Globalization Is One Thing, Search for Redemption Is Another

Adapting a novel into a movie can be tricky, and some novels are better suited for it than others.

The major reason is that you can put a book down and come back to it later. People will spend 20, 30, or 40 hours reading a novel. Most moviegoers, though, would prefer to spend a little less time than that in the theater.

This is one reason that mysteries and thrillers tend to weather the transition easily. Both can be pared down to a simple plot, jettisoning secondary characters and incidental scenes without losing what it was that made us want to read/watch them.

But literary novels, in which thoughts and ideas about relationships, society, and/or the human condition are often much more the point of the book than “what happened” is, are more problematic.

For example, Kazuo Ishiguro’s 1989 novel, “The Remains of the Day,” is about the decline of the British aristocracy during the period between the two World Wars, and it uses the unacted-upon attraction between the butler and housekeeper in an English great house as a narrative device.

The 1993 movie adaptation, however, cut away everything else to focus solely on that tentative, still-born, heartbreaking romance, which is why it was able to be such a good movie.

According to The New Yorker, “A Hologram for the King,” written by Dave Eggars in 2012, is “a novel about globalization” that “explores the changing realities of the global marketplace and reveals hidden aspects of life in Saudi Arabia.”

The movie adaptation, currently in theaters, barely mentions the latter and only touches on the former in order to show how it affects the protagonist, American businessman Alan Clay, personally. The book may be about globalization, but the movie is about Clay and his search for redemption.

So screenwriter and director Tom Tykwer’s first major decision in the adaptation process was a smart one, maybe even a necessary one to ensure that the movie would be successful.

And yet…

Just about all of the blame for the movie’s lack of success can be assigned to Tykwer. Tom Hanks does a creditable job as Clay, making a sad sack whose personal and professional lives are both failures into an engaging, appealing character. But that’s what Tom Hanks does. He’s often described as the most-liked man in Hollywood, both on- and off-screen.

To play the other two main characters, both Saudis, Tykwer cast an Anglo-Indian and an American — a decision that would probably have raised more public outcry had this been a better movie.

Sarita Choudhury, whose Dr. Zahra Hakem serves as both Clay’s ticket to redemption and his love interest, is cold, stoic and, it must be said, physically unattractive. None of these qualities prevent her from being a good actor (she did a fine job on TV’s “Madam Secretary” a few weeks ago as the stern prime minister of India), but they’re not qualities one generally looks for when casting a romantic lead.

On the other hand, Alexander Black is marvelous as Clay’s driver/host/quasi-friend Yousef. Black is effortlessly charming, with an appealing grin oddly similar to that of the young Charles Grodin. I’d happily watch an entire film about Yousef, although I guess I’d prefer that someone other than Tykwer wrote it.

Which brings us to the screenplay. 

Symbolism is another thing that has to be handled very differently in movies than in books. In this movie, Clay shows up in Saudi Arabia with a huge cyst on his back. Dr. Hakem removes it, and Clay’s life turns around. He handles a business setback in a healthy manner, he finds new opportunities, and he opens himself to his first personal relationship since his divorce.

Just in case you don’t get it, Clay says, in an email to Hakem, something along the lines of, “I can’t say whether it was causing all my problems, but ever since you removed it, I’ve been more energetic, more directed, and happier.”

This isn’t just hitting us over the head with symbolism. This is etching it onto a steam roller and running us over with it.

On a visit to Yousef’s family’s home in a mountain village, Clay and the other men hunt wolves that have been eating the family’s sheep. Clay sees a wolf approach the flock and gets the animal in his sights. But he doesn’t shoot. Why? I don’t know. The wolf wanders off without hurting any of the sheep. Why? Again, I don’t know. What are the wolf and/or the sheep supposed to symbolize? Let’s say it together: I don’t know.

“A Hologram for the King” is not a terrible movie. Many parts are quite funny. The exotic locations (most of it was filmed in Morocco) are compelling and beautiful. The glimpses of life in Saudi Arabia, both for locals and foreigners, are fascinating. The problem is that the whole adds up to less than the sum of its parts.

“A Hologram for the King” is rated R for sex, language and drug use.