The Ninth DraftBook-to-film adaptation, judged one change at a time
Menu Close

Book versus film: what the adaptation changed

What the film did to the book

Subjectbook-to-film adaptationSectionThe Founding CaseAnswersthe 9th life of louis drax bookHow far it travelsfar on voice, near on plot
A drawn diagram in the site’s two colours, gold for the book and blue for the film: what the film did to the book. No photograph, poster or still is used anywhere on this site.

The 9th Life of Louis Drax book is Liz Jensen's novel The Ninth Life of Louis Drax, published by Bloomsbury in 2004, and the 2016 film made from it keeps most of the story while replacing the thing the story was told with. The plot crosses over largely intact. The narration does not. Everything a reader notices as a difference between the book and the movie is a consequence of one decision: a novel told from inside a coma became a film watched from a corridor.

The 4 axes, and how far each one travelled

The 4 axes this reference uses are plot, character, voice and theme, judged separately because adaptations rarely move them at the same rate. On this case 3 of the 4 stay close to the book and 1 is rebuilt from scratch.

AxisOn the pageOn screenDistance
Plot8 survived accidents, a ninth fall, a coma, a missing fatherThe same sequence, with the clifftop shown and settled
CharacterPierre and Natalie Drax, Dr Pascal Dannachet, a French familyPeter and Natalie Drax, Dr Allan Pascal, an American one
Voice2 alternating first-person narrators, Louis and his doctor1 voice-over over a camera that follows the doctor
ThemeA child's account of a mother, and what adults do with itUnchanged in substance, stated more plainly

Read the bar as distance travelled, not as damage. A high figure means the film found a different solution, which is sometimes the only way to keep the effect.

The change that matters: who is telling it

Who is telling it is the single change from which the others follow. Jensen alternates 2 first-person voices: Louis, narrating from inside the coma with no listener but the bandaged figure he calls Gustave, and Dr Pascal Dannachet, narrating his own drift towards the boy's mother. The reader is inside the boy before any doctor suspects he is there. Max Minghella's screenplay keeps Louis as a voice-over and gives the through-line to the doctor, whom the camera can actually follow.

The book

Louis is unreliable invisibly. There is no second source, so the reader only learns to distrust him from the shape of the gaps, and the correction arrives late and all at once.

i
The film

Louis is unreliable visibly. The audience is shown scenes he did not narrate, so his account is being contradicted in real time, and the withholding becomes a puzzle rather than a voice.

What moved on the map, and what moved with it

The map moved from France to the Pacific coast of the United States, and 3 things moved with it. Jensen puts the fall at a ravine in the Auvergne and the recovery at a coma clinic in Provence. The film puts the picnic on a cliff above the ocean in the hills of Marin County, with San Francisco under cloud in the distance; it was shot in British Columbia between 27 October and 15 December 2014.

  • Rename the father: Pierre in the novel becomes Peter, played by Aaron Paul.
  • Rebuild the doctor: Pascal Dannachet becomes Dr Allan Pascal, played by Jamie Dornan, keeping the novel doctor's forename as his surname.
  • Recast the register: a French provincial clinic becomes an American coma unit, and the flat professional calm of the novel's medicine becomes something closer to a thriller's institution.

Natalie Drax, Louis Drax and the psychologist Perez keep their names. The renaming is therefore not wholesale localisation; it is targeted, and it leaves the family's odd surname intact so that the title still works.

What the film adds, and what it has to state out loud

The film adds visibility, which is the standard tax on adaptation. Three additions are worth naming. Gustave, a bandaged figure the novel keeps at the edge of a boy's inner monologue, becomes a physical creature on screen, encrusted and sea-worn; Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian read the design as an inheritance from Guillermo del Toro. The uncanny channel between boy and doctor is dramatised rather than described: on the page it arrives as letters in a child's hand at a clinic where no child is writing, on screen it goes further, and the doctor wakes to prescriptions he has no memory of signing.

The third addition is a name. Both versions turn on a mother who has been at the centre of every one of her son's accidents. The film has Dr Perez, played by Oliver Platt, say the clinical term aloud, and Natalie is diagnosed with Munchausen syndrome by proxy inside the story. That converts something a reader assembles into something an audience is handed, which is the difference between suspicion and explanation.

Is the film like the book?

Yes at the level of story, no at the level of experience. A reader who has finished the novel will recognise every beat of the film's plot and almost none of its texture, because the novel's texture was a voice and the film's is an image. A viewer who has only seen the film has the events but not the joke, and the joke is most of what people who admire the book admire. That is why the same material produces a short novel praised for its narrator and 108 minutes criticised for its tone: not because anyone adapted it badly, but because the property being adapted was never really the plot.

Where to go next