Big Stupid Tommy has a cool discussion going on:
Movies that are adaptations of books have a rough time. Fans of the books will resist the adaptation. (That’s why I didn’t see “Wonder Boys” the first time around … and what an IDIOT I was!! But I had loved the book so much I resisted.)
But, Tommy asks, are there instances where you like the movie better than the book?
In the case of Wonder Boys, I can’t say either. Reading the book was a joy from beginning to end. And the film was fantastic. I won’t choose.
I read the book Ordinary People, by Judith Guest. It’s quite good. But – it can’t hold a candle to the movie. Robert Redford invented scenes that far surpass anything that goes on in the book (the scene where Mary Tyler Moore doesn’t want to get her picture taken with her son … the scene where Tim Hutton randomly barks like a dog at his mother) – these are extraordinary scenes. And they’re mostly behavioral, not about the WORDS. Pure cinema.
I’ll have to think of more movies I liked better than the book …
Just thought of another one.
I read Bridges of Madison County and could barely get through the sentimental clap-trap prose. I wasn’t surprised when I heard that the author and his “soulmate” split up a couple of years after he became so famous. Serves ya right, bub, for falling for all that soulmate crap in the first place. Also – he is a terrible writer.
But I loved that movie. It was like an actor’s paradise – watching the 2 of them spar back and forth, talking, behaving, laughing, arguing … I watch it, I re-wind scenes, I lean in, I study the 2 of them … they make that very conventional sob-story into something funny, complex, believable.
Loved the movie. Hated the book.
Anything to add?
This may be a stretch, but the book “Escape from Sobibor” was a fairly workmanlike history/bio; just the facts. Nothing wrong with that – but the TV movie made from it (w/Rutger Hauer and Joanna Pacula and Alan Arkin) was one of the better TV movies I’ve seen, certainly one of the best historical ones; affecting, illustrative, and just plain great.
I liked “The Godfather” the movie better than “The Godfather” the book, which had some good stuff but also a lot of melodramatic soap-opera stuff that was left out of the movie.
I’d hate to have to choose between the filmed and written versions of “L.A. Confidential.” The movie didn’t cover all of the territory of the book, but as Ellroy said, it was true to the vision.
“Silence of the Lambs,” “Jaws,” and “Being There” I enjoyed more as movies than as books.
Contact. I’m almost ashamed to admit that I loved the movie, hated the book. Carl Sagan is a hero, but the book suffered from Too Much Stuff Going On syndrome. The narrative felt uncharacteristically cumbersome for Sagan.
The movie, by contrast, stripped away most of the clutter and by focusing on one individual, made for a more intimate, personal story. I think what was missing from the book was the sense of wonder, which was captured perfectly in the film. It’s not that the book didn’t try to capture your heart as well as your mind, the movie just did it better.
And while I think they blew the ending, it was not nearly as anticlimatic as it was in the book.
I’m currently re-reading The World According to Garp, probably my all-time favorite book. I looked forward to the movie coming out, and I wasn’t disappointed. Even thought it didn’t follow the book to the letter, the cast was awesome and it was well done. I can’t say that the movie was better than the book, but I enjoyed it, it wasn’t the letdown that we usually expect.
While I like Jane Austen and appreciate her writing, there have been several movie versions of her work that I enjoy watching possibly more than reading the books. “Mansfield Park” especially.
Almost any movie based on E.M Forster. I just can’t get into his books, but I’ve enjoyed several of the movies based on them.
I don’t know if this counts, but I loved “The Seven Pillars of Wisdom” by T.E. Lawrence, but then there’s “Lawrence of Arabia”… not exactly a true book-to-movie, but awfully close.
I remember someone’s comment that it is easier to make a great movie from a mediocre book because you can keep the good parts and chunk the rest. Much it is much more difficult to translate a great book to the screen because you will have to leave out so many good parts.
I don’t suppose plays count? If so, the Branaugh’s “Henry V” is by far my favorite adaptation. OK, I’ll stop rambling now…
I liked Matchstick Men the movie better than the book, but that might just be because Nicolas Cage is a perfect actor and I’m in love with Sam Rockwell.
(BTW, did you know the screenwriters originally changed the ending so that Angela didn’t turn out to be a part of the scam and really was Roy’s daughter? One of them said he was angry after the emotional investment he’d made in this relationship, only to find out it was part of a grift.)
Mr. Z – I couldn’t agree more about Contact.
Skillzy: Garp is a great example. Incredible book – and definitely a worthy film. It got the SPIRIT of that crazy book, too, which is the hardest thing to capture.
at the risk of sounding neanderthal, michael crichton wrote a book called “eaters of the dead” about vikings fighting against a nameless legion of bad creatures up north, with some elements of “beowulf” in it. the movie, “the 13th warrior” was absolutely superb if you like epic stories, with lots of heroism. my wife likes it too, but only because it has antonio banderas in it…
I enjoyed both the book “Eaters of the Dead” and the movie (“13th warrior”) based on it.
M*A*S*H* Book was funny but written very sloppily, like a collection of jokes. Movie was much funnier and more coherent.
The English Patient. Loved the movie… the book was good but there was such a different focus, centering more around the patient and his relationaship with the nurse, as opposed to his lover. And who wouldn’t rather watch two plus hours of Ralph Fiennes?????
“And who wouldn’t rather watch two plus hours of Ralph Fiennes?????”
(raises hand)
Especially when Juliette Binoche is in the house.
The Shawshank Redemption, clearly, which was not, admittedly a book, but a story. So sue me.
Jaws was ten times better a movie than a book. If it were a fight, the ref would have to stop it.
Jurassic Park: the movie is superior to the book.
“The Natural” is a really nice movie. Much different from Malamud’s book, which is much darker than the movie. Which is better? Not sure, both are good in their own way, but I liked the movie version.
The biggest example that comes to mind is Eight Men Out. I love John Sayles, Mr. Ensemble Cast, anyway… my main beef with the book is Eliot Asinof needed an editor to make him appear to be a better writer. Sayles, of course, IS an editor… and a master storyteller.
Mystic River – I plowed through the book, then avoided seeing the movie because, once knowing the story and characters, the movie didn’t seem Essential Enough (to Spend Eight Bucks On). But once it came out on video, I rented and admired it. Hard to say which is better.
The Day of the Locust begs to be made into a better movie.
High Fidelity, I think, is one of the better modern adaptations – the script and Cusack’s performance accented main character Rob Gordon’s flaws better than Nick Hornby did.
Agreed on Bridges. How Eastwood redeemed that garbage still amazes me.
On a sourer note, I hate Bret Easton Ellis, his characters, and the movies spawned by his angsty swill.
I’m gonna read me some Chuck Pahlaniuk this year, I swear. And Cameron Crowe’s Billy Wilder book (just watched “One, Two, Three” again this morning).
Thanks for eulogizing two such beautiful artists, a poet and photographer, here recently. And for inspiring me to write my own Top 50 movies list/mini-reviews (just as daunting). I’ll have to post it somewhere.