Books vs. Movies: An Unexpected Journey
Mischief. Murder. Coke.
“Never judge a book by its movie.” I consider myself an avid reader who typically prefers the book to the movie, but sometimes a cinematic retelling offers a more entertaining depiction of the source material. Sometimes the authors of the books even agree and stand in awe of the director’s vision for their work. While I was going to stick to more recent films, I was disappointed to realize that the only recently released book-based film was The Great Gatsby. Not only has Paul already covered that, but I have a strong aversion to the story and could not provide an unbiased opinion – I hated this book with a fiery passion, mainly because it was required reading in high school, but also because the only thing I can recall is that some woman loses a boob. Which prompted me to investigate if it had any significance and laugh hysterically at the extremely obvious response given on Yahoo answers:
Well said. Here’s a few that in my opinion were better on film than on paper.
The Hobbit
In a hole in the ground there lived an Arthur Dent.
There. I said it. I’m not sorry. Maybe it’s because Tolkien’s writing style, while an astounding feat of modern literature that will last for ages, can be extraordinarily verbose and complex. Or maybe as a 14-year-old I was more preoccupied with getting 10 CDs for a penny through Columbia House, who knows. Whatever the case, this assigned reading couldn’t keep my interest. I made it through, with difficulty, and that forced effort failed to ignite the imaginative spark within. What I pictured differed so greatly from the film that I found a renewed love for the series, and encouraged my son to read it. He wasn’t having any of it, however. This is a kid who loves to read, but he couldn’t make it past a few chapters of the LOtR prequel (oh, I went there) without getting bored and frustrated.
Then again, I also prefer WoW to D&D. It’s not that I don’t have an imagination – I just prefer to get right into the action without rolling a new character every time I start a new game. Re-reading The Hobbit (and yes, I did give it another go just to make sure I wasn’t imagining things) felt tedious compared to watching the first installment. While I won’t swear that it’s the greatest film of all time, it still wins out over the book for me. I am looking forward to the next two – very curious to see how they render the Battle of Five Armies, and hoping it inspires more of an emotional response than the book did for me.
Fight Club
I want you to hit me as hard as you can… seriously, in the ear?!
There’s no denying Palahniuk has a voice and delivery that is completely his own. However in this situation, it was the cinematography, artistic direction, and the performances of Pitt, Norton and Bonham Carter that truly stood out. Think about it; when you read “I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise”, you read it in Norton’s monotone voice. Can you really see the name Robert Paulson without picturing Meat Loaf? Palahniuk himself stated the film made connections and improvements he never even realized were possible, and lauded the performance and overall production.
Despite director David Fincher’s disapproval, Fight Club inspired several groups of gents with an overabundance of testosterone to form copycat and often illegal clubs of their own, occasionally with horrible consequences. It takes a special kind of chemistry to inspire life to imitate art. The fact that there is journalistic evidence on these clubs and their members proves they failed to follow rules 1 and 2. Which… so did I technically. *Ahem*. Moving on.
Fun fact: 20th Century Fox initially considered Russell Crowe and Matt Damon for the lead roles of Tyler and the Narrator. I cannot even imagine that being well-received in any possible format. Damon possibly, but Gladiator strutting around as Tyler Durden in big red sunglasses and a fur collar jacket? Nope. That’s almost as bad as casting Reese Witherspoon as Marla Singer (which also almost happened).
Apt Pupil
Boy, be careful. You play with fire. You shall not pass.
Again, great story, originally included in the same collection as Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption and The Body (Stand By Me), both exceptional stories and movies in their own right. But there was an edge-of-your-seat level of discomfort in watching this kid develop into a sadistic sociopath on film that was not as palpable in the book. I think it’s because the book asks us to acknowledge the character’s point of view, even if told from a third-person perspective, as acceptable without allowing the reader a moment to say “wait, no… that’s wrong.”
A point noted by many is that in the film Dussander (McKlellan) is much more polished and cleaned-up, compared to the toothless, sketchy old man of the book. But I find this an improvement – monsters dress in three-piece suits, too. I find it hilarious that we’re of the opinion that a pretty smile means lots of teeth – typically this is an aggressive move in the animal kingdom. There was a tension between the two that, while present in the book, was much more palpable in the movie. It served its purpose in making the audience extremely uncomfortable, yet enthralled. And if anyone told me that the old Nazi in the film would outlive the kid in real life, I’d have considered them off their noggin.
Let The Right One In
I’m not a girl. That’s not my name *clap clap*, that’s not my name *clap clap*.
Yes, I’m referring to the Swedish film. No, I have not seen the American adaptation; I find it irritating when a perfectly good movie is remade in English largely because audiences are too lazy or entitled to read subtitles or accept anything other than “Hollywood” productions. I’m speculating, but try taking your average ‘Murrican to see a foreign film and watch them squirm uncomfortably for 90 minutes. I find most American adaptations severely lacking in depth and (obviously) originality. Watch the UK and US versions of Kitchen Nightmares and you’ll see what I mean. Although approached to make Let Me In, the original director declined, saying “I’m too old to make the same movie twice.” That should mean something! End rant.
I actually really enjoyed this book. But like another wildly popular Swedish novel, it seemed to fall a bit flat to me – I had a difficult time getting into it, not for lack of narrative, but it seemed that something may have been lost in translation. Maybe it’s a cultural thing, I just sensed a distinct difference of emotions from the book to film. Not that it is an overly emotive piece to begin with, but it lacked all the color and vigor the film gave to it.
The director of our film production crew loves to say “don’t tell me, show me” and that’s just what this film does – using minimal dialogue and subtle musical cues to demonstrate, not narrate, the story to the audience. Stark visuals with poignant cinematography brilliantly capture Lindqvist’s characters and setting, while breathing a level of grim humanity into the story that is lacking in its pages. A seriously creepy but oddly heartwarming vampire tale, probably one of my favorites next to 30 Days of Night.
Forrest Gump
I’m not a smart man, but I know what love is. I kissed a hooker once.
The reason this movie is better than the book is largely due to the fact that they are almost entirely different. Go read it again and tell me Forrest wasn’t imagining things. Puts a distinctly different spin on the movie if he never actually did half of the things he imagined, like going on a NASA expedition with a chimp and being held captive by cannibals. What if these supposed experiences only served as a mentally challenged man’s coping mechanisms following traumatic events? Abandonment, bullying, rejection, death? And at the end a happy family venture with lovely Jenny and son by his side.
Most of the events referenced are easily traced back to historical photos or broadcasts – it wouldn’t be the first time a character sought to escape reality and live vicariously through television and current events. The movie took a completely different turn, much more realistic, highlighting only the historical events that were plausible for Gump to partake in. Not to mention the (at the time) cutting edge special effects used to intersperse Tom Hanks into actual news reel footage. The film’s representation presents a very possible outcome, and doesn’t pull its punches or question the reality of Gump’s experiences. In doing so, Zemeckis takes a head trip of a novel and focuses on the underlying moral themes, often tugging at the audience’s heart to make some very basic points in a profound manner.
Goodfellas (Wiseguy)
As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster. Or own a restaurant, whatever.
I love this movie for its realism and gritty treatment of the gangster lifestyle spanning several decades. It’s common knowledge that author Nicholas Pileggi basically left his recorder running while interviewing infamous New York City mobster Henry Hill, who liked to munch potato chips while discussing his capers, capturing incriminating evidence along with the charm that endeared him to friends and enemies alike. This film became iconic, through its imagery (can’t deny the Scorsese touch) and attention to detail. The setting, costuming, music choices – I still can’t hear the piano outro of ‘Layla’ without envisioning a guy hanging in a meat truck, or a couple of stiffs in a pink Cadillac.
While you could literally take pages from the book and follow along while watching the movie, DeNiro, Pesci and Liotta made this film (and of course we can’t forget Samuel L. as Stacks). Even though Pesci was physically the antithesis of the real-life Tommy DeSimone, his portrayal is legendary and copied by wannabe wiseguys looking for a laugh. Or a drink – ain’t that right, Spider?
So c’mon, let’s hear it – what are some of the films you actually enjoyed more than the book? Guilty pleasures are acceptable, although I’m not sure if there was a book for Harold and Kumar…
I guess tastes are what they are, but I’m politely astonished that you could find the movie version of The Hobbit less tedious than the book. Especially since I’m pretty sure that by the time the trilogy’s finished it’ll be faster for most people to just read the dang thing. But I would need a whole post to go into my frustrations with that movie (and that’s as a movie, not even as an adaptation).
When I wrote up one of these, one that I felt most strongly about was Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. The book is fun, the movie is spectacular.
David, please write that post about The Hobbit. It seems I wasn’t able to articulately describe my distaste for it in my review, and everyone crucified me for it. Would be curious to hear your in-depth thoughts.
Re: The Hobbit – faster to read than watch, yes (I was surprised that it was broken into three separate films) but less entertaining in my opinion. I obviously can’t speak for the adaptation overall until we’ve seen parts 2 & 3, but I enjoyed the first and plan on seeing the remainder. I can’t argue the same for the LOtR books vs. films, because I found those books at least equally entertaining. I didn’t hate the Hobbit, it was just “meh”.
I have to throw Sin City in there, at least ‘The Hard Goodbye’. Reading it was fun, but Mickey Rourke as Marv just made it so awesome. Not to mention the attention to detail, and that the graphic novel is literally a story board version of the movie. So good. So very very good.
Two that jump to mind for me are Big Fish and High Fidelity.
Big Fish as a book is just a bunch of vignettes about the narrator’s father and really to me had no real narrative occurring. I thought the film did a great job of stringing together these stories through the theme of a son reconnecting with his father before his father’s death.
I love Nick Hornby, but I thought the High Fidelity was so much better than the book mainly due performances of the cast. John Cusack is so perfect as Rob I can’t even imagine anyone else when I reread the book. That and Jack Black as Barry (still my favorite Jack Black role, followed closely by Bernie and School of Rock).
totally forgot about high fidelity. . . but there are a few big scenes missing from the movie, mainly the ladies record collection.
also, didn’t know big fish was a novel, and i agree, loved the movie.
Fight Club the movie better than the book? I have to disagree. Performances, direction, and cinematography were all good in Fight Club, and it’s hard to say that these weren’t improvements to the book, but the entire point of the book is pretty much lost in the film, because it’s drowning in so much style. I like both the movie and the book, but the movie I felt held a mixed message that said one thing yet showed something completely different (I’ve never found David Fincher, as much as I like him and his use of digital cameras like Red One, to really “get” the point of a lot of his films – case in point The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo which he simplified to “a movie about two women with a history of abuse, one helping the other” which I felt was a slight part of a much bigger picture). Still, good article and agree with most everything else! Except the Hobbit. Liked the movie despite it’s length, but I don’t think the book is dull (but I have read it much more recently than when I was 14 – also, reread The Great Gatsby because it’ much better when you are older, and it’s only like 100 pages for Christs sake).
Joy, I was so happy to see Fight Club and Let the Right One In on this list. Those movies are definitely in my all-time top 5, and although I sincerely enjoyed both books, the visual style and sheer genius of the performances isn’t something you can get from a book.
Let the Right One In, in particular, is a movie that I’ll campaign for until the end of time. It’s so, so good in so many ways. I wanted to write a post about it but I was afraid it would be either “JUST GO SEE IT” or 14,000 words ranting about how good the cinematography was and the genius of the ‘hemophilia of rejection’ and blasting the DVD version of the subtitles that totally butcher the nuance of the dialogue and how you absolutely have to make sure you’re watching the right version of the subtitles.
Anyway. As to your question, Fear and Loathing is one that pops up for me. Much like Fight Club, Thompson’s writing style is distinctive, stylized, and dark. A good book to be sure, but again like Fight Club, Depp’s performance and the bombastic style of the movie outshines it.
[sputters] You…..you, an avid reader (and exceptional writer), found The Hobbit to be too verbose? You must be trolling. LOTR was verbose, but The Hobbit was written as a children’s story. Loved the film and will gleefully kick those who disagree in the balls, but better than the book is a slight stretch.
I actually had a fight club at my work. Had to pass on it as the point of the film was hardly the fighting. What you said about LTROI was spot on. I question the literacy of any person who avoids subtitles. I do tend to avoid novels that are translated from other languages, though. I feel like too much of an author’s creative style can’t be properly duplicated in translation so the writing often comes off as wooden to me.
@Jake – I’ll take another look at Gatsby (its on my shelf somewhere) but its one of those “left such a bad taste in my mouth I didn’t punish myself with seconds” books. Length doesn’t much matter – I read The Caine Mutiny around the same time and loved it – just personal taste I guess. 🙂
@Indy – Fear and Loathing! Can’t believe I missed that one.
@Nick – I promise I’m not trolling! You are right in that the first part felt more “childish”, and I hope we have something to sink our teeth into with the next two. I just wasn’t as entertained reading the novel as I was watching the film. Regarding translations from foreign books, this is why I had such a hard time getting into Dragon Tattoo – they just seemed… I don’t know, is “sputtery” a word? Definitely something lost in translation there.
The Shining and A Clockwork Orange, because Stanley Fuckin Kubrick.
I haven’t actually seen The Hobbit yet, but as tedious as the book was, I can’t imagine it NOT being better/more entertaining. Then again, as much as I love literature, I can’t seem to enjoy Tolkein no matter how hard I try.
Interestingly enough, David, The Goblet of Fire is when I stopped watching the Harry Potter movies. I thought they ruined it completely.
I hated reading The Great Gatsby in high school, but then when we discussed it in class it completely changed my opinion (good teacher I guess!).
I list it as my favorite book these days. Rich girls don’t marry poor boys.
I agree with you so much on Great Gatsby. In fact I think a good article would be required reading books from school that made you want to burn the fucking book. Gatsby, A Separate Piece, and The Scarlet Letter all come to mind.
Good article though. Only thing I don’t agree on was The Hobbit. I actually couldn’t get into either the book or the movie. For me the one movie that was better than the book was The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. I enjoyed the movie. Didn’t love it, but enjoyed the performances of pretty much the entire cast. Whereas I HATED the book. And I read the book first too. I didn’t even want to see it but a girl I liked wanted to go see it and in the interest of my genitals, I went to see it and had a good time… both during and after the movie.
@Seth – haven’t read the shining, but i’ve devoured A clockwork orange, and I think both are great, and I have to distinguish between the two because they both offer different experiences. The language in the book which takes time getting used to is so much more pervasive in the book and builds a better vision into the teenage lifestyle of Burgess world. The movie however, gives you the visual stimulation of the visceral nature of those kids.
Great article – thanks!