BS: Novels made into films

Subject: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 11:47 AM

Posts on a recent thread on Hitchcock's film of Daphne du Maurier's novel, 'Rebecca', which, although an Oscar winner, is thought by many inferior to the original novel, raise the question of film adaptations from fiction. Notoriously, they could never leave well alone, but always had to make some alterations to the plot. I could never understand the reason for this, but have always suspected it to be something like a dog pissing to mark "his" territory. Even a film as distinguished as Ford's 'The Grapes Of Wrath' doesn't quite match the power of Steinbeck's original. The only film I can think of which I have thought to equal, or even perhaps to surpass, the original from which it was adapted, was Carol Reed's 1940s film about the Irish troubles, based on a novel by one F L Green [of whom I know nothing else], 'Odd Man Out': and even then, perhaps, only because of Robert Newton's magnificently OTT performance as the mad artist and F J McCormick's wonderful characterisation as his downtrodden flatmate; + a brief but striking cameo by the incomparable Cyril Cusack.

But can anyone think of any film that they genuinely feel improved on the novel on which it was based?

~Michael~


I am only really concerned with novel adaptations. Plays, originally dramatic in form anyhow, tho often opened out to some extent [good, in both senses, examples, being the 30s-40s adaptations of Shaw's Pygmalion & Coward's Blithe Spirit] give rise to different considerations IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 12:04 PM

Though I didn't read the book OR see the movie, I heard reviews of The Bridges of Madison County and the reviewers seem to feel the film is much better than the novel.

I am currently rereading The Lord of the Rings before I view the director's cut of the films in that trilogy, because clearly scenes were left on the cutting room floor for the theatrical versions. Other things were changed for time and to move the story along, something we expect in filmmaking. What they did to The Hobbit - that is inexcusable. That is the filmmaker milking the story and adding to it purely for the profit motive. I'd like a director's cut of that one which trims the three down to one and culls all of the extra nonsense.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 12:22 PM

Compressing a novel into a two-hour (or often less) film is difficult.
Changes are made not only to fit a sitting audience, but to satisfy (in the '40s-'50s) censors, as noted in another thread, and to fit the characteristics of the cast members who have been selected to play the parts.

Films from books have seldom satisfied me; plot development is chopped and sometimes not intelligible unless one had read the book previously.
Two from the 1940s; "Green for Danger" was altered to fit the detective's character, and "Dimitri" to fit a different sort of person caught up in a mystery, but were fairly successful adaptations.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 12:55 PM

I adored Pasolini's The Decameron, Canterbury Tales and Arabian Nights.
And many of the Thomas Hardy films (Far From The Madding Crowd and Tess of the D'Urbervilles for example) evoke Wessex rural life vividly. Even Emma is very enjoyable. But I'm a nerd who gets a bit enraged when the film deviates from the book. Mr Darcy DID NOT EVER emerge dripping from the lake in his shirtsleeves. I turn into a very cross old thing when I see that! But the best of all book-to-film productions is the first Harry Potter (Philosopher's Stone) The film is wonderful. We have it on DVD and my husband and I have watched it dozens of times. Oh, and the film of Oliver Twist directed by Roman Polanski. Brilliant.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 12:59 PM

I can think of a few off hand, that is, films I enjoyed more than the novel they were adapted from.

The Third Man. I'm a Graham Greene fan but the movie was so good that his short novel had a hard time living up to it though it was also quite good. Reportedly Greene wrote it with the screenplay in mind.

Our Man in Havana. Also Greene. Good book but very funny Movie.

I like the film L.A. Confidential far more than the book, which I read afterward.

Lolita, but I like both the book and the movie a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 01:12 PM

They're different media. Film director Howard Hawks said a movie is 5 or 6 major scenes tied together with other scenes. Novels have several story lines. A 2 hour film adaptation can only develop 1 or 2 of those story lines. No one should expect the movie to be a representaion of the book, unless the book was written with adaptation in mind. Many modern ones are.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: fat B****rd
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 01:38 PM

The Klansman by William Bradford Huie is a great favourite of mine. The film of the same name, despite Lee Marvin and Richard Burton is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,JotSC
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:30 PM

Often films reflect the proclivities of the director, writers, and/or the producer.

Quickly comes to mind Elia Kazan's filmic version of the Steinbeck novel "East of Eden". Kazan based his film on the third section of the novel. He presented the father as a bitter, bible-thumping patriarch, about 180 degrees from Steinbeck's original character, in order to emphasize a disfunctional father/son relationship. It made a hell of a good film, but one that was not in accord with the novel. Steinbeck's book was better because of the generational sweep of the story; Kazan's was better as a character study, loosely based on the novel.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:55 PM

I had an opportunity to ask Horton Foote about his adaptation of To Kill a Mockingbird to film. He conflated a few characters, removed some of the story lines that were peripheral to the main story, and compressed the time from from two years into one. Most people agree the result was marvelous.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 02:57 PM

"I adored Pasolini's The Decameron, Canterbury Tales and Arabian Nights."
Could't agree more though
both the novels and the films have their separate merits but Pasolini captured a vibrancy that a book never really could.
The use of field recordings on the soundtracks was a stroke of sheer genius.
I think Hardy much better read than watched - the pictures are better!!.
Not novels, but Michael Cacoyanis' adaptation of the Greek tragedies brought to life the stories - particularly Iphigenya.
I always had trouble with the somewhat turgid writing style of Nikos Kazantzakis (bought it on holiday once)
I may have got a crappy translation, but I thought the film infinitely better
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:11 PM

"Billy Budd" (1962).

The superbly acted film (splendidly directed by co-star Peter Ustinov)is based on the intervening stage play.

But the sifting process does away with everything roundabout and inessential while maintaining most of Melville's dark ambiguities.

I could never get through "Fellowship of the Rings," but I think the film version may be - overall - the greatest movie ever made. (The next two were slightly less impressive; and "The Hobbit"....)

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:24 PM

Carson McCuller's book "Reflections In a Golden Eye" was made into a film (Marlon Brando, Elizabeth Taylor, Brian Keith; directed by John Huston) that not only pretty much followed the film scene by scene, but was, I think, BETTER than the book as it added one focussing scene that tied the whole thing together.

It's been way too long since I've either read the book or seen the film, so I can't quote the proper chapter and verse (figuratively speaking), but I did a lot of thinking about it at the time (late 1980s, during Cinematheque days) and my thoughts may have ended up in my letters, although I can't lay my hands on them right this minute.

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 04:10 PM

I've read Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, and it's rather heavy going, particularly the first third or so. But the film was excellent, and Sean Connery superb. The dark and foreboding atmosphere of the novel was well-depicted in the film.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 04:35 PM

I think that most people on this site would like Forrest Gump the movie better than the novel. The characters are more rounded, have clearer motivations and arcs. I loved the movie but enjoyed book more. I laughed out loud on page after page. But in every way but pure hysterical farce. The movie was better.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Lighter
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 08:17 PM

It was.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:03 PM

Novels have more elbow room, and aren't so dependent on spoken dialogue.

The TV serial form can at least supply the elbow room, though it rarely happens these days. A classic example of how it can be done was the BBC's Brideshead Revisited back in 1981.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 02:32 AM

Like listening to the radio, reading a novel gives scope for one's imagination to 'fill out' the characters visually. Thus one is contributing to the work personally, and that makes it engaging. The trouble with a film of a much-loved novel is that I've already imagined how, say, Mr Darcy looks and sounds. To find Colin Firth striding about the place rather shakes my original idea of him. The strange thing about the Harry Potter films is that for me the actors exactly mirror how I represented them in my head!

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:02 AM

I agree, Eliza, that correct casting is vital. One example where this was well achieved was in David Lean's much admired 1940s Great Expectations -- in all but the two main parts, unfortunately: John Mills was too old, and Valerie Hobson not quite exquisite enough. But Bernard Miles's Joe, Freda Jackson's Mrs Joe, Ivor Barnard's Wemmick, Francis L Sullivan's Jaggers, Alec Guinness's Herbert, Martita Hunt's Miss Havisham. Jean Simmons's Young Estella, Finlay Currie's Magwitch -- all could have stepped right off Dickens's pen. Unfortunately, the thing was marred by the over-dramatic telescoping of Dickens's long-drawnout ending [Pip doesn't see Estella again for about 12 years, and then it is left ambiguous as to whether they get it together again -- and that was a rewritten ending, by popular demand, from the one in the original edition where they are parted for ever!]; and, above all, by the entire omission of the character of Dolge Orlick and his attempt to murder Pip, which left a great hole in the plot which the film never satisfactorily filled.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:26 AM

" Ever the best o' friends Pip ol' chap..." Wonderful film Michael. The difficulties about making a film of a Dickens' novel must be the length, complexity of plot and plethora of characters. In two hours in a cinema it would be extremely difficult to follow and absorb the entire work, as his books were meant to be read chapter by chapter and absorbed slowly. My sister and I adored 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' with Charles Laughton. We sobbed deliciously when the poor chap sighed, looked up at a gargoyle and said, "I wish I was made of stone like thee!" as Esmerelda waltzed off with her love. One must also consider the music in a film. I think it contributes an enormous amount to atmosphere. They are (obviously) two very different media, but in spite of being a total bookworm, I've still loved many films made from novels.
Have to say, (if one considers the Bible as a book, which of course it is, but not a novel!) I've never warmed to any film stars in biblical films. I remember watching The Ten Commandments as a teenager and being seriously underwhelmed, in spite of the magnificent portrayal of the parting of the Red Sea. And King of Kings, with Jesus as a blue-eyed hunk. No no. However Pasolini's St Matthew Passion portrayed Mary exactly as I imagine her in older age, wrinkles and all.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:21 AM

I like the big sleep with bogart as much as the novel at least. I love all the cameo roles -lash canino, eddie mars, poor little harry smith, and silvertop.

a masterpiece.

I think paul scofield and cast do a fine job with a man for all seasons.

of treasure island - I think the Charlton Heston was a great ljs . I think he got his evil side better down better than newton's admittedly bravura performance. again the other roles were great - particularly olly reed as billy bones, and Vincent price's blind pew.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:34 AM

Watched the second The Hobbit movie last night. Stretching the book into three films was as difficult as condensing Lord of the Rings into three films...

As good as the effects were, as good as some of the character development was, I get the feeling that if you weren't brought up reading the book you'd wonder what all the fuss was about.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:49 AM

Al -- Man for all Seasons a play, which I specifically excluded in OP for reasons I gave there. However, as you have mentioned it: IMO the Zinnemann/Scofield version completely ruined the original stage play by omitting the "Common Man" linking character, a sort of narrator/commenter-pundit and participant in small but significant parts, like Executioner: thus entirely subverting Bolt's dramatic, black-humorous and moral intentions, turning the whole enterprise into a piece of bland hagiography. There was a much better, I thought, version made in 1988, originally for US tv iirc, with Charlton Heston & Vanessa Redgrave, & with the Common Man restored and excellently characterised by Roy Kinnear.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 07:45 AM

The Common Man is absolutely essential in Bolt's play as you say Michael. He's a very important character linking those major events of history to each one of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:02 AM

the recent tv series The Tudors did a pretty good job debunking saintly Sir Thomas More, and when the tv series of the Hilary Mantel books come out -that should about bury him and his reputation.

I think it will become difficult for another generation to watch a man for all seasons with the open mind that we brought to it.

I think he emerges quite as devious and vicious as Cromwell.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:11 AM

in answer to the original question - I think The Silence of the Lambs film is a million times better than the book.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:37 AM

If we can include TV series as a collections films made from books, I think the "Inspector Morse" television films vastly superior to the original books by Colin Dexter. This is because, in my view, Dexter is not a particularly fluent or inspiring writer, and he also occasionally reveals a rather patronising, slightly superior "I was at Oxford, you know" side of himself in his writing. For me, the TV series as a whole wins hands down over the books as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Will Fly
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:44 AM

Just another comment from me. I saw the film "The English Patient", directed by Anthony Minhgella, which won all sorts of awards. I didn't much like it myself but, when I then read the book, I detested the film even more. The film obviously condensed the book somewhat - which is to be expected - but it also changed the whole slant of the book, in which the English patient himself is rather a side character in the story. A major focus of the book is on the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and its psychological effect on the Indian scientist who is part of the bomb disposal squad. All forgotten in favour of a rather boring love triangle story.

And if you believed that Meryl Streep could lie dead in a cave in the desert unravaged by death for what must have been weeks, you'll believe anything...

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Stu
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 09:44 AM

I agree about Silence of the Lambs, the film is better than the book.

Jurassic Park - the book was bloody awful, the film shallow but excellent.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 10:29 AM

It's an aside, but I think that the interesting thing about Thomas More is not saintliness or deviousness but a study of a man committed to a point of view in the face of near total power when holding it risks death. In "A man for all seasons" surely it is evident that it is his political acuity (aka deviousness) that let's him survive so long?

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:23 PM

yes its that commitment that makes him so vicious -such a friend to the torture chamber, such an intemperate enemy . the plea for tolerance and decency that the play essentially is, was no part of More's emotional make up.

the other better film than the book was must surely be The Godfather.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Musket
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 01:38 PM

Captain Correli's Mandolin.

Excellent book.

I'd give the film a miss if I were you.

Will, I have to agree about Morse. You get the impression the books were a spin off from the TV series, rather than a published product in their own right.

Al. Silence of the Lambs, maybe. Some of his other books were excellent though, and I prefer to the films. I have read Hannibal Rising but unless I missed something, this isn't a film yet? Possibly the best in the Hannibal series.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:44 PM

The TV Hannibal TV series is pretty bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 05:13 PM

Stu - re Jurassic Park. I quite liked both, for once in a way. The book's build-up exposition I found rather ingenious iirc, tho some time since I read it.

Will - Oddly enough, Colin Dexter was actually at Cambridge -- we overlapped by one year, at the same college as it happens (his last year was my first), but I don't recall ever actually meeting him. He later worked for many years in Oxford for the Exam Delegacy, so presumably set Morse there as he would by then have known that city better, and more immediately, than he did Cambridge.

& Musket, the books did come first. Can't say I ever greatly liked either them or the tv series -- always preferred Frost on tv. But quite enjoy the two spinoffs, Lewis & Endeavour.

Would point out that tv adaptations, esp series like Morse or serials like Brideshead, tho clearly a related topic, are not entirely germane to the thread. As pointed out above, the considerations are different with regard to such factors as necessary compression of plot or characters.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Musket
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 05:49 PM

I know. "You get the impression" being the operative phrase.

Michael, to be serious for a moment, isn't the term adaptation one you could apply to all?

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Apr 14 - 10:20 PM

Thomas More still convinces me. Separating truth from hostile propaganda is hard enough to do at the time, let alone at five centuries and more distance.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 12:04 AM

Why, yes, M. They are all adaptations, but that very term can subsume great variations. In some, eg the Morses, they are original works based on some characters and environments, having long outlived the plots bequeathed by the original authors. In others, eg Brideshead, the object is to reproduce the plot, characters, &c, in another literary medium [ie in this instance, tv drama rather than prose narrative with its authorial voice & interpolation and so on. & so forth. I don't see how the fact that one term can be universally applied to all should discount my original statement that I was only, in this OP, concerned with one specific form of adaptation, that of prose fiction to cinema film. This is not to devalue the interest of problems and comparisons that might arise in re other forms of *adaptation*; but simply to indicate that the comparisons arising need not be identical, and that too wide an interpretation of a term can lead to diffusiveness rather than specificity in a thread. Those who want to write about other adaptive forms can OP other threads for the purpose...

...which I appreciate that in relation to Mudcat, with its tradition of drifting hither & thither & here & yon, I might as well piss into the wind while sighing for the Moon & trying to stop a Bandersnatch...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 12:06 AM

Some time back I borrowed a book from my local library on the different types of movies made from a book. It depends on the words used by the movie maker (or publicists) how true the movie is to the original - 'based on ...', 'inspired by ...', 'from ...' etc. I can't find the book in the catalogue & as I can't search my Past loans (500+ books) I gave up.

Based on the Book is a compilation of over 1,450 books, novels, short stories, and plays that have been made into motion pictures. Utilizing the Internet Movie Database as the authority, all movies in this collection have been released as feature-length films in the United States, in English, since 1980.

View by:

    Movie Title
    Movie Release Year
    Book Title
    Book Author


mmm

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Janie
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 12:50 AM

I used to always be disappointed in the movies that were made based on novels. I finally realized that the movie is not, and will never be the novel and changed my expections. Two different mediums.

That has helped. Some.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Jack Campin
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 01:11 AM

Terayama's "Farewell to the Ark" is based on Marquez's "100 Years of Solitude", with the setting moved to mediaeval Japan. I think it may be the finest film I've ever seen, but Marquez's story is barely recognizable.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 04:22 AM

I always found Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast books hard going but the BBC dramatisation of them is a firm favourite. Not sure if it is what you are after Michael - Do TV adaptations count in the film category?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 04:58 AM

Not altogether, Dave. I think they are separate genres, simply due to differing time and content constraints. See my last post, 5 back, in reply to Musket.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 06:05 AM

Ah - OK. I see what you mean but does the adaptation of Gormenghast, with 4 parts, differ that much from, for instance, the adaptation of Lord of the Rings in 3 parts? Not arguing - It is your thread and you know what you want. Just interested in whether and why you think it differs. Out of interest, the running time of LOTR is around 9 hours while Gormenghast is a little under 4 hours. If I remember rightly the books are somewhat similar in size.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:03 AM

Gormenghast and LOTR have it in common that I find them both profoundly tedious & tiresome in any genre you can name, and 5 minutes exposure to either robs me of the will to live. So I am unable to answer your specific point in regard to them.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:38 AM

Hehehe - Each to their own, Michael. Had it not been for the TV adaptation I would have firmly agreed with you on Gormenghast. I read LOTR in my formative years and have subsequently used it as the yardstick for all other fantasy works. As such I can only disagree with you on that but I will be first to admit that it is far from the best work I have read.

Back on topic, reminded because I also read them in my formative years, are the film versions of Dennis Wheatley novels 'The devil rides out' and 'The satanist'. I think I decided, very shortly after both reading and seeing them, that they were pretty poor but as Hammer House of Horror I felt the films probably worked better than the books.

A third author I read while I should of been studying something exiting like British constitution and government at A level (I dropped out after 3 months BTW) was CS Forester. I think I only got as far as the Hornblower Series and there has been what I feel an accurate depiction in a series of made for TV films. I am not sure how others, such as 'The pride and the passion' or 'The African Queen', measure up.

An obscure one that I did feel was better on film was Gogol's 'Taras Bulba'. I never could get into the book, although my Father did encourage it and the old Yul Bryner / Tony Curtis production was typical Holywood but there has been a recent Russian language one called 'Iron and Blood' which I thoroughly enjoyed.

Cheers

DtG

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:44 AM

Oh - sorry - so to answer your opening question, yes, I think that, for me at least, the Wheatley novels were improved by being put on film as was Taras Bulba in it's Iron and Blood guise. I also found the adaptation of Gormanghast was a big improvement but as that falls outside your definition of 'film' I will say no more of it.

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 03:57 PM

when I first heard the premise of The 13th Warrior, I thought here was yet another dumb arse film...
but dang if it wasn't a lot of fun and I rewatch it regularly. I even went so far as to track down a copy of Crichton's Eaters of the Dead to see how it was. The film beats the book hands down for me... but both are fine. The CGG of the storm was lame, but the characters were such fun I forgave them.

The early Harry Potter films worked because the themes were simpler.   But the later books were not really good candidates for film and each successive film just seemed to miss the mark more & more.

AS for Tolkien... what got published in the books was a mere fraction of the world he created, so I'm not going throw stones at Jackson for cramming as much as he did.... LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Will Fly
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 04:53 PM

To my mind, one of the worst and trashiest adaptations of a novel into a film was J. Meade Faulkner's "Moonfleet". The film was utter balderdash and left the novel's plot in shreds after about 6 seconds. Poor old Stuart Grainger...

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Lighter
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 05:00 PM

If you're talking now about "worst" adaptations, read Tom Wolfe's "Bonfire of the Vanities," then see the movie.

Better: Read the book, then don't see the movie. Trust me on this. Please.

Do the same with Catch-22. But of course the examples are, er, without number.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 05:06 PM

I remember this bit in Christopher Isherwood's essay about RL Stevenson's travels with a donkey. he said - you can't help wishing you were doing the journey with DH Lawrence instead.

This is all a bit like that. the imagination of the film maker is not REALLY what your imagination has furnished you with from reading the book.

somehow when a film maker adds lyricism - like in the Godfather - those pictures -so dark , they almost seemed like composed paintings. his vision, rather than your own or the authors, literally sweeps you away.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 14 Apr 14 - 05:08 PM

However Tom Wolfe's "The Right Stuff" and the movie are both excellent and perfect compliments to one another.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086197/

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 03:32 AM

I believe the opening question was "But can anyone think of any film that they genuinely feel improved on the novel on which it was based?"

I have added mine. Anyone else?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 04:58 AM

errol Flynn in the master of ballantrae was a stinker too.

but I liked Michael caine as alan breck stewart in kidnapped.

come to think of it the man who would be king was a better watch than read. somehow the kiplingisms didn't grate from the mouths of connery and caine.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 05:56 AM

Funny you should mention Kipling, Al. I liked 'The man who would be King' too but I was thinking more of poetry in general. I am not a big fan of poetry - Sorry to those who are but it is just the way I am. Philistine gene I expect :-) Anyway. Things that can be improved by transfer to other media, for me, includes Kipling poetry transferred to song. Usually by Peter Bellamy.

Sorry Michael - Thread drift over.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 08:40 AM

The film of "The Man who Would be King" is indeed far better than the story.

Surprised I didn't think of it sooner. Have realized it since the movie came out!

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 09:03 AM

I think that one, The Man Who Would Be King, is a rare example of one which triumphs both as prose narrative and as film. Wouldn't like to choose between them for quality.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 09:30 AM

I wouldn't care to choose between the novel and the film of "The Big Sleep". The novel works at one level - and the film, with Bogie and Bacall, works equally well at a different level and in a different way.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 09:36 AM

And, in a similar genre, There's "Devil In A Blue Dress"...

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 10:06 AM

One of my favourite films of all time is 'The Last of the Mohicans' - the version directed by Michael Mann and with Daniel Day Lewis as Hawkeye. I did try the book, years ago, and found it turgid and unreadable - but the film hits the ground running (literally) and never lets up.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 10:20 AM

Steinbeck's "Of Mice & Men"... I saw the film with Burgess Meridith and Lon Chaney Jr. as a kid & later read the story... both worked well.

I haven't seen the latest version & probably won't bother... I tracked down the DVD of the first & I'm content with that. I think that film was as fine as any I've seen... and still get an emotional response just thinking of some of the great scenes even after all these years.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 10:50 AM

oh... and speaking of Kipling... the film Gunga Din is a classic and I got quite the shock as a kid to finally read the poem and see the vast difference. Loved the theme music as well.

That said... the film is still a classic adventure and even had a goofy knock off called Sargents Three with Sinatra & the Rat Pack as US Calvery. I saw that back in the '60s and knew immediately what they had ripped off.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 11:44 AM

Hi

An interesting thread Michael.

I agree with most of the comments for those that I have both read the novel and seen the films/TV adaptations.

I wonder though if the actual sequence in which ones reads/watches them is important.

To me if I have read the book first I usually find that I don't enjoy the visual presentations as much.

However one that I think that the film was better than the book was Frederick Forsythe's Day of the Jackal. I found the film totally gripping.

I do think that Forsythe is a brilliant writer and enjoyed all the ones I have read. But for me the film was superb.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Lighter
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 11:59 AM

The cinematic and poetic versions of "Gunga Din" are so different as to be forbid comparison.

As for which is "better," I'll go with the poem.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 12:11 PM

the sentimental favorite for me is the film, Gunga Din... I must must have watched it two dozen times... that's when I lost count.
the new York station WWOR had Million Dollar Movie... which showed a single film all week long... and Gunga Din was one of their stock movies.   

I read the Hornblower series years ago & have to say the the A & E series of early Hornblower films is well done and lots of fun to watch. Any film with a tall ship in it is a winner for me... LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 12:33 PM

Re Hornblower: I am a great admirer of the novels. Forester was always brilliant, from Leading Seaman "Brown On Resolution" to Lt General Herbertt Curzon, KCMG, CB, DSO ["The General"] on what made the fighting man tick. & in Hornblower, the psychology of this successful on the surface officer, whose his built-in introspection leads to a lack of confidence, which provides a spur to his ambitions while preventing his ever truly enjoying his triumphs, is wonderfully communicated. Good an actor as Gregory Peck is, that was the essential element of those novels that I never felt he, or the films, quite got to grips with.

~M~

Much of the above is reproduced from a Times review of a Hornblower anthology 4 July 1987; but I make no apology because I wrote it.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 11:14 PM

writing for The Times - how come you never became an establishment figure recruited by the KGB?

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 15 Apr 14 - 11:30 PM

I agree that "Last Of The Mohicans" is better than the original book for entertainment value. The book does take some getting into, but once you adjust to the 1820s language and mores, it repays a bit of effort. Interesting to see how much the story was changed.

"The Bourne Identity" was a much better film than the book was as a book, IMO, and "Trainspotting" is incomparably better than the book, I reckon.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 12:11 AM

I wrote for The Guardian too, Al! More, in fact -- for them I was regular regional theatre critic and folk records fests concert reviewer for ¼C; for The Times, just did books for a decade or so.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 08:31 AM

The "Mohicans" movie was indeed more enjoyable than the book. But like "Gunga Din" the resemblances to the original were minor.

The movies of "Billy Budd" and "The Man Who Would Be King," however, retain but elaborate the essential ideas of the originals.

Speaking of Gregory Peck, "Moby Dick" (1956) is also a brilliant adaptation (though few seem to think so). But I wouldn't say it's "better than the novel."

Later, made-for-TV Mobys have been either plain bad (1998) or just not very good (2011).

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: GUEST,sciencegeek
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 09:31 AM

Speaking of Gregory Peck, "Moby Dick" (1956) is also a brilliant adaptation (though few seem to think so). But I wouldn't say it's "better than the novel."

Another classic... Ray Bradbury's screenplay & John Huston's direction... and A L Lloyd's shantying... great casting

and another shock when I was older and read the original... lol

as for the better than... there's an obvious reason why they call films "movies" or motion pictures. A book may have pacing, but it still moves as quickly or slowly as the reader... and the reader can stop to ponder or go back & reread a section.

but a film has to find a pace that keeps the viewer's interest.. doesn't lose them along the way and still touches whatever main points the story may have. A poor film misses one or more requirements.

I do think that the order in which you read the book or see the film can be important... especially when the two differ widely... in how you compare the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Lighter
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 11:40 AM

I've probably said this elsewhere, but easily the best line Bradbury ever wrote is in "Moby Dick."

Ahab's in his cabin explaining crazily to Starbuck how he's chased Moby all over the oceans of the world. Finally he knows where to look.

As his finger stabs the map in close-up, Ahab declares "Moby Dick... will surface HERE!"

It's Bikini Atoll, site of the first hydrogen bomb blast.

Come to think of it, that's also one of the best succinct remarks about a classic of literature that I've ever encountered.

(No, Bikini Atoll isn't in the novel.)

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 11:46 AM

But that doesn't Bikini difference Atoll...

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 12:06 PM

Re: "Reflections In a Golden Eye", I meant "followed the BOOK scene by scene" (not "film"), of course.

I've always wondered how good the film "Name of the Rose" actually is, and how much I was filling into it from the book, but Tom liked the film a lot without having read the book.

The book "Year of Living Dangerously" by Christopher Koch is much much more complex and layered than the film, but I really thought Peter Weir (and the script writers -- Weir, Koch, and David Williamson) did an incredible job at distilling the book into a single story line.

"Diva" was by far superior to the book. And every time I watch that film I see something else in it...in reflections, facial expressions, something in the background. But the problem with the book may have been the translation and I have no way to tell.

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 06:31 PM

just imagine ...you could have sat in th mi5 enclosure at Lords with Kim Philby....thinking this lot are a load of charlies.

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 06:41 PM

Just remembered - I find Bram Stoker's 'Dracula' absolutely dire in book form. Sorry to any fans out there, it is probably just me. So any film of the same name is, to me , an improvement.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Joe_F
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 08:35 PM

A Single Man

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Joe_F
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 08:37 PM

A Single Man

Subject: RE: BS: Novels made into films
From: Joe_F
Date: 16 Apr 14 - 08:42 PM

Sorry -- the link didn't take the first time; I must have left out some squiggle or other.