The YA adaptation boom of the 2010s is a fascinating time, filled with potential franchises that never took off, some that lingered far beyond their expiration date, and others that remained successful till their final curtain call. The landscape had never been more fruitful for teens and, especially, young girls to have something for them at the box office. But if you weren’t already in love with an established book, like Suzanne Collins’ “The Hunger Games,” the odds weren’t in your favor that your favorite adaptation would get more than a single feature.
In February 2013 Warner Bros. released “Beautiful Creatures,” an adaptation of Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl’s 2009 novel. The story follows Southern boy Ethan Wate (Alden Ehrenreich) and his growing attraction to newcomer Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert). Ethan soon realizes Lena comes from a long line of witches, and on her 16th birthday her soul will be claimed either for the light side or the dark.
“Beautiful Creatures” had a lot working against it. It seemed like every YA book was finding its way onto the big screen, and in the two years preceding “Beautiful Creatures’” release the final installment of the “Harry Potter” franchise had been released as well as the first installment of the “Hunger Games.” “The Perks of Being a Wallflower,” an adaptation of Stephen Chobsky’s popular novel would come out a few months before “Creatures,” and the second installment of “The Hunger Games” would hit nine months later.
Despite an impressive cast — including Jeremy Irons, Viola Davis, and Emma Thompson — the film struggled to find an audience and grossed less than $20 million in the United States (it would do better overseas). It also killed any potential sequels to Garcia’s book.
But to watch “Beautiful Creatures” today isn’t just watching big stars like Ehrenreich and Englert get leading roles. It’s a feature that’s complex in a way other YA novels weren’t. The feelings were intense, romantic and nuanced. Couple that with cinematography by Philippe Rousselot (“Dangerous Liaisons,” “Interview with the Vampire”) and costumes by Jeffrey Kurland (“Inception,” “Dunkirk”) and it’s a hidden gem awaiting rediscovery.
For director Richard LaGravenese, the fan support for the movie a decade later remains a surprise. “We were told by the studio it didn’t do well so I am surprised [by the fan support],” he told TheWrap. “It’s a lovely surprise. I didn’t expect that.”
With the recent Sundance premieres of features directed by Englert and starring Ehrenreich, coupled with the film’s 10th anniversary, now is the perfect time to revisit “Beautiful Creatures” and the director who tried to adapt it for the screen.
Do you remember what initially drew you to the book in the first place?
I was looking for something bigger to do. My favorite TV show growing up as “Bewitched,” so that whole world, that idea, I was always fond of, and I loved in the book this YA love story. I love[ed] the idea of it being past [vs] present, and legacy, and inheritance. And I had never tried anything that [had] special effects on a bigger canvas.
The film feels very adult, considering it’s aimed at teens. What was the process of adapting like?
The book was first time writing for both women. I felt that they do the same thing I do, which is I overwrite and there was a lot of stuff in the book. My first approach was to try and connect the dots a little bit and put things together. Some of the fans of the book didn’t like that and resented the changes I made. But at the time I started working on this the book was not as popular, so I thought I had freedom to creatively do what I wanted to do with it, that I thought would elevate [and] improve it.
I tried to ground it and, at the same time, raise it. I tried to ground in real feelings and real emotional truth. That was a challenge because I had never had to work with things like magic. Magic is a killer to work with because you [have] to come up with rules that make sense and then stick to those rules, and all the drama and conflict have to make sense within those rules.
How did you broach the dichotomy of adaptation, which is pleasing the fans vs. those who have never read the book?
When I did “Bridges of Madison County” Clint Eastwood said to me — because my first draft was very different from the book — “You can’t insult the people who love the book. You have to give them their touchstones while you do things you feel will improve it at the same time.” So it’s a balance between the two. Every adaptation I’ve ever done my first draft is always very, very loyal to the book. Then it’s about, “OK, now how do I translate that into film?”
Because things that work well on a page don’t necessarily work well on film because film makes everything literal. When you’re reading a book you come up with images, and ideas, and feelings, and subtext that you can play with. The movie says, “No, this is what it looks like and this is who it is,” and makes it very concrete. If there are changes it’s because you’re changing mediums, not because you’re just being arbitrary, I want to change it for myself.
Do you feel the studio marketed this well at the time?
This is my memory of it. I don’t know if I’m right. My memory is that when I first started the project, what appealed to me [was] that it wasn’t a big best seller so I had room to create. But I think that the marketing people, while we were making it, did such a good job of putting it out there that it then became a popular book which then created a lot of fans who then hated the changes I made. So it was a good news, bad news situation so I learned that lesson. I didn’t blame the marketing. I thought it was my fault.
What do you remember about the premiere or opening weekend?
I remember it was the premiere and I was really excited. I remember seeing the head of marketing and she looked at me like I had just lost a relative. Like she was hiding the fact that someone I loved had died was the expression on her face, and I thought, “Oh, this isn’t gonna be good.” I think that was based on tracking that happened before it opened. So I knew at the premiere, it wasn’t tracking well.
Are you a guy who reads reviews? Did you read the response to this when it debuted?
I left the country. I went to Germany. I didn’t want to know.
Did you initially have a trajectory planned out for sequels?
I never thought sequels were a foregone conclusion. It was always going to be about whether or not the film performed. I did let myself think about the next one, but I don’t remember thinking of the entire trilogy. And maybe that was my fault, too.
Did you take anything from this and apply it to how you direct now?
I had a little bit of a PTSD from it so I wasn’t going to do any more YA and I wasn’t ever going to do magic again because it was too hard. I thought I did the best I could do. I thought it was an intelligent adaptation. I’m adapting something now and I’m approaching it the same same way. Maybe my biggest lesson is there are certain people I think in the industry, in film, who set trends that then become that’s what the marketplace is looking for. And then there are certain people who follow the marketplace and are able to capitalize on that. And then there are people like me. I’m not meant to follow the marketplace because when I do I don’t do well.
The first movie I sold was “The Fisher King” and one of the reasons that got sold after the writer’s strike is that it didn’t follow whatever the marketplace was looking for, which at the time were buddy cop movies. I remember an executive telling me that. So my lesson from it was I personally am not meant to follow the marketplace. I got my hand slapped for doing that.
If they called you for a sequel or continuation would you do it?
I don’t know if they would reach out to me. I have had fantasies of them rebooting it with someone else, with a completely different cast. I don’t see that happening, especially not the Warners of today. They would go with a probably a younger director. Maybe it should be adapted as a series. That’s not a bad idea.
