I had the opportunity to take a class in college called “Novels in Film” where we had to read a novel, watch the corresponding film, then compare the two. It was a great course!
I was wondering what the underlings in this Cafe might choose as the best Film that came directly from a Novel. As always, please give the rationale behind your choice.
I will nominate “The Color Purple” because it stayed close to the story in the novel, was wonderfuly acted and directed, and had such a powerful message.
Apocalypse Now, because instead of simply filming selected scenes from the book, it took the themes and tried to get them across in a genuinely cinematic way. It doesn’t always work but such ambition is worth applauding.
For a more traditional filming, I would choose David Lean’s Great Expectations. It reduced the story to a filmable length by cutting out all the subplots, and the remaining story is brilliantly done.
I would agree with you that The Color Purple stayed faithful to the novel, but I would not agree that this was a good thing.
Blade Runner. They had to make some major changes and omissions to make the movie, but they did an incredible job of portraying a realistic, complete future world (the OP didn’t say pick the best realization of a novel, it said pick the best movie based on a novel…).
I’m probably going to catch some flack for this, but I really think <i>Interview with the Vampire</i> was translated into film quite well. It probably doesn’t hurt that Anne Rice wrote the script herself.
I studied the differences between the two in a grade 11 media class, and came to the conclusion that although there is a lot missing in the movie, the story itself does not suffer, and the feeling of the book is portrayed effectively through the wonderful visual treats. Something like that.
I’m probably going to catch some flack for this, but I really think Interview with the Vampire was translated into film quite well. It probably doesn’t hurt that Anne Rice wrote the script herself.
I studied the differences between the two in a grade 11 media class, and came to the conclusion that although there is a lot missing in the movie, the story itself does not suffer, and the feeling of the book is portrayed effectively through the wonderful visual treats. Something like that.
I’ve always felt that Steven King’s non-horror stories have translated very well onto the big screen. In fact, a lot of people don’t even realize that Stand By Me was based on King’s “The Body” and that The Shawshank Redemption was based on King’s “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.”
Oh I disagree about Garp, spoke! I think it missed the whole point! But then, it’s been a while and I can’t remember specifics. But I do agree with you about Last of the Mohicans. In fact, I think the movie surpasses it! The books are nearly unreadable in my opinion.
My nominations for excellent films based on excellent novels – Sophie’s Choice. It’s a complicated novel with several stories going on at once. The movie captures them all and provides us with believable compelling, powerful performances.
In line with godzillatemple, I also suggest a Stephen King book, The Green Mile. I loved the books and felt the movie was simply awesome. I only recently saw it and read the books some time ago, but the mood of the movie was wonderful! Kind and quirky and mysterious and wonderful.
Yet another is A Simple Plan. I saw the movie first, and thought it captured the horrible feeling of dread perfectly. The book was one of the most nerve-wracking experiences I’ve ever had!
Intruder in the Dust is not a better book. It is an overwrought and overrated book. To Kill a Mockingbird accomplishes more without Faulkner’s masturbatory verbosity.
IMHO.
I haven’t seen the film version of Intruder in the Dust, so I can’t comment on the film’s quality in comparison to TKAM, except to note the general consensus (with which I happen to agree) that To Kill a Mockingbird is one of the greatest films of all time. Don’t see Intruder on too many “greatest films” lists.
Reasonable minds may differ, I suppose.
So what? How does timing matter in deciding the best movie-from-novel?
Ellen, I agree that Last of the Mohicans is a great improvement on the novel. I don’t follow you on the Garp comment though. How does the film miss the point? (Hmm. Maybe I missed the point, too?)
Midnight Cowboy, but I will agree that The Color Purple was also well done. Also The Great Santini.
Rationale: Midnight Cowboy was a hell of a movie, with an ending that actually worked much better in the film than in the book. There may have been a little '60s excess . . . probably was, I haven’t watched it in years. But Jon Voigt looked like Joe Buck, and Dustin Hoffman looked like Ratso, and the New York demimonde was perfect. It’s a movie; it’s gotta look right.
I unfortunately saw Santini before I read it, so I may have read that movie into the book.
The Harry Potter movies also seem well done with regard to everyone looking just like I’d envisioned them. Except Prof. McGonigle.
I won’t get into a style debate because I’ll be the first to admit that Faulkner’s an acquired taste, but I will argue that while Lee paints a largely black & white world (the good people are really good, the bad people are really bad), Faulkner makes all his characters much more complex and not so easily pigeonholed into hero/villain categories. Plus his style is harder to adapt effectively, which makes any successful effort that much more noteworthy.
Well, most of these lists that mention TKaM aren’t critic’s lists, but public opinion polls (notably the AFI series), and it’s no surprise a widely-seen movie ranks high on such lists when movies that aren’t as easy to find commonly get overlooked. Heck, Forrest Gump made the AFI list, but not Sunrise or The General. Mockingbird is also a better-known property because it’s more widely-read (and a more accessible read); you’ll very rarely find Faulkner in Freshman High School English classes. I suspect most people who love TKaM haven’t even seen Dust.
But the film’s strengths are similiar to the book’s: it’s an exploration of characters that are nuanced and unpredictable, whereas TKaM paints everything in easy-to-read banner headlines (Racism Is Bad). Dust is a more challenging, less sentimental film, so it’s also one people are less likely to embrace.
Well, it takes the same essential story scenario and delivers a message that’s not only timely, but ahead-of-its-time. TKaM’s cozy racial platitudes were fairly comfortable to take in the early 60s; Dust has a much tougher story to sell, and it did so at a time when films about racial injustice were both rare and often wishy-washy. A film as uncompromising as Dust is often the type of film that gets lost to history.
Now I’m not saying TKaM’s a bad movie; it hosts some great performances and captures smalltown life seen from a child’s POV quite acutely. But, IMHO, it’s hugely overrated–a classic example of the liberal Hollywood establishment patting itself on the back for being “important” and “progressive” in making a relatively safe movie with a comfortable message (while the real “progressive” film came and went with little fanfare much earlier).
To Kill a Mockingbird:Intruder in the Dust as Philadelphia:Longtime Companion or Gentleman’s Agreement:Crossfire
I would have to say for me it would be The Last Temptation of Christ based on Nikos Kazantzakis’ novel of the same name.
I thought Martin Scorsese did a great job staying true to the book. I thought everything about the movie was almost flawless including the acting (the accents didn’t bother me) and the excellent score by Peter Gabriel. I don’t think anyone could have made a better adaptation of the novel. The movie is indeed a masterpiece and one of my favorite films of all time.
