Tom Ain't Jack

Lee Child's series of novels about Jack Reacher, an ex-US Army military policeman, have been phenomenally successful, selling millions of copies worldwide, so it was inevitable that eventually someone would start adapting them for the cinema. The first, based on Child's novel One Shot, was  released in 2012 and a second, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back is due for release in October this year.

In both films Reacher is played by Tom Cruise, a piece of casting that caused a stir when the first film was mooted because, on the face of it, Tom ain't Jack. From the novels it is clear that Reacher is a big man, standing around six foot five inches tall and he has been described as having a face that "looked like it had been  chipped out of rock by a sculptor who had ability but not much time." Tom Cruise on the other hand, is about five feet seven with typical movie star looks. Reading the novels I'm more likely to picture Tommy Lee Jones than Tom Cruise as Reacher, but I'm sure other readers have their own mental image of Reacher...or James Bond, or Sherlock Holmes for that matter.

Sometimes the picture of a character that your imagination draws when reading a book is entirely from your imagination. Other times it may be because you are reading the book after having seen a film or TV adaptation of the story, and with characters like Bond or Holmes, who have been played by many actors (twelve different actors have played Bond on film, for instance and for Holmes the number is in the hundreds) the chances are it will be the first actor you saw who played the role that you visualise from the words on the page. On which basis, Sean Connery will forever be Bond as far as I am concerned. Not that it always works that way of course. There are certain actors who take over a role, make it their own and thereafter you can't imagine anyone else playing the part. Despite the claims of men like Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett, my vision of Sherlock Holmes will now forever be Bendedict Cumberbatch, while Christian Bale is my personal favourite in another role with multiple actors, Batman.

There is always controversy when the part of an iconic character like Bond, Holmes or Batman is recast. With the latter two roles, new versions tend to be reboots or stand alone films, but Bond has carried on way beyond the twelve novels and two collections of short stories written by Ian Fleming in a continuing franchise that creates new excitement and speculation about the new Bond each time the actor playing Bond announces his retirement from the role. With Daniel Craig having decided that enough is enough after four outings as 007, Aidan Turner, Tom Hiddleston, Tom Hardy and Michael Fassbender are among the favourites to take the role at the time of writing, along with the somewhat more controversial suggestion that Idris Elba could be in line for the part. I say controversial because despite being eminently suitable for the role in almost every other regard, Idris Elba is black and James Bond is white. Except, does he have to be?

Idris Elba as Bond, as envisaged by The Daily Mirror.

It is a popular belief that Bond was Scottish, but it was not until the penultimate novel, You Only Live Twice, that Fleming mentioned Bond's background, a detail thought to have been driven by Fleming's approval of Sean Connery's portrayal of the character on-screen. But Bond certainly wasn't considered Scottish in the earlier novels and Fleming conceived him as "a neutral figure—an anonymous, blunt instrument wielded by a government department." By defining Bond as neutral and anonymous, Fleming actually paves the way for Bond not to be an actual individual at all. James Bond, 007 could actually be no more than a nom de guerre -he was employed by the Secret Service, not best known for advertising the identity of its employees after all - so why could the current Bond not just be one of a long line of Bonds?

Other franchises have covered the explanation of different actors playing the same role by making it part of the story.  Take Dr Who, where the good Doctor regularly re-generates, enabling the part to be played by a dozen actors over the years. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Bond should re-generate in the manner that saw Matt Smith morph into Peter Capaldi, but Bond's different appearance and physical characteristics from film to film could be explained by making James Bond, 007 a role within MI6 rather than a unique person. Doing so might make the casting of Idris Elba eminently plausible; it might even make the casting of a woman (Gillian Anderson has been mentioned) possible - Jane Bond has been mooted. Perhaps a female Bond is a step too far, but making Bond a cipher would open up possibilities for the role beyond the current stereotype. And it has actually already been done. The 1967 film, Casino Royale,  was a spoof in which David Niven played the "original" Sir James Bond with six other actors playing agents pretending to be James Bond.

David Niven as Bond in the spoof Casino Royale.

However, it is not solely in casting and characterisation that viewers may find themselves making unfavourable comparisons between a novel and an on-screen version of a story. I recently read Stephen King's novel 11/22/63 in which schoolteacher Jake Epping travels back in time to try to prevent the assassination of President John F Kennedy. In 1960's America Jake Epping becomes George Amberson, yet in the TV programme differences abound. Jake is rarely, if ever, referred to as George and you have to ask, why? Was giving him a completely different name considered too confusing for the average TV viewer? And while Bill Turcotte is a quite important character in the book, his role is relatively brief, yet in the TV programme not only is his role significantly expanded, but his personality seems radically different too. As indeed, does Jake/George's personality. In the TV programme I thought him more hard-nosed than in the novel, yet at the same time more prone to rashness; he reveals that he has travelled back from 2016 more readily than in the book and is generally less likeable than his counterpart on paper. On the whole I have to say I found James Franco's portrayal somewhat at odds with the character that Stephen King created in his novel.

James Franco as Jake Epping with Sarah Gadon as Sadie Dunhill in 11.22.63

But these are the sorts considerations that will strike anyone who has read a book and seen an on-screen adaptation, and for various practical reasons minutely faithful film versions are not always possible. As far as I can recall, the most faithful book to film adaption I've ever seen was Billy Liar.

Tom Courtney in Billy Liar

Meanwhile we await the new Jack Reacher film, and while I have alreadt said that Tom ain't Jack, I guess the casting could have been worse; I just wish he were a little taller, but then again, perhaps so does he.