Comments on: Books into movies

By: knoxgirl

knoxgirl — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

“A Room with a View” is a great movie, better than the book, I think.

Same with “Sense and Sensibility…” Emma Thompson’s screenplay really brought out the best of the book.

I agree that the adaptation of “Pride and Prejudice” starring Colin Firth is close to perfection, but the book *is* perfection, so it wins out!

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Jane Austen is probably the most popular author men might read that cannot be classified as “historical romance” or “regency romance”. Which is ironic to say the least.

By: PatCA

PatCA — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I agree about Unbearable Lightness. It piqued my interest, especially when the director mentioned that “unsustainable” was a better translation of the book title, and led me to the book, the depth of which the movie only hinted at. I think Kundera’s mocking of the young wishing to join the Grand March of History cracked my inner lefty indentity a bit (which 9/11 later busted open). Fight Club is another movie that was successful for the wrong reasons. The book, which I admire, clearly lays out the formation of a terrorist psyche.

Bookworm, you’ve convinced me I have to read Austen again. It’s been a looong time.

By: ElMondoHummus

ElMondoHummus — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

Sonuvabitch, Benning, you’re right. I didn’t know that before. Color me embarrased:

-2001 began life as the short story The Sentinel, written by Arthur C. Clarke in 1950.

-Clarke and Kubrick, who had been introduced by a mutual friend, began collaborating on a screenplay about man and extraterrestrials. Clarke suggested they base it on that story, which detailed a surveying expedition finding an alien artifact buried on the moon.

-Clarke later wrote a novel based on the screenplay for 2001, which was released in July 1968, three months after the film’s debut.

link.

I mean, I can split hairs and say that the book was based on the screenplay and wasn’t exactly “extrapolating what Kubrick had filmed”, but that’s just picking a fight to be ornery. I don’t wanna fight; I just wanted to add a shade of detail. I think the spirit of your comment was that the book didn’t preceed the movie, and I readily conceed that.

Re: LOTR’s comments… I dunno… I really loved the movies, but better than the book? Respectfully, can’t quite agree. There was a lyricism to the written dialogue that just didn’t exist in the movie (although that may be because it was probably too stilted to actually speak it on film (*grin*)). It’s not necessarily condemming the movies to say I liked the books far better.

SonnyJim, re: Gettysburg. It’s odd, but I came to the exact opposite conclusion for that movie. As I posted in Annika’s Journal (annika.mu.nu) last fall regarding that film:
“How a movie can get the details 100% correct and still miss the spirit of both the topic and the specific book is way beyond me. It’s not that it was bad, it was just… well… not good. Felt like it was merely going through the motions of the story.”

(Jeez, just pickin’ fights left and right here, aren’t I…? ).

With the exception of Jeff Daniel’s portrayal of Chamberlain, I felt that the actor’s interpretations of their characters was… well… off. For example, I didn’t feel the towering respect that Longstreet and Lee had for each other from just watching the acting, but I got it loud and clear from the book. Weird, because the dialogue in the movie tracked very, very closely to the dialogue in the book. I dunno… maybe I need another viewing. But that film just didn’t cut it for me. BTW, is Jeff Sharaa really that bad? I was thinking about picking up one of his books to see how he stacked up.

Back on topic: Movies better than books. I think I finally came up with one: Get Shorty. Some may find this heresy — here’s your chance to rip me for my choice — but I simply couldn’t get into the Elmore Leonard book. The movie was sly and snarky in a good way, but to me, the book just came off as annoying.

By: Ymarsakar

Ymarsakar — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I always wished we had a quantum generator and tell Jane Austen what became of her works. And Von Clauswitz, and John Milton, and all the others. The look on their faces would be worth quite a lot of trouble.

As for Wuthering Heights not being a classic, I should rephrase that as not being a popular and well known classic. Of which is the reason I had not previously heard of it or the author, while Jane Austen is a far more (in the vernacular sense) popular author.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I think the Pride & Prejudice of a decade ago is actually slightly better than the book — a book I love so much I’ve probably read it 20 times. The book is marvelous as a comedy of manners, its writing is exquisite, and Elizabeth Bennett is one of the most pleasing literary heroines ever written. The problem is that Mr. Darcy is a cipher. For all that he has a fair amount of lines, there’s no there there in terms of personality. Taking a few liberties with the text, the production fleshed out his character, helped by the fact that Colin Firth is an appealing actor. In addition, the movie has movement and music that make it lively, without being frenetic. It’s a marvelous production no matter how you look at it, and it never seriously deviates from Jane Austen’s own sensibilities.

By: neo-neocon

neo-neocon — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

PatCA: I think a corollary to your point is that books that concentrate on action tend to make better movies than those that concentrate on internal thoughts, feelings, etc. Children’s classics can be some of the best subjects for movies (“The Wizard of Oz” being an excellent example).

But worst “books into movies” of all are those with a lot of interior thoughts of the characters, combined with the ruminations of the author. That’s why, when I heard they were going to make a movie of Kundera’s Unbearable Lightness of Being, I cringed. That book is an interesting example, because it does have some action in it (mostly sexual action), and so the movie could concentrate on that and leave out all the other things that made it meaningful–and that latter part constituted the bulk of the book. And yet, the movie that was made was rather popular (although not with me!). Those who hadn’t read the book probably hadn’t a clue what was missing–which was nearly everything that made the book extraordinary.

By: PatCA

PatCA — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

There is a theory, which I think is true, that books that are light on characterization make the best subjects for movies, because movies can expand character so well with visuals, music, dialogue, etc. Kramer v. Kramer is a good example. Movie much better than the book.

Cold Mountain made a terrible movie, in part because the book itself is so interior and soulful on characterization that the movie seemed trivial in comparison.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

I have a slightly different view of the subject.
The faithfulness of a movie to a book doesn't interest me, since I see the two as separate.

I am interested, though, in whether the scenes and scenery and background and so forth are as I imagined them.
In that view, Harry Potter is the closest.
LOTR is next.

It is possible to have a really rotten movie, and if it happens to be made from a particularly good book, there is a hint of idiocy in the thing.
For my money, the worst, by a million miles, movie made from a good book was Starship Troopers.
The troopers were less well-equipped than our guys today, their tactical formations reminded me of coaching eight-year-olds in soccer, and the female lead's acting consisted of a blank cheerleader smile.
The book, on the other hand, is widely considered to be one of the one best SFs ever written.

By: Goesh

Goesh — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000

-glad to see a Tolkien fan in the crowd