Personally, I think Kubrick’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest was an amazing piece of art. It is in the aforementioned based on category, but purposely so. The book is written from the Indian’s point of view, Kubrick presented it to us from Jack’s. License, sure, but done very well. Same story, two totally different perspectives. Fantastic!
[Rant]On that note, I can’t hear the word Disney without falling to the floor in a teeth-gnashing, drooling, hate-filled fit of rage. Though there are several reasons for this, the main reason being their version of Hunchback. Their main character (of course a blonde Caucasian), their hero, is actually one of the most vile literary creations in history. He’s a rapist for Pete’s sake! There are more reasons to hate this guy, but I’d rather not ruin the book for anyone who hasn’t read it. [/Rant]
Two movies both ‘based on’ a book. The former works. It is art. The latter? A commercially driven piece of crap spread thin enough so the lowest common denominator wouldn’t choke on it when swallowing.
Thanks for listening!
Once in a while you can get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right…
Generally speaking, whether or not a movie can be made from a book depends upon the style of the author, rather than the skill of the screen writer. Certain literary styles seem to be custom built for the screen, and in that case require little, if any, adaption. The Maltese Falcon, for instance, is practically a word for word translation from the book. I believe there were two scenes in the book that were not in the movie, but other that they’re nearly identical.
Occasionally a movie will be adapted from a book and turn out to be good in spite of the seeming impossibility of translating the author’s style to the screen, such as the movie Trainspotting. When this happens it’s usually such a different product from the original that comparison is futile anyway.
Oh, and in reference to Mjollnir’s comments on 2001,(waaaaay up there at the top), Arthur C Clarke wrote the 2001 novel at the request of Stanley Kubrick, who had read his story “The Sentinel” and thought it might make a good movie if it was expanded a bit. The novel was then used to write the screen play for 2001. This is also why the succeeding novels were based upon the novel 2001, and not the short story, “the sentinel.”
I have to go with Zeb on Starship Troopers, the book is fantastic, it has a great deal of depth, raises interesting quesions and is not as pro-war as many people think, the movie however is bubble-gum for the mind. I am surprised no one has mentioned Bonfire of the Vanities, a first-rate book but a poor film. On the other hand I though Trainspotting was a good film, though when I went and read the book it was even better; in that case the film did not detract from the book at all.
[rant]
Right now I’m trying hard to not even watch trailers for The Cider House Rules, by far my favorite Irving…I saw about three seconds of it last night and realized they’ve cast Michael Caine as Dr. Larch. Michael Caine! So I’m sure it will be hideously miscast, on top of which it’s such a dense book, I can’t imagine how a movie version could do it justice.
What I find most frustrating about the whole book-to-movie scenario is the fact that once I’ve seen the movie, I can never reclaim my imagination’s virginity…I will forever unwillingly picture the actors chosen by some casting executive who probably has never read a book in his or her whole misearble life, and whose sole aim is ticket sales based on big names.
[/rant]
The only movie-from-book I’ve ever seen that was not only true to the book in terms of dialogue but also gloriously accurate in casting was the TV movie made of Brideshead Revisited. I think it was on PBS in the early 80s…I am a rabid Waugh fan and every single character was cast so perfectly, it makes my eyes water just thinking about it. Of course, when you’re not constrained to two hours or so, it can make all the difference.
Now that I think about this more I realize that any book-to-movie that stars Demi Moore or Michael Douglas (or, saints help us, both!) in leading roles is bound to fail egregiously.
And whose brilliant casting brainstorm was it to choose Michael Keaton as Batman? Could anyone get past the little cupid’s-bow mouth peeping out from under the serious, man-style chiseled black batsuit?
Thought I’d clarify what I ment by “vice-versa” in my OP. If you read the book before seeing the movie: did it do the book justice, OR, perhaps you saw the movie first and then read the book: which was better - the movie or the book. (Please pardon the punctuation, was never my strong suit.)
As some have mentioned: did you agree with the casting of the “characters” for the movie. For example: I read “The Green Mile” and thought it excellent. However, Tom Hanks as the lead - nope, doesn’t work for me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of Tom Hanks, but Forest Gump as a Prison warden? just doesn’t fit.
This was a good OP. As several posters said, often the movie is BETTER than the book. This usually happens when the book is pulp fiction and the movie is taken on by a competent production team. The best example I can think of is The Godfather. The book is a decent pedestrian family saga/thriller, but the movie and its sequel were works of art. The third part was not nearly as good. MASH is another example. Stephen King books turned into movies are only good when the movie production team is smarter than Stephen King (The Shining, Carrie, Stand By Me, The Shawshank Redemption).
On the other hand, if a great novel is turned into a movie, the movie is usually crap because the writer was smarter than the production team. Occasionally in the past you had great writers like Faulkner and Fitzgerald working in Hollywood, but I can’t remember any good movies Fitzgerald wrote and the only Faulkner adaptation that comes to mind is To Have and Have Not. And can you think of a good movie based on a great novel? Please don’t mention To Kill a Mockingbird. Or anything originally written by that hackster Dashiell Hammett. Or by Steinbeck.
If you want to take the time, rat around some old novella collections and see if you can find “Rear Window.” Hitchcock pretty much shot what you read (OK…he had to make one change, but it was a change you couldn’t well shoot around, and his twist was nice).
I’m beginning to think novellas must be about the right length for an hour and a half film.
I usually don’t like movies based on books, but there are a few exceptions. I really liked Interview w/ the Vampire- I’m not really a Tom Cruise fan, but he did an excellent job in the movie… I completely forgot that he was TC! Also, the movie had the same “feel” as the book (which I read before seeing the film). I think the second book in the series, The Vampire Lestat, would also make a good movie.
*eden: Now that I think about this more I realize that any book-to-movie that stars Demi Moore or Michael Douglas (or, saints help us, both!) in leading roles is bound to fail egregiously. *
Like “Disclosure”?
Let the Truth of Love be lighted/ Let the Love of Truth shine clear. Sensibility/ Armed with sense and liberty
With the Heart and Mind united in a single/ Perfect/ Sphere. - Rush
AWB: Yes, exactly like Disclosure. You’d never guess from that movie what a great book it is. Or any movie based on a Crichton novel, for that matter. They have to cut so much of the plot to make it fit the time slot, you end up with gaping logic holes that are really distracting.
MLAW: Sorry, I was just kidding about the OP title. It just seemed so apt when I think of movies made from books…although I guess most movies are made from pulp fiction. I just usually think of the great novels (or even bestsellers) when I think of book-to-movie fiascos.
Fight Club, which I thought was an incredible movie,is a terrible book. My wife read it after we saw the movie. The book is so “I did it all because my father didn’t love me enough” while the movie is more of a “madness inspired by the reduction of primal man to sterile cubicle life”
I’ve liked some of the Graham Greene film adaptions…“The Third Man”, “Our Man in Havana” and the currently playing “The End of the Affair.” I believe that the BBC produced a made-for-TV version of “The Tenth Man” some years ago starring Anthony Hopkins which is definitely worth a rental.
Reaching back a few days for that quote, I have to chime in that this is usually the reason I’ll end up hating the movie of a book I liked, and it happens all to often. Even as much as I like “The African Queen,” I’ll never forgive them for having the “Queen” bob up at the end. Giving “The Getaway” a happy ending probably had Jim Thompson spinning.
Every once and a while they’ll get it right, but often it seems to me that it has to be an original screenplay, a la American Beauty, to avoid the tacked-on happies.
