Moby-Dick or, The Whale
discussion
Did you see the movie before you read the book?
date
newest »
newest »
I enjoyed the book and the movie (which I saw first), but I enjoyed the movie a little bit more because of a few key scenes.The part of the finale in which Ahab "beckons" the crew to join him was really eerie and powerful. From what I remember, Ahab's death in the book, by comparison, seemed a little anticlimactic.
While I was a bit disappointed that they didn't include the scene in which Ishmael wakes to Queequeg snuggling up next to him, they made up for it for the scene in which Queequeg goes into his trance, but then breaks out of his trance to save Ishmael's life. I thought that was a wonderful scene that really seemed to speak to Queequeg's character. From what I remember of the book, Queequeg only broke his trance because he had some generic "unfinished business" to attend to.
But that's just my opinion. *shrugs*
I've never seen the movie! Thanks for the reminder that I need to put that on my to-do list.
I saw the movie with Gregory Peck when I was a child and finally finished reading The Whale in my forties.
no , i always try not to watch the movie before reading the book :p
Great book as are all Melville'sworks. I found all the great classics as a kid by reading Classics Illustrated comic books.Then naturally a trip to the library for the real McCoy. The only thing that turned me off was that lengthy boring chapter on the biological aspects of whale life. The Peck film was outstanding.The John Barrymore version "The Sea Beast"was interesting but strayed from the book.
I read the book first and than saw the Gregory Peck version of the movie. I read the book again years later as my children read it.
I recall I wasn't impressed with Peck's acting in the movie. He was particularly miscast as he is not good as a heavy.I would have cast George C. Scott, John Huston, Edgar J. Robinson or James Cagney in the role of Ahab. But Anthony Quinn would have beat them all.
I would have probably cast Frederick March.Its an odd film; mostly good except that the logistics were a nightmare to overcome. Most critics agree that Peck was appropriate casting except that he blundered in his interpretation of the role. He raged and thundered like a lunatic, when he should have brooded, scowled, and muttered. He should have saved the explosive outbursts for the very end. Even Peck himself admitted his mistake in this.
This sturm-und-drang was a tendency that goes back to his earliest performances. He was going to play Frank Savidge this way too, except for some fluke or some word-put-in- his-ear by Henry King, he chose restraint instead and by doing so, received an Oscar nom. Why he didn't follow the same advice for 'Ahab' is mysterious.
Anyway, for a great adaptation of a Melville tale, try the superb 'Billy Budd'. A flick that will make anyone's throat seize up.
And the ending leaves you hanging as to Budd's final words.
I'd forgotten this aspect. I know that as the noose comes down he says 'God bless Capn Vere!'. Is there another line from him? (view spoiler) Anyway, I sure love that movie. Great work by Ustinov, Robert Ryan, Stamp..
One of the things I'll always remember about the movie is that one of my favorite writers, Ray Bradbury was chosen by John Huston to do the screenplay. He wrote a story about it in his novel,"Green Shadows White Whale". I read that Peck was surprised to land the Ahab role, thinking that the director, John Huston, was perfect for the role. After all he already had an "Ahab" type voice. Huston actually thought of his father, Walter for the part, but he died at that time. I thought Gregory Peck was good in the part, but he was noted for being an intense, I don't want to say "hammy" actor. Another actor like Peck who could have carried it off was Richard Burton.
Interesting comments. Did Huston still have black hair when that movie was being cast?Peck: I myself would have said Peck was 'restrained' in his roles for most of his career; for example he was known for a trademark, characteristic 'scowl'. He liked to 'set his jaw' and keep it there. But, he had good movement of his eyes to show his emotions.
When he was hammy it wasn't comedic-ham (because he rarely played comedy); it was these instances (as with 'Ahab';) when he 'bellowed' and 'frothed'. But I would rather call that 'heavy-handed' or 'scenery-chewing' rather than hammy. Oh well. Whatever we call it..it is a bit awkward to watch, I agree. Example: he was over-the-top in 'Duel in the Sun' ...but perhaps he needed to be, to convince us of his character's villainy. Hard sell.
Another actor who learned to shed 'grandiose gestures' over time was Edward G. You should see Robinson in the 30s; just preposterous, almost vaudeville exaggeration. But in his later years he was very subtle and toned-down in his performances.
I didn't know there was a movie.
Ha! Really? What about, 'To Kill a Mockingbird'? There's a movie about that too. 'Of Mice and Men'? Ditto. 'East of Eden' has one, of course. Am I astounding you? :)
Feliks wrote: "I would have probably cast Frederick March.Its an odd film; mostly good except that the logistics were a nightmare to overcome. Most critics agree that Peck was appropriate casting except that he..."
I assume you mean the 1962 version and not any of the TV versions.
Yes, I certainly am referring to the Huston version. I know that British actor Patrick Stewart did a tv version, but ..its not quite the same thing..I like Patrick Stewart, but still. I'm not a TV viewer anymore really, so I never 'think' in terms of TV..Another interesting tv re-make though (one I heard about) was Charles Bronson taking the role of Wolf Larsen in Jack London's 'The Sea Wolf'.
But yeah a lot of people today forget how big March was in his day. He was an actor's actor; he could excel in just about any role. Romantic comedy, classics, dramas;..he could be violent and tough or mild and meek. Tall, dark hair, commanding features. He would have taken the Ahab role and ran away with it; unfortunately he just wasn't a box office draw anymore in 62. Not enough to compete with a guy like Peck.
Frank wrote: "One of the things I'll always remember about the movie is that one of my favorite writers, Ray Bradbury was chosen by John Huston to do the screenplay. He wrote a story about it in his novel,"Green..."Hunh, so John Huston was actually considered for the part? I didn't know that. I recall him in CHINATOWN and that was incredible acting from a director. That character was the most loathesome character in filmdom and I often fantasize about being Jack Nickolson's character and plugging Huston.
And yes, Burton would have been an excellent choice. I hadn't thought about him.
Feliks wrote: "Ha! Really? What about, 'To Kill a Mockingbird'? There's a movie about that too. 'Of Mice and Men'? Ditto. 'East of Eden' has one, of course. Am I astounding you? :)"I saw "To Kill a Mockingbird," heard of "Of Mice and Men" and completely forgot "East of Eden" was a book.
Can you even have "Moby Dick" without chapter-long digressions into cetacean anatomy, shipboard carpentry or the best way to forge a lance? Somehow I don't think all that stuff fits into the 2 hr film format.
'Moby Dick' would make an interesting 4 part miniseries--in that way only might every nuance of the action be captured. But you're right--it would be a very unusual format if someone could figure out how to combine documentary and drama in a film, the way Melville did in a book.
Feliks wrote: "'Moby Dick' would make an interesting 4 part miniseries--in that way only might every nuance of the action be captured. But you're right--it would be a very unusual format if someone could figure o..."If you turn it into a 4 part mini series, it would be terrible. The books is impossible to cover every nuance and make it good television. Moby-Dick; or, The Whale is too complex to cover in a in depth way. Look at what happened to Atlas Shrugged. Three movies and they are terrible.
The action in the story alone is enough for a decent mini-series. Any movie made of it so far, has cut out reams of action which Melville supplied. A mini-series could actually take some time to show some of the life aboard a whaler and some of the activities which--because they were not dramatic--have always been cut from production. Such a series would still have to naturally avoid the oceanographic material, but there is still a lot leftover in just the voyage of the ship to be compelling. A lot of unlikely, far-fetched premises are turned into smash tv shows these days. Many, which are a lot less promising than Moby Dick. If they can make a mini-series about warrior dwarves and dragons, if they can make series about zombies, or ancient Roman history, they can pretty much do anything.
Geoffrey, all this comes from Wikipedia, so I don't know how factual it is. United Artists wanted a "name" actor for Ahab. John Huston intended to cast his father, Walter, but he died prior to the preparations for the film. He would have been good in the role. Remember him as Lincoln, Dodsworth, the President in Gabriel Over the White House, Pol. Commissioner in Beast of the City, and of course the old codger in Treasure of the Sierra Madre? John Huston never thought of himself as Ahab.Peck said later that he thought John Huston would have made a better Ahab than he did. Peck also said he considered the mini series to be better as it was truer to the novel. The ship used as the Pequod was also used as the Hispanola in Treasure Island (I'm assuming the Robert Newton film). Incidentally I thought Moby Dick was the greatest movie I ever saw at the time. I was 11.
Very few folks these days have ever heard of 'Gabriel Over the White House'. That's a real obscure one for sure. Its the kind of story which wouldn't make sense today as its so Christian-oriented. I also remember one scene where Huston (as the pres) goes out into the street to shake hands and chat with a gaggle of random people going about their day. Unheard of in today's world.Very few folks these days have heard of Walter Huston, either for that matter. He had a long, long string of hit roles in his time. Huge star...I like how he seemed to change his appearance drastically for every role I ever saw him in.
I re-read this a few years back and it struck me that if this was re-filmed it would be good as a multi media experience.My 1st read was before the interweb was a thing and I was aware that the interludes were similar to me getting up and going to another book for clarification while reading another text. Since the web though I find I will pause a text and go on youtube or similar to get clarification. Problem with a heraldic animal or definition? Websearch. Problem with how a type of goat would look? Websearch. Wondering how a bear sounds in winter? etc
With a multimedia version of Moby Dick all the asides could be included this way.
Still prefer the book mind.
Feliks wrote: "The action in the story alone is enough for a decent mini-series. Any movie made of it so far, has cut out reams of action which Melville supplied. A mini-series could actually take some time to sh..."I agree with you that there is much made from little nowadays. Yet again, I point out much of it is not good. I assume you are referring to the Walking Dead, The Hobbit, and Spartacus as the series. The Walking Dead is based on a 20 year run comic book and there is plenty of material to draw from and it is a good show. The Hobbit is not very good when it was broken into three movies it is now bloated and does not work particularly well. Spartacus is very good, but it is not based on a book that I know unless it is a graphic novel.
Moby Dick has been done a few time as a multipart TV show with varying degrees of success. They just didn't make great TV. Maybe it was the choice for actor or the direction or any other of a thousand reasons that things do not work.
I think there are certain books that will not translate particularly well to the big or small screen. Of all of the versions I saw of Moby Dick, the 1956 movie was the best and that wasn't incredible either.
Papaphilly wrote: "Feliks wrote: "The action in the story alone is enough for a decent mini-series. Any movie made of it so far, has cut out reams of action which Melville supplied. A mini-series could actually take ..."I don't even like television; so I find myself in a odd position having to argue for it at all. But you can't disagree that we're in rather a second 'Golden Age of Television' thanks to cable (or perhaps digital media?), there's some kind of explosion of shows lately which people are raving about; going gaga over. Its a different ball game right now; successful shows abound. So I suggest that examples of 'what-failed-to-work' (in any previous year) do not now necessarily bode ill, they're not the dangerous shoals they once may have presented. Where there's money and willpower, these cable networks can break all precedent.
p.s. I was mentioning 'Game of Thrones' above..
Feliks wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Feliks wrote: "The action in the story alone is enough for a decent mini-series. Any movie made of it so far, has cut out reams of action which Melville supplied. A mini-series c..."I agree with that the TV age has entered a new high period. I also agree with that some shows may be pulled off now that didn't do so well in the past. I just think that Moby-Dick; or, The Whale is not one of them. It is an excellent book and a read everyone should enjoy. However, it is very complex with many different layers and I don't think it will be pulled off. Some books just don't translate the the big screen well. I have watched three different versions, two of which are mini series and they just don't work. There is something that is missing and a longer length is not going to fix the problem. The 1956 version is the best of the lot. Maybe because it focused on the hunt for the whale and left the rest out, thus simplifying the story. I wholeheartedly agree there is plenty to make a compelling narrative, but it hasn't happened. It may be like Don Quixote, another great novel that can't be made into good TV.
I do believe it is not a lack of willpower, but a seemingly impossible task.
We'll have to agree to disagree. Final word on the matter from me: Stanley Kubrick once said,"Anything that can be thought, can be filmed". Someday they'll even get 'Dune' done correctly. Just sayin'. :p
I actually saw the original black and white movie first and didn't like it at all in fact I don't like any of the movies out there but I love the book.
I grew up with the Gregory Peck film, which became one of my all-time favorites. Much later, I read the book and highly enjoyed it, whale facts included. :) The movie is in many ways quite different...Ahab especially (casting-wise, I would expect someone like Orson Welles in the role)...but it feels true to the spirit of the book and has some great cinematic details.
I loved the movie, and thought Peck was great in it (a little bit hammy, but that was his style). The movie like all films was "Hollywoodized" like all films, changes made by the producer & director. The screenwriter, Ray Bradbury no less, tried to remain faithful to the book. I read the book when I was about 12 after reading the Classics Illustrated comic. All in all it's one of my favorite books & movies.
E. wrote: "I didn't know there was a movie."Oh there is! In fact there is a film of virtually ever book (Hollywood is lazy that way). But while it is a good film read the book instead. If a writer wants a story to be a film they'd have written a screenplay wouldn't they? A book is about words; a film is all about the pictures. A good book is always better than a good film (the exception being "Trainspotting" and "Kes". The films were excellent; the books less so. And if I've just contradicted myself? Then I'm sorry.
I just finished reading the book last night. It has taken me roughly 2 months to read. Unfortunately my reading time consists only of my lunch break and some free nights if I have nothing else to do. It is so hard, i feel I would have gotten more from it if I could have spent more time and not reading a half hours worth at a time. I digress...
I really enjoyed the writing... i will admit the wordy chapters of his personal classification of whales and the workings of whales and the ship etc were rather boring at times but yet still filled with fascinating details. There was some language my dictionary had no help for that was a bit of a turn off. But all in all gripping story, especially the last 20%.
Previously the only knowledge I had was from school (however brief it was mentioned) some movie references and of course the Tom and Jerry cartoon adaptation.I have yet to see any of the movies but from the recommendations above, I can see that will have to be on my list. I did some researching halfway through my reading, on the internet of the history of Moby Dick, why he wrote it and when and the inspiration. I find the Essex to be extremely fascinating! I am excited for "In the Heart of the Sea" coming out this Friday in theaters. I was hoping to read that book first but that probably won't happen. I try to read the books first. Sometimes though if I see a movie and then read the books it gives me a face for the characters in my mind and i find it helpful. Otherwise if I read the book sometimes I am disappointed by the movie character and what I had envisioned.
Also, Claire I totally agree with you when you said: " From what I remember, Ahab's death in the book, by comparison, seemed a little anticlimactic."
His death in the book was very short and like an afterthought. Melville seemed to lead up to it so much and build it up to only give a very short sentence to it.
Reinhard, You are very correct. If Authors wanted it to be a film, they would write it more along a screenplay. Movies just can't fit enough of the details and 'marrow' of the story.
Just as a point of interest can anyone think of an example where the film was better than the book? My nomination in this catagory is: Trainspotting. the book I thought "so-so" (very messy and scrappy writing) but the film was not just visually gripping but made the characters live in the way they didn't (not for me anyway) in the book. Also (I've just remembered) On the Waterfront by Bud Schulberg. Any takers?
Reinhard wrote: "Just as a point of interest can anyone think of an example where the film was better than the book? My nomination in this catagory is: Trainspotting. the book I thought "so-so" (very messy and scra..."The closest I can come is The Eagle Has Landed. The ending to the movie was much better than the book. I will also put up 2001: A Space Odyssey and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? which was made into Blade Runner.
2001: A Space Odyssey may not be a fair comparison because the book was written based n the script, which was based on a short story. Never-the-less, the movie is by far better.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is a great novel, but the movie is something else entirely. I lay odds that Blade Runner may outlast the novel.
The question I ask: Does it matter if the movie is on a different focus than the book and does not show fidelity to the original story?
Papaphilly wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "Just as a point of interest can anyone think of an example where the film was better than the book? My nomination in this catagory is: Trainspotting. the book I thought "so-so" (ve..."I think it does. It can be a very useful exercise to read a book and then see the film of it and compare. And usually the film looses. I don't think films are very good at digging below the surface. In a novel the author can chew things over but how do you do that in a film? So often a director has to "pick 'n mix" like someone picking bits from a buffet. And also a film adaptation can ruin a book for you. When I read a book I create my own "film" in my head and the last thing I want is a complete stranger scribbling all over it with his own visual interpretation of the book. A good book is always better (nearly always anyway) than a good film of that book in my opinion.
Reinhard wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "Just as a point of interest can anyone think of an example where the film was better than the book? My nomination in this catagory is: Trainspotting. the book I ..."I agree with you. However, I think it is fair to point out that both mediums are very different with their own intrinsic value. I disagree with the idea that films cannot scratch below the surface. There are plenty of deep thought movies with lots of imagery.
I think much of the problem is much as you describe with a directors choices. Due to the nature of a movies length, it is impossible to work the depths as deep as books. But much of what I normally hear is that critics complain that the story is changed from the book. Moby Dick the movie cannot capture the many layers of the book or the social commentary of seamen. However it does a good job with the whale portion of the story and captures Ahab's obsession. Is it worth bothering on the fact that the non-whale portion is not covered. I suggest that more people have screen adaptations that read the book. Another movie is the wizard of OZ. How many do you think saw the movie and did not read the book? More importantly, how many do you think even know there is a different ending between the two? Does it even matter?
Let me ask you this, does it bother you when a book is developed from the script? Most are done to push a movie/ show. Can the novel be better then?
Papaphilly wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "Just as a point of interest can anyone think of an example where the film was better than the book? My nomination in this catagory is: Trainspot..."Films are aways doing that...changing the ending. In the book "On the Waterfront" the boxer (can't remember his name but I'm sure you know who I mean) ends up dead and floating down the Hudson river in a barrel but we all know that's not how it ended in the film. I saw the film before I read the book so you can just imagine how surprised I was! The problem with a film is that bits are left out that are left in the book and all you are left with is a empty shell of a story .It's a bit like reading a translation of a book to be told that "unfortunately the translation doesn't capture the humour or do justice to the subtly of the language of the original text. In order words, there's no point reading it unless you can read it in the original. I don't think film directors should be "allowed" to take such liberties with other people's work. It's like a critic saying, "I love it: but if you could change the beginning, the middle and the end it would be even better. And hey!...add some jokes and lets have a romanace in there as well. And a different title But apart from that...it's really great!"
Reinhard wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "Just as a point of interest can anyone think of an example where the film was better than the book? My nomination in this cat..."You make a great point about translations from other languages. My one friend learned Greek to read Euripides in the original language for the very reason you mention.
I have seen many books butchered by movies and it can be painful. However, it does not mean that the movie is not well made. Did you enjoy "On the Waterfront" until you read the book? I think that sometimes catching the essence is better that the literal translation from book to movie.
Much of the time, the movie will say based upon the novel/book... They are not literal. A great example is Soylent Green which is based upon Make Room! Make Room!. I watched the movie on its first run and did not read the book until many years later on a reprint. One does not have much to do with the other, but you can see the parts of the book in the movie. Gangs on New York is another great example. the movie is based on the book, but reordered to form a story line that did not exist in the book and the movie is excellent as well as the book. The movie made me want to read the book and that was a true gift to me.
Papaphilly wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Reinhard wrote: "Just as a point of interest can anyone think of an example where the film was better than the book? My nomin..."I first saw "On the Water front" when I was 14. I was at boarding school at the time and every Saturday night we had a film show (didn't want to go most of the time as it clashed with "Match of the Day" and those damn teachers always picked "arty-farty" films like "On the Water front which were not the kind of films I wanted to see but I did enjoy it but I wish they hadn't changed the ending (even though the ending was very striking and I have to admit it did work) But if I'd written the novel I think I'd be really gutted about it because my story has become his story.
Food for thought, the speech that Marlon Brando gives at the end of the movie was Elie Kazan's kissoff to his critics for testimony he gave before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) in 1952.
I enjoyed the book more, after seeing Gregory Peck and Richard Basehart and the other characters in the movie. The movie follows the book story very well.
Anyone else see the movie first and then read the book and enjoy the book?