Books, films, chalk and cheese

Movies better than the books that spawned them is the title of an article at SignOn San Diego, which I picked up via Books, Inq., who in turn picked it up from Dave Lull (who, as Books, Inq.'s blogger, Frank Wilson, once wrote, is probably single-handedly responsible for maintaining the Internet).

But, back to the plot. Here's the list, with my comments in brackets: The Graduate (film good, can't recall if I've read book, no wish to now); The Birds (film and book (a longish short story, in fact) about the same -- good suspense build-up, disappointing end); Shane (book great, a massive early influence on me, not seen film but I know that people acting opposite Alan Ladd had to stand in a trench); Babe (managed to avoid both, thankfully and amazingly, given ages of film and my children); The Godfather (liked the book, found the film bloated and boring); Wizard of Oz (disagree, book (read as a child) was far better than the film);  To Have and Have Not (quite liked the book, can't remember if I've seen the film); From Russia with Love (both are good if light, but different. If I had to choose, I'd say book was better); Carrie (tough one, both excellent of their genre, though too cruel for me in both cases); The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming (avoided both, I am thankful based on the title).

Jeff in Frank's comments suggests The Natural -- I quite liked the film (well, the Robert Redford bits at least), I may well have read the book but it didn't leave an impression. I've thought of a lot of films I've seen of books I've read, and I can't think of any examples of films I've liked better--- though some have been impressively different and hence distinctive in their own way. I am sure there are some, though, so will leave this post here to see if any float into my mind in future. (Children of Men by P D James is one possibility -- but it is so long ago that I read the book that I need to read it again to remember it.)

If I can think of any examples, I will log them in the comments. Of course, I can think of lots of books that I found better than films made of them, but that isn't the point.

Comments

[Maxine]

Just after posting, I though of Farenheit 451 -- I think I may have enjoyed the film more than the story -- Julie Christie was in the film which is always an advantage. I seem to recall the film changed the ending, or at least, provided more information to the viewer than the book did to the reader.

[Clare D]

Have you seen Longitude, Maxine? I thought that was better than the book.

This is an interesting one. I'm sure there are lots I can't think of just now.

[Susan Balée]

"Brokeback Mountain" was an excellent short story (Proulx's prose is just magnificent), but the movie actually did improve on it. Something that was left unanswered -- in a nagging way -- in the story was resolved in the movie. Ang Lee's genius, no doubt.

[Peter]

"Election," the movie -- a sharp and enjoyable comedy (Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick starred.

"Election," the novel by Tom Perrotta -- a dreary, self-conscious, freshman-level workshop exercise, at least for the chapter or so I managed to read.
===================
Detectives Beyond Borders
"Because Murder Is More Fun Away From Home"
http://detectivesbeyondborders.blogspot.com/

I think the Harry Potter films are better than the books, a lot of the bloat that crept in from about book three gets trimmed, which is a good thing. No spoilers please, as I haven't actually read 6 or 7; I decided that everything I need from the series I can get from the the films.

I couldn't disagree more on the Harry Potter comment.
I saw a DVD of a movie based on a Tom Perotta book-- Little Children or similar title, starring Kate Winslett. Good production values, but dreadful movie: boring, self-indulgent characters, and so on. I understand book is very well regarded but this movie (which I saw without realising it was based on a book) does not make me any keener to try him than your comment on Election, Peter!
Longitude, have not seen the film, but I hear it is very good so Clare is probably right.
I read Brokeback Mountain but could not bring myself to use up 2 hours watch the film as I didn't enjoy the book (short story) that much -- at least it was quick to read.
I am not doing very well at this challenge, am I?

[Clare D]

I have to admit was a bit disappointed with Brokeback Mountain (film) - maybe because it had been hyped up so much - but I loved the film version of SHIPPING NEWS so much I'm not sure I can bring myself to read the book in case I'm disappointed.

Also wondering if GONE WITH THE WIND (the film)is better than the book - anyone read this? I know the film is dated and a bit cliched but I think it does have a certain exuberance, I think.

[Isabella]

Definitely the Children of Men film is superior to the book, but with the differences in characters and focus, it's apples and oranges.

Bladerunner.

I'm almost finished reading La Moustache (Emmanuel Carrere), which movie I saw last year and I think was better -- a well-acted glance is worth pages of words running round in circles.

[Susan Balée]

Disagree about "The Children of Men" -- I loved the novel (well, 3/4s of it -- it had a weak ending, as if PDJ had grown tired of her tale and just wanted to finish it off), but I felt the film only emphasized one aspect of it. Nowhere near enough about the weird set of "lastborns" that made James' novel so fascinating.

But if you've only seen the movie -- like my husband and son -- you'd find it an interesting premise, well executed.

[Henry Gee]

Maxine - I fervently disagree about Wizard of Oz. However crummy the film is, the book is infinitely worse. Dreary, wooden, didactic and deus-ex-mechanical, Baum's self-conscious attempt at a 'modern' fairy tale shows how good the old-fashioned ones are. 'The Lion, The Witch and the Wombat', on the other hand, is about on a par with the book. True, the film replaces a monochrome wodge of simpering Christian apologia with one in full color, but Tilda Swinton sets it right back with a portrayal of Jadis that's about as scary as a slightly pissed-off nursery-school teacher. Yesterday, my kids (9 and 7) were watching Narnia on DVD, and got fed up half way through and demanded the Fellowship of the Ring instead, on the grounds that Cate Blanchett would have been a much scarier Jadis. Hooray for the triumph of the good sense of children.

[Henry Gee]

Just had a thought. It is invidious to say that any Jane Austen film adaptation could surpass the books, and that's certainly true of the many film and TV adaptations (though in my opinion that the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice was a steaming pile of shite, such that I could hardly stay the urge to smack Jennifer Ehle in her stupid fat face whenever it appeared, I seem to be in a minority of one, preferring the thrawn and gritty Keira Knightly film instead). I would point to the film Clueless, which is Emma set in modern Beverly Hills, as the very best Austen adaptations that there has ever been.

As a child, I found the film of Wizard of Oz boring and slow -- musicals weren't ever my thing -- but I liked the book and all the follow-ups, which I remember getting out of the library. I liked the alternative worlds they portrayed.
I liked the Keria P&P too! But they had to cut too much out, if it could have been as long as the version you hate, Henry (a TV series) I am sure it would have benefited.
I quite liked the L,W & W film, but have to say I preferred the book. But, yes, LOTR, c'est magnifique!

[evanna11]

The Harry Potter films are SCREWED UP in comparison with the books, on their own, they are quite good. Mostly, I think that if you read the book of something first, and then see the film, you will think it is not good because everyone's imagination is different.
The film of Eragon was very different too. Too different. LotR was quite good though..