Rather than hijack the thread on dumping books – from that thread:
Some readers and reviewers have noticed a similarity between Dickens and Stephen King. I haven’t read enough Dickens to be able to compare them, except to say I think both writers are wordy and create interesting secondary characters. They’re also apt to go into long asides that don’t advance the plot. Dickens is a bit more subtle when interjecting his personal philosophy and politics.
But if it’s true that they’re similar, why do film adaptations of Dickens’ work turn out so much better than King’s? (Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that they are better.)
Is it because we’re not as familiar with Dickens, so we don’t notice when a film maker strays from the story? Or do the film makers stick to the story, and that’s what makes the difference? What do you think?
I guess this could apply to other “classic” writers whose books have been filmed – Trollope, the Brontes, hell, Faulkner, Hemingway, etc. Do directors have more reverence for that material, so they leave it alone?
It’s the accents. Us Americans are suckers for anything with a British accent.
Plus Stephen King’s source material actually for the most part sucks. Silk purse, sow’s ear. Even the material that doesn’t suck (which is the short stories because they’re goddamn short) when they get turned into movies suck because there isn’t enough material to fill an entire 90-minute movie from a 25-page short story.
Well, actually even Dickens’ novels tend to get treated a little (not much!) loosely in film, more so in recent times than in the past. I think today’s directors simply feel they are entitled to jigger around the source material, because no one cares (mostly because no one READS any more).
I think Dickens is easier to translate simply because melodrama (with spices of humor and social commentary) are much easier to relate on the screen than supernatural elements derived from description-heavy prose (especially when such supernatural elements are often are more effective when you see them in the mind’s eye rather than being obliged to show a too-literal version onscreen). The biggest challenege with Dickens is that his books are often so long, that many story strands, secondary plot threads, and supporting characters are gutted of all impact, or ignored altogether.
I would dispute that there are that many more quality Dickens film adaptations (I’m not counting TV miniseries, with which I’m largely unfamiliar). There are quite a few respectable, staid, “faithful” Masterpiece Theater-style adaptations, but the only ones I can think of that are genuinely good movies are Lean’s Great Expectations, Cukor’s David Copperfield, and the Alistair Sim Christmas Carol. Most others that come to mind are fine, but not particularly notable except for some memorable characterizations (usually by Alec Guinness).
Certainly, I think Cronenberg’s Dead Zone, De Palma’s Carrie, and Kubrick’s The Shining are even matches to the three I listed above. What happens, though, is there are a lot more genuinely bad King adaptations (sometimes by King himself), so on a weighted scale, they may not compare. But pitting the best vs. the best, I think it’s a close race.
True, but I don’t think Guinness or Olivier (or Jude Law) could have saved Tommyknockers.
But he (in spirit) had to be happy with the Alistair Sim version. That’s my favorite. IMDB lists the title as Scrooge, for some reason. Are they wrong? I’ve seen the movie several times and don’t recall the title as Scrooge.
Try telling that to Peter Jackson.
ArchiveGuy, that’s a good point, about supernatural elements in movies. The best King adaptations have been the non-supernatural ones, IMHO.
I haven’t seen the Lean or Cukor films you mentioned (off to Netflix). You’re right about Dickens. I checked IMDB – more than 20 Christmas Carols, and only one that’s really memorable.
Thanks for the input, everyone. My thesis has no legs after all.
I beg to differ! Besides the 1951 Alastair Sim version, the 1962 Mister Magoo’s Christmas Carol, with songs by Jule Styne and Bob Merrill (Hello Dolly!) was a favorite television special in the 1960s. And I personally think the musical Scrooge (1970), with Albert Finney, is the definitive movie version, never topped. Sorry, Sim fans!
I’m not at all sure they are better, once you throw out A Christmas Carol. Now that work is wonderfully suited for film adaptation, for a number of reasons. (e.g. It’s short by Dickens standards; the basic plot structure is a classic, and the details can be easily and creatively varied while keeping the framework the same; the story has a clear and obvious message).
But most of Dickens’ novels, I think, would work better as a TV series (mini or otherwise) than as a single movie, because of their length, and their number of secondary characters and subplots and diversions and the fact that they were orignally released and read in serial installments.
The Green Mile was a movie with Tom Hanks. Damn good one, too, but not a miniseries.
Several of King’s works have made damn good movies (Carrie, The Stand (with Jack Nicholson), The Shamshank Redemption, Misery, and Stand by Me come to mind. Unfotunately, most people remember the other ones.
Probably because Dickens mostly wrote about outer torment and King’s best stuff is inner torment? I mean, I’m no expertitude on literamation, but Dickens’ big thing was society and class structure, yes?
How does that compare to, say, The Shining, arguably one of King’s best books, or The Dead Zone, or Carrie? Most of King’s books take place inside the head of one or more of his characters. In many of his books, though there is an external monster — say, Christine or Salem’s Lot — the books are often about the fear and fascination of the monster rather than the actual fight scenes.
Strip away all that inner conflict, which as booker readamators we have come to expect, and what’s left to see and hear on a screen?
