Reading it is like hearing a good bit of juicy gossip—it's a real guilty pleasure. Now onto the sequel, Frostbite!

I give Vampire Academy 3.5 out of 5 stars.