Hayes wrote: "...and who could ever replace Gregory Peck?"

I just realized I never came back here and relayed how the To Kill A Mockingbird play performance went! Matthew Modine was no Gregory Peck of course - but I thought he did a very good job. The actor playing Jem took the most getting used to. The set was very creatively done - I am always so fascinated how they pull those off so seamlessly. Overall I enjoyed experiencing the story again on a cold winter afternoon. It showed me that Lee's story is so powerful, regardless of the medium. It also showed just how awesome the actors in the movie truly were.

Al wrote: "Molly:
That is very true about To Kill a Mockingbird. Not to be a pessimist, but I'd say that will have to be one heck of a production you are going to this weekend to stand up to either the book or movie."

...and who could ever replace Gregory Peck?

Ruth wrote: "Do you think that if we read the book before seeing the movie, that we unconsciously fill in the emotional/psychological framework that the movie just hasn't time to develop, and therefore think the movie is better than it actually is?


Ruth, I think this is an exellent question - and I'm surprised that no one has addressed it yet!

For myself, if I read the book immediately before seeing the movie, I find that I do use my knowledge of the book to fill in the gaps subconciously, so I don't notice them.

This does bother me, so I've recently reversed the process - if a movie comes out that is based on a book that I haven't read, I will watch the movie first, then read the book afterwards. That way it's easier for me to identify where the two diverged ( and I'm viewing the movie with a clean slate, no preconceived notions).

Two movies I've seen recently that I am definitely going to read the books: Revolutionary Road and Slumdog Millionaire (which I didn't even know was based on a book until I saw the end credits).

(PS edit: Also, this way I'm not disappointed by the movie if the book is better ... because I have no preconceived notions.)

I just remember going to see The Count of Monte Cristo (my favorite book) in the theater. My husband thought he was going to have to physically haul me out of there, I was getting so upset watching them destroy this classic.

I don't mind when they have to cut characters or scenes for movies, it's pretty much a given. But when they add stuff that was never in the book to begin with and completely change the whole meaning of the book, that's when I lose it.

Lara Amber

Here's an interesting addition to the debate from The Guardian which has a fairly interesting (if rambling) view of the issue by Salman Rushdie, "A Fine Pickle". He has a wonderful metaphore for the adaptation process:

In my novel Midnight's Children the narrator Saleem discusses the making of pickles as this sort of adaptive process: "I reconcile myself," he says, "to the inevitable distortions of the pickling process. To pickle is to give immortality, after all: fish, vegetables, fruit hang embalmed in spice-and-vinegar; a certain alteration, a slight intensification of taste, is a small matter, surely? The art is to change the flavour in degree, but not in kind; and above all (in my thirty jars and a jar) to give it shape and form - that is to say, meaning."

That has me champing at the bit to start reading Midnight's Children.

And here's a hilarious comment on Benjamin Button:

Perhaps the best known example of another Button-style reversal is the character of the wizard Merlyn in TH White's 1938 classic The Sword in the Stone, itself the subject of a Disneyfied adaptation over which it would be best to draw a veil. Merlyn, the teacher of the boy known as Wart, the future King Arthur, lives backwards in time, and thus has the great advantage of knowing the future while being confused about the past. Benjamin Button has no such luck. He's old and robotic, but as ignorant as any new-born babe. On the other hand, he grows into Brad Pitt, so things are not all bad.

He also mentions a number of successful novel-screen adaptations (as well as a number of less successful ones). The successful ones include:
-- The Age of Innocence (Martin Scorsese)
-- The Leopard (Luchino Visconti)
-- Wise Blood (John Huston)
-- The Dead (John Huston)
-- Great Expectations (David Lean)
-- The Saragossa Manuscript (Wojciech Has)
-- Pather Panchali / "The Song of the Little Road" (Satyajit Ray)
-- The Tin Drum (Volker Schlöndorff)
-- Le Mépris / "Contempt" (Jean Luc Godard)
-- Que la Bête Meurt / "The Beast Must Die" (Claude Chabrol)
-- The Story of O (Eric Rohmer)
-- Jules et Jim (François Truffaut)
-- Yojimbo (Akira Kurosawa)
-- Sanjuro (Akira Kurosawa)
-- Rashomon (Akira Kurosawa)

I'm not sure I've seen the movie of The Old Man and the Sea. Spencer Tracy movie, yes?

On the other hand, I love Spencer Tracy and am not a big fan of the novel, so this might indeed be an instance where I would prefer the movie.

Yep, I think these are great examples of movies surpassing the books...not that I expect them to or think they should...but it does happen!

People love stories...and there is always some sourpuss out there who gets to write an article about how the end of the world is coming...who knew the sign of the apocalypse was novels being turned into movies, the sky is falling!

And to reach back in time a bit, I think a strong argument can be made that the film version of The Old Man and The Sea by Hemingway was better in almost every way than the original book.

To Kill a Mockingbird is definitely at the top of my list of movie adaptations of novels where I actually prefer the movie. Not that I don't really like the book - but the casting and direction were superb, and Gregory Peck!

If I had read Gunter Grass's The Tin Drum before I saw the movie I probably wouldn't have stuck with it. It's a very difficult read. The movie was one of the best I've seen, and gave me a framework on which to hang my understanding of the novel.

That said, I was sadly disappointed in Out of Africa. I've read the book numerous times, it's one of my all time favorite books, and also the biography of Karen Von Blixen. Out of Africa caught the beauty of the place wonderfully, but I think it didn't capture the love/condescension relationship of Von Blixen with the natives. And Robert Redford was just not believable as the dashing, sophisticated Denys Finch-Hatton.

I remember liking To Kill a Mockingbird a lot. But since it's been years and years and years since I either read the book or saw the movie, I can't say if I enjoyed one more than the otheer.

Oh totally Molly...the movie version completely slammed the novel. And it was especially the resolved ending. I was so impressed by that. I think you're right about Grishams endings!

I did like movie version of The Firm - the ending was better in the movie. I always feel like Grisham exhausts himself writing his books and then gets tired and gets lazy with his endings. The movies of his books have all been good thrillers.

I am absolutely fascinated by novels being made into movies. It's a compulsion and a kind of hobby with me to examine them and watch them.

The reverse has two novels off the top of my head...2001 and The Third Man were both written after the movies.

I think there are many many examples of good novels that made for less than interesting movies.

Having said that, I disagree with the Slate writer.

I haven't seen Revolutionary Road. I read the novel many years ago and that was enough stress for me, thank you very much. I think the novel is brilliant. And if I go by Willing Davidson she says The movie replaces character with plot, and the result lands with a wet flop. It tells the story of Revolutionary Road and makes us see how thin the plot is: Self-identified creative souls must escape suburbia; maybe Paris would be nice; pregnancy is an unwelcome surprise. With the constant emphasis on what happens next, the audience is reduced to being spectators of fights and sex, dreams and dissolution.

That is exactly how I would describe the novel.

So...as far as I can tell, the movie must have been sucessful on some level...because that is exactly why I won't live through the plot/story/marriage again.

:)

But...it's moot because this article is focused on Revolutionary Road's adaptation. My impression from clips is that it is very true to the novel.

I also thought The Reader was a very good movie and faithful to the book and moved from one format to the other.

As I said, I am fascinated with the writing and adaptation process. And actually...there is are two examples of movies that part of their charm and power is they incorporate the difficulties and challenges of changing formats with a narrative arc.

The French Lieutenants Woman and Adaptation (The Orchid Thief are both interesting movies in the way they chose to adapt a novel to movie...and the problems of such.

Both movies seem to come to the understanding that changing formats is not impossible but demonstrate how surrendering to the power of archetype characters and story arc is something both beloved movies and novels actually have in common. I think with the above two movies they are a good example of "inventive adaptation".

I think writers who adapt novels need to rely on more visual language to move a story forward. Some movies have been very successful at finding solutions to adaptations.

I agree with Wilhelmina regardng the mini-series in general and the BBC Production of Pride and Prejudice I also own the dvd and watch it ...er...once a year (it's embarassing but at least I know I'm not the only one heh heh).

I thought Bridehead Revisited was excellent as was The Stand and Lonesome Dove

But I could probably write a huge list of movies that I found as stimulating and excited and beloved as the novels...


Contact
Naked Lunch
Adaptation/The Orchid Thief
The Razors Edge
Garp
Hotel New Hampshire
Heart of Darkness/Apocalypse Now
Moby Dick (I am one of the few people who loves the Gregory peck version...LOVE it!)
Tarzan/Planet of the Apes (which I own all of them on dvd...easy to forget that these are ultimately a rehash and brilliant response to Tarzan)
The Firm (a movie that was much better than the novel)
Interview With A Vampire
Wings of the Dove
Age of Innocence
Catch-22
Ravenous/Blood Meridian
No Country For Old Men
To Kill A Mockingbird
About Schmidt
Aladin
O, Brother Where Art Thou
The Outsiders
Just Like Heaven (I preferred this over the novel "If Only It Were True")
Bridget Jones Diary
Merry Christmas Mr Lawrence
The Devil Wears Prada
Ragtime
The Verdict
Birdy
Out of Africa
Dances With Wolves
Die Hard
Born on the Foruth of July
The Getaway


actually...I could probably write a on and on of movies that I think were fantastic novels/books and then transferred/adapted to film.

I think the article is negative bs. Another cranky person on the internet who wants to sound like a Seinfeld character heh heh...I don't know why but there is a huge trend, especially on the internet that if you sound really like you hate something...it makes you sound thoughtful or intelligent. I'm looking forward to the pendulum swinging the other way and these bloody critics out there start writing with positive enthusiasm instead of trying to be like George or Elaine...I call this "the Seinfeld Syndrome" of art and literary (of which film is under the canopy) criticism. For me, so many of these posturings sound as if people have actually immersed themselves in the whole body of work out there. A couple of bad adaptations to the screen doesn't mean all adaptations fail. The lack of range exhibited in references in the Slate article shows me how superficial this point of view on the writer seems. I think it's a shoddy article and not well developed.

The only example I can think of a movie I liked better than the book was Into the Wild. I did see the movie first, liked it a lot and decided to read the book afterwards. The book then just did not add anything for me.

Mostly I seem to read books first though, and feel overall disappointed when I see the movies. I wonder if I had read Into the Wild before seeing the movie would had change my perception of the movie. I don’t know.

Al wrote: "Molly:
That is very true about To Kill a Mockingbird. Not to be a pessimist, but I'd say tha..."

I will be sure to let you know how it turns out!

Molly:
That is very true about To Kill a Mockingbird. Not to be a pessimist, but I'd say that will have to be one heck of a production you are going to this weekend to stand up to either the book or movie.

The only movie I have ever seen that I thought was as good as the book it was created from was To Kill a Mockingbird. I am going to see the play this weekend and am curious to see if it holds up to the book.

That was the definitive version of "P&P" for me, Al. The casting was great and they took enough time to develop the characters well. I own it and have watched it many times.

On the other hand, I still don't think that anyone has gotten "Jane Eyre" completely right.

the pride & prejudice miniseries that ran on A&E (orginally on the BBC i think) was pretty great - even after reading the excellent book

I don't like to see movies made from books I have really enjoyed. Maybe I'm afraid it will spoil the memory of the book for me. Or something. The exception is probably those lavish, full-costumed affairs like Gone with the wind. Tightly written, literary novels usually don't make good movies unless something more is added or played up. I did watch "Pride & Prejudice" on PBS & liked the book much better.

I thought The Reader was very true to the book, perhaps more than most recent books to movies.

Ruth:

Great question. I think a lot depends on how soon after reading the book you see the movie (or vice-versa) has a huge impact. But most of all, I think a great book is a great book and sometimes a movie is just a movie (and vice-versa).

Last year when CR read The Age of Innocence it was my first time reading it. I had seen the movie probably 15 years ago or so and had liked it, but the book still blew me away.

A few years ago, I read Little Children and was not all that impressed, but soon after saw the movie and was much more impressed.

I waited years to see Gone With the Wind - I read it one summer in my 20s and was rewarded with its reappearance in theaters that fall/winter. I loved both.

I'm trying to think of more examples but am drawing blanks. I'd be curious to hear other people's experiences.

I think it just emphasizes the point that a book is way more than its plot. Especially a literary novel, where there is usually such care lavished on character development. Movies just don't have time to do that.

Do you think that if we read the book before seeing the movie, that we unconsciously fill in the emotional/psychological framework that the movie just hasn't time to develop, and therefore think the movie is better than it actually is?

I found it funny that his complaint is in part that films stay too close to the plot which I could interpret to staying too close to the book. Usually my complaint would be they don't stay close enough to the book -- I'm not sure if I mean that as plot but I don't think it isusually the foremost thing I'm thinking of when I say that. Interesting. The opposition of plotline to the underlying spirit of a published work raises some interesting points I would think.

Prime example; Corelli's Mandolin...phenomenal book, horrible movie.

Thanks for the link, Ruth.

Interesting article from Slate.

http://www.slate.com/id/2211410/pagenum/...