The following was written shortly after McCue saw The Cider House Rules for the second time in the winter of 1999: It was last year that I wrote a piece for the Hofstra Chronicle about the adaptation of John Irving's novels to the screen. In this piece I chastised the adaptation of The World According to Garp, pointed out that Tony Richardson's version of The Hotel New Hampshire was a great filmic rendition of the book, and I also pointed out that Simon Birch should not be cast aside simply because Irving himself would not acknowledge the film as an adaptation of A Prayer for Owen Meany. As much as I have spent a good deal of the past … my God… six years loving John Irving's writing, I have never denied the fact that the man is an egotist. Last year, at a signing for his latest novel, A Widow for One Year, I found Irving more a caricature than a man. He seems to have succumbed to the public idea of himself and puts on a show rather than letting the reader see the writer. Truly, he was a great reader (performer) of his writing, but that was all the evening had to offer. Of course I am bitter than he refused to sign books that evening.

Irving's world is one of cartoons. Garp was a political cartoon with tragic figures.

There is great cover art here in Germany for all of Irving's books, save Garp which has a still from the film as a cover. All of the characters on the covers are reminiscent of the Gorley children that have become so popular in America in recent years. Stick figures with hearts… that's really what they are. And so are Irving's characters. They are a pile of quirks held together by a heart, they are not people.

This is what makes The Hotel New Hampshire the greatest of the Irving films. Tony Richardson had no problem whatsoever showing the characters for what they were. He adapted every portion of the book right down to the bolted down furniture and he never took himself too seriously, not even during the mock-rape-revenge scene. Even that was presented with the utmost lack of class-a tone in keeping with Irving.

In its own right… as all film adaptations should be judged… The Cider House Rules is a good film. However, according to Irving's memoir, he had what can only be described as bizarre control over the making of this film. His hand was so deeply imbedded in the making of this film that the film can only be judged with the book along side it.

As someone who is a great fan of adaptation (the process, the art, the success, the tailoring/rewriting of a book for the screen), I often think that a fatal error with many adaptations is that the novelist himself has written the screenplay. Many times I think authors do this because all parties involved feel it will lend some legitimacy to the film. Other times, I think that authors are too self-important. It is rare that I have seen an author adapt his book better than some of the true artists of adaptation could have.

According to Irving he made a conscious decision to eliminate his own style from the screenplay. He thought that the book was too light… he also thought that much of the humor came in what he calls "the language of the novel" (the exposition). Since nearly all of the exposition is omitted when one is writing a screenplay-according to Irving-so should all the humor be omitted.

Personally, I think Irving's Cider House is a wonderful novel… one of his best (although I am still a huge Garp fan). However, as much as the subject matter is serious-abortion-I believe that a more comedic or self-mocking style should have been taken. The world of Irving demands it. For anyone who has read the novel and then seen the film, it is hard to deny that the life of the story seems to have been deleted. That life was the humor. That life was the quirkiness. That life was the so-called "language of the novel" that a more adept screenwriter could have distilled into a film of equal length.

Those I would have nominated to direct:

• David Lynch… his love for the outdoors, machinery, medical equipment, and his mockery of the tragic fit in perfectly with Irving's world.
• Danny Boyle… this film could have taken Boyle, Hodge and crew back into a quirky world like Trainspotting but one where he would have to tackle more serious subject matter at the same time (let alone tackle a wily ex-wrestling coach gone author).
• David Cronenberg… he does not have the humor… but he also has an odd love for medical equipment.

I will come up with more… for the time being this list should suffice… it's only sad that there aren't as many bleak comics as I thought… perhaps this film could have been quite the launching pad for someone like Stephen Soderbergh who has gone unnoticed for far too long… it has a touch of King of the Hill to it… has a bit of that Kafka--esque charm… who knows.

Of course I am being a bit obtuse here... I just re-read the stick figure part and I know that people are going to try to throw that one back in my face... well... I can defend it. HOME!