Some things are better in theory than in practice. Amusement Parks in the summer. Mind reading. Being famous. Oh, and the People We Meet on Vacation film adaptation.
In my humble opinion, what goes into making a good film adaptation is maintaining what is being told but feeling free to slightly change how it is being said. In short, this adaptation changed way too many details that were purposeful. They altered things that affect the entire storyline, thus creating a chain of events that do not match with the intended motives of the novel.
For context, the story revolves around two best friends who took yearly summer vacations around the world for eight years until a mysterious fight estranged them. Now, they reunite in Palm Springs (or Barcelona, for some odd reason, in the film) and things between them begin to unfold. Was the fight the end of something old… or the start of something new?
If you watch the movie, you’ll still agree with my summary. However, details waver between formats. In the movie, the protagonistic duo don’t plan a reunion trip in order to rekindle their friendship like in the novel. Instead, Poppy lies and tells Alex her job coincidentally sent her to the same place Alex’s brother is getting married in and they subsequently see each other a ton.
In the book, both parties are willing to make the effort to reconnect in the same way they used to bond when they were friends (taking yearly trips). There is meaning there. Poppy and Alex both want to revive their friendship, showcasing they both regret how things ended and wished things could be different. Not to mention, there’s forced proximity in being on a trip together—planning, co-living, touristing.
In the movie, it feels like Poppy is overstepping, shuffling herself into a wedding that does not pertain to her. Most scenes of their reunion trip are deleted, removing development. The main problem with this: how is it that they maintain the effect and not the cause? To start, characters falling in love without much background is the biggest offence of this. But, there’s also when Alex makes an integral decision on his contraception that makes no sense without the mention of his mother, who died in childbirth. Also, Poppy’s loud and extroverted personality feels shallow without her boisterous family. Most importantly, the whole point of her being in a crappy airbnb was that the magazine was not paying for her accommodation, thus it makes no sense for her to be in a bad rental home if her expenses are all paid. These additions gave substance to the story, a reason. These additions were also lacking in the movie.
There are attempts to keep details in the movie, but they fail. Like, an inside joke (specifically the “it speaks to me”). The joke stays the same, but the reason behind the joke completely changed, making the comment not even funny anymore. Again, it’s keeping the effect without the cause that baffles me. There’s examples of changes without rhyme or reason galore, and that is the problem.
Now, the biggest defense of People We Meet on Vacation is that it’s impossible to fit eight hours of a book into two hours of a film. Nonetheless, visuals depictions (if done right) can carry so much depth. A picture is worth a thousand words, after all. There’s examples of books to films that are astounding, the latter being even better. Very likely, if I hadn’t read the book, I’d be less critical. But that wasn’t the case for myself and many (I even re-read it in anticipation for the film).
In fact, book readers will make much of the initial fan of a film. Plus, there’s a reason why the book is very famous! It seems the film simply didn’t get these two integral facts. Maybe it will work for you. The film certainly isn’t horrible, just frustrating in its pursuit of an adaptation. All in all, at this point, I’d suggest that the filmmakers call it “Loosely inspired by.” Don’t get me wrong, this is still a semi-good flick, it just could have been so much better if it stuck to what worked (and I could write another article on how incredible a mini series would have been but alas).
