Book vs Film
fl...@my-dejanews.com
so I've "done" the movie now I'm onto the book......
before venturing into it...I'd really be interested in knowing other peoples
feeling on the differences and preferences of the two mediums!!!
What did you like about the book that wasn't in the movie?... and so on!!!
Any imput would be vital!
Catherine
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jeff Kreider
about any of the Crichton adaptations. However, I can think of a few films
I thought were better than the books.
The problem, of course, is that the book usually "defines" the story and a
film either lives up to it or not. If it does, then it's as good as the book, if not
then it's not as good as the book. So what criteria makes a film "better" than
the book? If it deviates from the book, then it really isn't a film version of the
book, is it?
Two examples come to mind that I felt the film was actually better than the book
(at least, I enjoyed the film more than the book). FIRST BLOOD (the first Rambo
movie) I enjoyed much more than the book by David Morrell. But that it's a bit
unfair because the film made a different story out of it than the book. The
beginning and some of the middle were the same, but the film then took a completely
different track, which I enjoyed. Also, the film was done about 10 years after the
book and chose to use the basic story as a forum to tell a different one. So, in
that sense, can I really say the film was better than the book, if it wasn't even the
same story? True, I enjoyed it more, but...
Another example, is the now perenial Christmas film, The Bishop's Wife. The film was
a light comedy and a warm Christmas film; the book was serious, and dark, focusing
on the Angel's enfatuation with the Bishop's Wife. I enjoy the film much more than
the book, but, again, the film was not an authentic adaptation of the book.
There are two films that come to mind where I believe the film maintained the integrity
of the book and, surpassed it. The first one is Somewhere In Time, from the book
by Richard Matheson "Bid Time Return". There were a lot of differences between the
book and the film with regard to setting and some encapsulating story line. For example,
the book was set in California at the Hotel Del Coronado in San Diego and the film was
set in Michigan. The book went back to the late 1800's and the film to the early 1900's.
The reason why Collier was at the hotel in the first place was significantly different in
the book than in the film. However, the story was essentially a powerful love story which
in both cases showed what it would be like to be so taken with someone from history that
you 'willed' yourself back in time to meet the object of your desire.
In this case, the film, I believe had the upper hand. First of all, being a love story, the film
medium has more to work with than a book. A book just has the words and the readers
imagination, which in many (if not most cases) is enough. But with film, in addition to dialogue
(the words...) also had music, soft focus cammera shots, actors and actresses performances.
Plus, in this case, Richard Matheson, himself, wrote the screen play. So, effectively, the film
was another "re-write" which gave him the opportunity to refine the story a bit more. The
scene in the film where Elise McKenna, while on stage, dropped out of character to wondered
out loud, "The man of my dreams is almost faded now..."is not in the book but it made the film.
The other film I would say was better than the book was "Millenium" (from the book by John
Varley). The film with Cherly Ladd and Kris Kristopersen, was tighter and more direct. I thought
the book had too much peripherial material.
In both of these cases, I saw the film first, which, it might be argued, influences me a bit. However,
many (if not most) of the book/film combinations I've done, I felt the book was better than the
film and I saw the film before reading the book. For example: Jaws, The Godfather, Deliverence,
Jurassic Park (in fact, all of Crichton's films), Carrie (in fact all of Stephen King's adaptations...
though Shawshank was an excellant reproduction), Fahrenheit 451, Lost Horizon, The Maltese
Falcon (actually, this was a toss-up...the film is copied, faithfully, almost verbatim from the book),
Silence of the Lambs (even though the film was an extremely faithful reproduction), Dark Passage
The Mirror Crack'd, and The New Centurians.
Bill Donovan wrote:
> fl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I can't think of *one* case where "the movie was better than the book"
> (for any author). ...
--
Jeff Kreider, Consultant; 210 N. Iris Avenue; Rialto, CA 92376-5727
Phone: (909) 874-6214; Fax: (909) 874-2143; Email: jk...@ix.netcom.com
Computer consulting specializing in Alpha Micro Environments
--------------------
Alpha Micro Users Society (AMUS) Check out http://www.amus.org
--------------------
Used Books, First Editions, Signed. E-mail for Catalog
Dundee McNair
movie. And I agree with you about the Shawshank Redemption. It is
definitely a toss-up. The movie is great, but so is the book. I would say
they are on equal footing.
Jeff Kreider
But even so, it raises the same question as to why was the film so much better
than the book? Did the film tell a different story than the book or did it tell the
same story better? If it told a different story, then I'd argue that the film doesn't
qualify in the "book to film" catagory. It would be like saying, "'The Sound of
Music' was a much better film than the book by Petr Beckmann 'A History of Pi'"
Though it may be a true statement, who really cares and what does one have to
do with the other?
In my examples, Somewhere in Time/Bid Time Return qualify since they were
basically the same story and, in my opinion, the film did a better job. The Bishop's
Wife (book and film) would not, in my opinion, qualify as a fair comparison, since
the the basis of the film (it's point) was significantly different than that of the book.
The same goes for First Blood.
In another example, the musical (film) South Pacific was taken from Michner's "Tales of
the South Pacific". I just read the book last month and this one is a stumper of a different
color. The book was really good, but the film focused mainly on one of the many "tales"
in the the book. Given that is the comparison by which you judge, the film was much
much better than the book. The conflict with Nellie and de Beck and her almost in-bred
prejudice was done much more convincingly and more poignantly in the film than in the
book. However, much of the rest of the story, such as Billis' antics falling out of the plane,
the Bore's Tooth ceremony de Beck and Cable's "mission" to the other island, were all in
the book, but with completely different purpose and by different people. The film was a
differnent story, different media, directed to a different audience. It's almost like asking
what you like better, Chocolate or Sex...Well, I, personally wouldn't want to give up either
Dundee McNair wrote:
--