# Bonfire of the Vanities - is this some kind of goddamned joke? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 22, 2008, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224 "2008-05-22T10:07:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/1 "2008-05-22T10:07:08Z")
The film adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s _Bonfire of the Vanities_ is an unbelievable butchering of the novel. It’s not a terrible movie - in fact, it’s very entertaining - but it in no way is faithful to the book that it’s supposedly based upon. 1. The character of Peter Fallow is transformed from a Briton into an American. Therefore the entire nature of this character is swept away, because the Fallow in the book’s whole identity is based upon him being a pompous British faux-aristocratic blowhard who looks down on Americans and their supposedly crude ways, while hypocritically being an alcoholic, debauched, sleazy, weasely, dishonest cadger himself. The novel is filled with Fallow’s ridiculous adventures with his “British colony” in New York - a small but tight group of British celebrities and journalists who meet every night for drinks and talk endlessly about how much they hate America. The original character is hilarious because of this British identity and its implications for his outlook on life, and yet the movie turns him into a cocky American journalist (Bruce Willis) with none of the book’s characteristics. 2. Larry Kramer is the second most important character in the book, and yet he is relegated to being practically an extra in the film. His whole downtrodden-civil-servant attitude and his constant desire to make up for his financial and career insecurity by being an arrogant, macho asshole, his whole situation with his affair with one of the jurors and his attempts to impress her, not to mention the entire dynamic between him (a Jew) and his Irish-American partner and all the cultural differences that Kramer, in his inner monologues, goes over time and again in the book - this is all a huge part of the novel, and yet it was totally left out of the movie. Also, he was played by a guy who looked like an average schlub, yet the whole identity of his character in the book was based around him being a big, physically-imposing brute. What the hell? 3. The tensions between the Reverend Bacon and the Episcopal Diocese - a small part of the book, but an important one because it highlighted big differences between urban black Christianity and upper-class white Christianity - totally absent from the movie. 4. Most importantly - the judge (Myron Kovitzky in the book, something generic in the movie) is transformed from a small but extremely aggressive and acerbic old Jewish man, into a fatherly figure played by Morgan Freeman who radically changes the whole ending of the movie from the one in the book: Instead of allowing the trial to turn into a chaotic circus which eventually erupts into a riot which the defendant and his lawyers actually have to physically _flee_, as happens in the book, the judge acquits Sherman McCoy of manslaughter and it’s all a big happy ending and the rich white asshole gets off the hook and everyone learns a valuable lesson about the inadequacy of the legal system…or something. The cynicism and pessimism of the book is wiped away and sanitized. The good thing about the movie is that Tom Hanks did do a great job of portraying Sherman McCoy. He fit the character perfectly. Melanie Griffith actually wasn’t bad either, although her character in the book is brunette and not blonde. This movie should be remade! Oh, just as an aside - I would love to see Wolfe’s other novel _A Man In Full_ adapted for the screen. I think Jon Voight would play an absolutely amazing Charlie Croker, Jake Gyllenhaal could be Conrad Hensley, and James Spader would be perfect as Ray Peepgass. ---
**Author:** ![Svejk\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@Svejk\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Svejk_1)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/2 "2008-05-22T10:16:56Z")
that’s a damn shame. Also, you need to change the \ in the end-spoiler tag into a /. on topic, you talk about the cynicism and pessimism. If I recall correctly, in the book Sherman McCoy changes from some financial bastard into an idealistic civil rights fighter . A similar character change occurs in the other novel by Wolfe that I read, the one you mentioned, A Man in Full. At the time, I thought that was hopelessly unrealistic and romantic and I didn’t really like it, but at any rate I reckoned it wasn’t really pessimistic. Did I misread it, or do other people share this interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/3 "2008-05-22T11:24:38Z")
I apologize for the botched spoiler. From the above: in the book Sherman McCoy changes from some financial bastard into an idealistic civil rights fighter . Not really. More like: He’s resigned himself to his fate as (in his words) a “professional defendant” and gives up his high-rolling lifestyle (not voluntarily, as Charlie Croker did in _A Man In Full,_ but because he’s forced to out of mounting legal fees and other financial problems. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/4 "2008-05-22T11:25:51Z")
The book [The Devil’s Candy](http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Candy-Bonfire-Vanities-Hollywood/dp/0385308248) is an inside look into the production of Bonfires and highlights why the many choices were made which ultimately lead the movie to flop. It’s worth checking out if you want an insider’s view on why it turned out the way it did. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/5 "2008-05-22T13:21:12Z")
> [@](#): > > Bonfire of the Vanities - is this some kind of goddamned joke? > > * * * > > The film adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s Bonfire of the Vanities is an unbelievable butchering of the novel. It’s not a terrible movie - in fact, it’s very entertaining - but it in no way is faithful to the book that it’s supposedly based upon. Substitute “Robert Heinlein’s _Starship Troopers_” in there and the statement would be absolutely identical, but some folks on this Board think otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/6 "2008-05-22T13:28:12Z")
[QUOTE=Argent Towers] The film adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s _Bonfire of the Vanities_ is an unbelievable butchering of the novel. It’s not a terrible movie - in fact, it’s very entertaining - but it in no way is faithful to the book that it’s supposedly based upon. [/QUOTE] _Bonfire_ strikes me as a type of story that can be great as a book but rarely works as a movie. The whole thing is very ironic and and many of the main characters are caricatures or deliberate stereotypes. I’d say _Catch-22_ is similar, although I liked that book a great deal and wasn’t as impressed by _Bonfire of the Vanities_ - so I haven’t seen the movie and probably wouldn’t see a remake either. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/7 "2008-05-22T14:43:05Z")
[QUOTE=Shalmanese] The book [The Devil’s Candy](http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Candy-Bonfire-Vanities-Hollywood/dp/0385308248) is an inside look into the production of Bonfires and highlights why the many choices were made which ultimately lead the movie to flop. It’s worth checking out if you want an insider’s view on why it turned out the way it did. [/QUOTE] Beat me to it. You must, _but must_, read this book. It’s one of the clearest views of a failed book-to-film adaptation ever written. Unprecedented depth of access, plus remarkably unguarded commentary from the people involved, makes for an exceptional dissection of a catastrophe. Alternately hilarious and horrifying; probably one of the ten best How-Modern-Hollywood-Works books available. Highly, highly recommended. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/8 "2008-05-22T14:56:40Z")
[QUOTE=Argent Towers] The good thing about the movie is that Tom Hanks did do a great job of portraying Sherman McCoy. He fit the character perfectly. [/QUOTE] Ya think?! That casting was one of the worst things about the movie. Hanks just couldn’t pull off the role of a snobbish Yalie Old-American preppie-yuppie Master of the Universe. He doesn’t even **talk** like one of that class (compare and contrast with Kim Cattrall, playing his wife, who does). He’s not even right physically; Sherman McCoy is blond and square-jawed, and not by accident. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/9 "2008-05-22T15:14:09Z")
> [@](#): > > Hanks just couldn’t pull off the role of a snobbish Yalie Old-American preppie-yuppie Master of the Universe. He doesn’t even talk like one of that class (compare and contrast with Kim Cattrall, playing his wife, who does). I think Hanks did a good job of portraying an upper-class twit in _Volunteers_. ---
**Author:** ![AskNott](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asknott/32/5790_2.png) [@AskNott](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AskNott)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/10 "2008-05-22T15:54:15Z")
Maybe I should be shocked and appalled that a movie changed a lot of things from its source novel. Actually, I’d be very surprised to find a novel-based movie that followed the book to any recognizable degree. There are a few, but the ones that butcher the novel are the norm. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/11 "2008-05-22T17:30:52Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Ya think?! That casting was one of the worst things about the movie. Hanks just couldn’t pull off the role of a snobbish Yalie Old-American preppie-yuppie Master of the Universe. He doesn’t even **talk** like one of that class (compare and contrast with Kim Cattrall, playing his wife, who does). He’s not even right physically; Sherman McCoy is blond and square-jawed, and not by accident. [/QUOTE] OK, this is true, and I did at first think that Hanks was ill-suited to the role. I thought someone like William Hurt or Jeff Bridges would have been better physically - a tall, blond, upper-class looking guy with a big chin and a big ego. But as I kept watching, he really grew on me. He might not have had the right accent or the physical presence that the character in the book does, but I still think he made the character seem real and he played the “rich asshole” really well. Something like this is much less troubling to me than a British character being turned into an American, for example. But you’re right that it’s not very consistent with the book. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/12 "2008-05-22T17:45:08Z")
> [@](#): > > There are a few, but the ones that butcher the novel are the norm. In my experience, they dojn’t usually butcher the book too badly except for two genres – Science Fiction/Fantasy and Spy Thrillers. In those cases, it’s remarkable to find books that haven’t been significantly mangled. I’m still utterly amazed that Lord of the Rings came out as close as it did. What makes **Bonfire of the Vanities** amazing is that it wasn’t either of these genres, and was apparently eipc in its botching. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/13 "2008-05-22T19:01:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe I should be shocked and appalled that a movie changed a lot of things from its source novel. Actually, I’d be very surprised to find a novel-based movie that followed the book to any recognizable degree. There are a few, but the ones that butcher the novel are the norm. A filmmaker has to be able to separate out the parts of the book that are central from the stuff that’s just support. As long as you retain the central core, you can make major changes with the surrounding stuff. You can move the story from Congo in the 1890s to Vietnam in the 1960s and still have _Heart of Darkness_. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/14 "2008-05-22T19:32:52Z")
After over 20 years I still think “Death New York Style” is the fiction chapter I have had the greatest pleasure of reading. It was such a hoot. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/15 "2008-05-22T21:45:51Z")
[QUOTE=Little Nemo] I think Hanks did a good job of portraying an upper-class twit in _Volunteers_. [/QUOTE] Yes, and that’s what makes his disappointing performance in _BOTV_ so puzzling. Maybe he worked it out early on that he had gotten roped into a shit project and might as well phone it in. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/16 "2008-05-22T21:48:33Z")
[QUOTE=CalMeacham] In my experience, they dojn’t usually butcher the book too badly except for two genres – Science Fiction/Fantasy and Spy Thrillers. [/QUOTE] Sometimes the classics. Remember _The Scarlet Letter_ with Demi Moore? :rolleyes: [quote=] JohnT After over 20 years I still think “Death New York Style” is the fiction chapter I have had the greatest pleasure of reading. It was such a hoot. [/quote] My fave was where the British author (“He’s on the short list for the Nobel Prize and he has AIDS”) gave an uppercrust gathering his own take on Poe’s “Masque of the Red Death.” Of course, the film did nothing worth saving with either. ---
**Author:** ![NDP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ndp/32/55_2.png) [@NDP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NDP)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2008, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/17 "2008-05-22T21:53:37Z")
[QUOTE=Marley23] _Bonfire_ strikes me as a type of story that can be great as a book but rarely works as a movie. The whole thing is very ironic and and many of the main characters are caricatures or deliberate stereotypes. I’d say _Catch-22_ is similar, although I liked that book a great deal and wasn’t as impressed by _Bonfire of the Vanities_ - so I haven’t seen the movie and probably wouldn’t see a remake either. [/QUOTE] I disagree with that assessment. I think with the right director (e.g., Robert Altman or Sidney Lumet) it could’ve worked. Unfortunately, they hired Brian De Palma to do it thereby committing the first and biggest mistake related to this misbegotten project. Also, the trouble with adapting “Catch 22” for the screen is that there’s too much good stuff in the book. The 1970 film version was nearly 2 and 1/2 hours long and even that felt like a “Cliffs’ Notes” version of it. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/18 "2008-05-23T02:49:31Z")
I loved how Melanie Griffith decided to get a tit job in the middle of filming the frickin’ movie. It caused some continuity problems. Go figure. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2008, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bonfire-of-the-vanities-is-this-some-kind-of-goddamned-joke/450224/19 "2008-05-23T04:53:25Z")
My blood still boils when I think of what Hollywood did to my favourite horror novel, _Ghost Story_ by Peter Straub. Wonderful casting (especially the Chowder Society) was thrown away by completely changing the entity at the core of the tale.