On this episode I am joined by my friend Matthew Duhamel to break down Paul Verhoeven’s 1997 blockbuster adaptation of Robert Heinlein’s classic 1959 sci-fi novel Starship Troopers. Heinlein’s book, which details a distant future when Earth is governed by a military order wherein only those who have served are allowed to vote as humanity is engaged in a war with a highly evolved bug species, was a smash hit upon publication, but it quickly came under fire for its allegedly fascistic politics. Readers and critics have long debated Heinlein’s intentions-was he blindly embracing the virtues of militarism, or was his social commentary more nuanced?

While Paul Verhoeven was intrigued by the possibility of making a war film set in space, he despised Heinlein’s politics and decided to make the film deeply satirical, skewering a society in which violence and mindless patriotism are the order of the day. The film flopped upon release in 1997, with critics and audiences alike largely missing the satire and being frustrated that the film was not a clear cut moral tale in the vein of Star Wars. The film has since become a cult classic, with Verhoeven’s thematic concerns more salient than ever. The book and film make a fascinating contrast, an example of what I have dubbed a “hostile” film adaptation.

Tune in to hear two geniuses explain why both artifacts are still worth taking seriously today!

Apple Podcasts link

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charliesmartin.substack.com

On this episode I’m dissecting Mike Nichols’ 1970 adaptation of Joseph Heller’s classic World War II-set satire Catch-22. Considered unfilmable upon publication, screenwriter Buck Henry and director Mike Nichols were given a blank check to take a stab at an adaptation coming off the astounding success of The Graduate. While the film was stacked with acting talent, including Alan Arkin, Jon Voight, Martin Sheen, Anthony Perkins, Charles Grodin, and Orson Welles, the film landed in theaters with a dud. Over 50 years on, it’s time for a re-assessment. Was the film unfairly maligned upon release? To answer this question, I am joined by my one and only biological father, Will Martin, who memorably introduced me to the novel in my early teenage years. Join father and son as we explore our personal histories with the book and film and breakdown their respective successes and failures.

Apple Podcasts link

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charliesmartin.substack.com

On this second episode of my new podcast miniseries on film adaptations of books, I’m tackling the biggest book in the Western canon: the bible. Italian filmmaker Pier Paolo Pasolini’s 1964 adaptation of the gospel according to St. Matthew is a radical work of biblical interpretation that is, in my opinion, a stone cold masterpiece. How did an atheist Marxist end up tackling a film about Jesus? What visuals methods does Pasolini employ to enliven the long stretches of Jesus’s speeches? What is to be made of Pasolini’s eclectic soundtrack, featuring American blues musicians and a Congolese choir? To answer all these questions and more, I am joined by friend and fellow lapsed Catholic Brendan Cavanagh, whose Substack The Perfidia should be subscribed to by everyone reading this. For those interested in watching the film, it is currently available to stream on the Criterion Channel.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charliesmartin.substack.com

I’ve long been fascinated by the art of film adaptation. Most movies based on books simply visualize the material and cut out much of it, usually leading to an unsatisfactory experience. Producers and directors salivate at the thought of name brand actors speaking dialogue from our best writers, but often the creative thought process doesn’t go much further than that. To me, these types of rote adaptations misunderstand what makes cinema a unique medium. We know there are aspects of literature that are exceedingly difficult to capture on the screen, such as interior monologues, poetic prose, and richly observed characterizations that evolve over hundreds of pages. How do film adaptations deal with this? Mostly by either skipping the interior monologues or shoehorning in groan inducing narration, cutting out the poetry, and simplifying the characters.

There are films, though, that take advantage of the unique characteristics of the medium to make a film that is faithful to the source material while being a specific work of art in its own right. There are many things that can be done in cinema that books cannot accomplish, and our most thoughtful directors have taken this into account when bringing adaptations to life. This project is an excuse to have conversations with friends and colleagues on examples of adaptations that chart their own path, regardless of whether or not they are ultimately successful.

In this first episode, I chat with my friend Ben Friedrichs about Patrick O’Brian’s famous Aubrey-Maturin series, a series of 21 books that chart the nautical exploits of Royal Navy Captain Jack Aubrey and ship surgeon Stephen Maturin. The series was adapted into a 2003 film directed by Peter Weir and starring Russel Crowe and Paul Bettany that made an impression on me when I saw it in theaters as an eleven year old and which I was excited to revisit.

Apple Podcasts link

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit charliesmartin.substack.com