Edward Copeland's Tangents

My well feels a little dry on this topic,the mediums are so diffrent, but I'll try to run on a bit during my lunch.
 

I think James Agee argued somewhere that the film of Steinbeck's novel "The Grapes of Wrath" was better than the book. Don't remember his reasons, but when I think of the movie, and those compositions (the crispest on film) I want to agree. And what is it with directors and eyepatches anyway? Is it some kind of advantage when framing things in two dimensions? More advantageous than a beard and ballcap, I'd say.

Elsewhere, I recall John Updike talking about his reaction to the Rabbit movie (which I haven't seen) and how he was struck by the way the set-makers really expanded and filled in the details of Rabbit and Janice's apartment, from what he'd written on the page. I'm struck by the way Updike vividly realized said apartment, without adjectives, simple by knocking two nouns together: a closet door and a tv set. But that could be another topic, Theories for Effective Mimesis, maybe.

I still like to see attempts at great classics, though I'm usually disappointed. Still waiting for a good try at that master Homer, because he reads so intensively cinematic. It cries out for it.

A few years back I liked that "Count of Monte Cristo" movie, the one with Guy Pearce. The screenwriters made some big changes, but they were all improvements. The kind that made me slap my forehead and say "Of course, that's so obvious, why didn't Dumas think of that?"

Thrillers seem particularly well suited for adaptation. Here I want to recommend a pet. Though different from the book, THE IPCRESS FILE is great. Anybody who has affection for the early Bond films will love this one. We get all the same producers, editors, art directors, John Barry score as Bond, but here they try a spy film with a different tone. I'm still searching in vain for the dvd (with Sydney J. Furie commentary). I know it existed at one time, but I can't find it now. It's a real gem, I tell ya.

Finally, I was amused some time ago while reading Don Quixote with some passages of slapstick. Imagine Cervantes describing over two or three pages and in laborious and minute detail a 3 Stooges eye-poking, nose-tweaking, slap-fest. It was as if the need and desire for this kind of comedy has always existed, but the most appropriate medium for it had yet to be invented. Or how in Warner Bros. cartoons, the gags one might think were invented because only animated cartoons could do them, really had already been tried live-action by the silent comedians. Was it Norman O. Brown who said "nothing ever happens a first time"?
 

I've only seen bits of "Rabbit, Run" but it was before I read the book. I forgot to mention "The Witches of Eastwick" -- where the book and the movie are almost two entirely different creatures. I also forgot to mention "To Kill a Mockingbird," which I read first for English class and then saw the movie. I thought that was fairly solid adaptation.
 

Like you, I watch more than I read; but I usually prefer the book. Maybe it's because the film goes by too quick. With books, I can pace myself.

Most of the adaptations I like are based on "not-so-classic" books and are changed by the filmmaker (like lots of Hitchcock's stuff).

I also don't really like "faithful" adaptations. Like dave said, the media are so different that taking something from a book and putting it on film as is weakens it, in my mind. Films like Sin City ("it looks just like the comic book, so it's great!") do nothing for me. If a good adaptation is a faithful adaptation is a transposing to film, then I can adapt Picasso's Guernica pretty easily. Somehow, I don't think the result would make a good film.

Then again, the most "faithful" adaptation I've seen is probably Huston's The Maltese Falcon; and I liked it. However, when I read the book a few years later, all I could see is Bogart.

I'll also never read The Lord of the Rings in my own way again. Thanks a lot Peter Jackson!

:P
 

Not picturing someone in a role is difficult if you read something after you see the film. I had an interesting experince with John Updike. Once, I listened to one of his novels on tape, which he recorded himself. Ever since, I literally hear his voice when I read his books.
 

I can't say one is better than the other but I adore the book and movie of "To Kill a Mockingbird" equally... if I reread the book I immediately want to rewatch the movie, and if I see the movie I'll revsit the book. Neither ever disappoints.

It used to be that when a movie was being made out of a famous book that I hadn't read I'd rush to read the book before seeing the movie. Now I purposely don't do that unless I can give about a six month window between the two mediums. Otherwise the movie doesn't have a chance. Last time I made this mistake was with "The Talented Mr. Ripley..." reviews of the movie all referenced Highsmith's novel until I decided the book was what I really wanted to read... so I did, and then couldn't resist running out to see Damon, Paltrow, Law, etc. in those roles. I had trouble enjoying it all, although it was perfectly well-made and acted... Mingella's tone was just so different than the chilly Highsmith book. Which is fine... I think a director has to tell the story his own way... but with the novel fresh in my mind the movie didn't stand a chance.

I will say, at the risk of being flamed... I just cannot get through those damn Lord of the Rings books. I really have tried. But I love the movies.
 

Yes the LOTR books are long and difficult to get through at times, but I adore both versions of the story. This may perhaps be because I watched (though I wasn't really paying attention) the movie first. However, I read the entire series (from Hobbit to Silmarrillion) before I watched it again, and have read the trilogy 14 times since, as well as memorized the movies.

Personally, I think Jackson did us a great service by making the movies, as now the themes, lessons and charcters can reach a wider audience.

The same is true of Victor Hugo's Les Miserables. I would much rather see the play again before picking up the book though.
 

I just wanted to say that Cujo is one of King's most beautifully written books. I'll admit that the plot gets a little weak toward the last third, but I've always heard that's because he ran into trouble with cocaine. Either way, some of the prose in the first and middle third nearly brought me to tears while eating lunch at a Jack-in-the-Box. It was one of the moments in my life where I thought I should never attempt writing fiction, I just can't do it that well.

But as for your movie-vs.-book theme: I think two excellent examples are V for Vendetta and Watchmen. V for Vendetta shows exactly how it should be done (it sticks to the themes and the ideas of the book), and Watchmen shows how it should not be done (it sticks to the details).
 

I read "The Manchurian Candidate" years after seeing the movie-which I have watched often-and was amazed at how closely the wonderful movie follows the very good book. There is a bit of back story left out of the movie, particularly about mother and step-father, but the essentials are all there.
Bob Rittner