From print to screen: The best film adaptations of novels
As someone who works with words for a living, I am often baffled and perplexed by the way Hollywood adapts books for the screen. Sometimes this bewilderment is for the good. In those cases, I am amazed at the skill a screenwriter shows in preserving the architecture of a novel while simplifying it into a two-hour (or so) play.
On other occasions, however, I am disappointed that the person doing the adaptation seems to change, add or delete characters, scenes, plot lines, even entire themes.
Recently I had occasion to watch "The Woman in Black," directed by James Watkins and starring Daniel Radcliffe in his first post-Harry Potter role.
It is, in my opinion, a fine film. It is scary in the old-fashioned way with a pervasive sense of gloom settling around it. The setting of Eel Marsh House is the scariest I can remember in any movie, and the set direction is first-rate. The finale does not betray the film's tone by tacking on a happy ending. It is a satisfying, if downbeat, experience.
The film is based on a 1983 novel by Susan Hill. Following the viewing, I tracked down the book and read it. What I discovered speaks to the skill of both the novelist and the person who did the adaptation. The film and the novel maintain a similar tone but are as different in the details as is possible.
I enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed the book. But they had remarkably different paths of getting from point A to point B.
This reminded me of "The Shining." This is a terrifying book by Stephen King that was adapted by Stanley Kubrick into a very different but still very scary film. Which one is better? In that case, who cares? I prefer the book and its slow build. Kubrick's film has its own rewards, however. When both pieces are memorable, the viewer/listener can make a choice as to which is scarier. Kubrick was after something different than King.
The worst adaptation that I can remember is Brian De Palma's "The Bonfire of the Vanities." It totally screwed up Tom Wolfe's satire of the fast life in New York in the 1980s in every way. Another awful adaptation was the 2002 version of "The Time Machine." I loved the 1960 version as a youngster and I love the H.G. Wells novel, but the 2002 version, which was directed by Simon Wells, the great-grandson of the author, pretty much trashed the book and went its own way. Going its own way is not the problem, of course. The problem is that the film created something different and, I thought, inferior.
But there are also plenty of times good books have been well adapted:
"The World According to Garp" by John Irving. We are all terminal cases in the world of T.S. Garp. Fortunately, George Roy Hill's 1982 film pretty much captured the quirky essence of Irving.
"Catch-22" by Joseph Heller. Many considered it unfilmable, but in 1970 (in the midst of the Vietnam War), Mike Nichols assembled an outstanding cast to produce this anti-war farce. The book remains priceless, but the film is how many people have met Yossarian over the years.
"Slaughterhouse Five" by Kurt Vonnegut. Here's another anti-war novel that had some truly fantastical elements. Once again it was George Roy Hill who brought the characters of Billy Pilgrim and Montana Wildhack to the screen.
Are there books that you cherish that have been well adapted for the screen? Any that have been ruined? Do you enjoy comparing a novel and the film adaptation?
Share your opinions with us.
Follow Shawn Sensiba on Twitter @shawnsensiba.
Aug 4, 2012 at 9:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hunger Games... book is very deep and nuanced, movie was just about winning a game.
Aug 4, 2012 at 12:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Fight Club." The movie was much better than the book, even according to Chuck Palahniuk: "Now that I see the movie, especially when I sat down with Jim Uhls and record a commentary track for the DVD, I was sort of embarrassed of the book, because the movie had streamlined the plot and made it so much more effective and made connections that I had never thought to make."
.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/interviews/chuck_...
Aug 2, 2012 at 9:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
The original In Cold Blood movie was a good rendition.
Aug 2, 2012 at 12:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
I also agree that "Starship Troopers" was an abomination. I thought the movie adaptations of Tom Clancy's "Patriot Games" and "Executive Orders" were good, but the 'neo-nazi' cop-out of "The Sum of All Fears" ruined that movie.
Aug 1, 2012 at 11:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Goodfellas. It's almost to a T.
Aug 1, 2012 at 9:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
I haven't seen Green Mile but now I'm going to do so. All good picks- Gome With The Wind, Shawshank, To Kill....
Aug 1, 2012 at 9:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Loved the semi-recent film adaptation of "In Cold Blood." Adaptation of "The Maltese Falcon" is pretty sweet too.
Aug 1, 2012 at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Northman: just an fyi. Steve McQueen was actually a crazy nut on a motorcycle. It wasn't an act unless the producers stopped him. (personal knowledge)
Aug 1, 2012 at 5:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
Northman: Agreed. Worst ever was Starship Troopers. RAH spinning, agreed. Well, Starwars with sound effects is a close second.
Aug 1, 2012 at 4:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Help, Where the Heart Is, Misery, Shawshank
Aug 1, 2012 at 3:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ray Bradbury's "Something Wicked This Way Comes" the film captures the innocence of a small town carnival AND the darkness of our inner desires.
Another is "The Illustrated Man".
Aug 1, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree on the selections of Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile and To Kill a Mocking Bird and some others. I'm also a fan of Dr. Zhivago,as well as the work done by those who created the "Potter" franchise. An older film with a great cast that did well by the book was Seven Days in May.
Aug 1, 2012 at 3:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
I thought the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy was probably as close as you can get to the original Tolkien, they were both excellent.
“The Great Escape” hit the highlights but added in some fluff, like McQueen’s motorcycle chase which was exciting but total fiction.
“M*A*S*H” just cherry-picked from the book, and lost a lot in the process.
“The Omega Man” (based on “I Am Legend”) was equally as good as, but very different from the book.
“Starship Troopers” . . . oh, gaakkkk. Heinlein was probably spinning like a top in his grave.
Any Bond movie: I’ve only read a couple of the books, but they don’t seem to have much in common the movies outside of the titles.
Aug 1, 2012 at 2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'd have to say The Green Mile was the best book & movie combination for me. The movie was so similar to the book in almost every way. Tears flowed half way through the movie and never stopped. I thought that having read the book, I would be prepared for the movie, not so, the movie was so well done it was 10 times worse than the book.
Aug 1, 2012 at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'd have to say The Green Mile was the best book & movie combination for me. The movie was so similar to the book in almost every way. Tears flowed half way through the movie and never stopped. I thought that having read the book, I would be prepared for the movie, not so, the movie to so well done it was 10 times worse than the book.
Aug 1, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
I agree with DonnaW, if I really like a book I usually won't go to see the movie. After watching the classic Wizard of Oz year after year, I couldn't believe how different the book was when I finally read it to my kids.
Aug 1, 2012 at 1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
As great as the book and the movie are, both versions of To Kill a Mockingbird suffer from their failure to anticipate and deal with the complexity of modern day racial problems.
Because they are different art forms, almost all book-based movies are inferior to their books.
Aug 1, 2012 at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gone with the Wind, book and movie were both very good. The Shining, Cujo, Christine, even It, were good books and movies. My two most recent disappointments are The DaVinci Code and Water for Elephants. Both books were excellent, but the movies not so great. Tom Hanks in the Code was just wrong...same as Robert Pattinson in Water for Elephants.
Aug 1, 2012 at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
To Kill a Mockingbird - great book, great movie
Aug 1, 2012 at 11:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Porky's.
Aug 1, 2012 at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
I normally won't see the film adaptation of a favorite book as so often it is a big disappointment. I agree with analert about The Help being a better movie than the book. The Swedish film version of Girl With The Dragon Tattoo was a good adaptation of the book. I haven't seen the American one yet. Watched The Gifted Hands with Cuban Gooding last night. Followed the book to a tee...good movie!
Aug 1, 2012 at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
The film adaptation of James O'Barr's The Crow failed, in my opinion, to really capture the mood of the book. It is a good movie, as long as you don't compare it to the source material. The book is much richer, the reader truly feels the depth of the sorrow and misery of most of the characters.
I agree with your comments about The Shining. Both the movie and the book are excellent, but only independent of one another.
Aug 1, 2012 at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Many of Stephen Kings: Misery, Stand By Me, Silver Bullet and The Shining. Gone With The Wind is a great book, but the movie was really wonderful to see.
Aug 1, 2012 at 8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
"The Shawshank Redemption"
Aug 1, 2012 at 8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
I thought the movie, The Help, outdid the book. Beautifully adapted.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.