Actually, I Prefer the Film
It’s rare I go to the movies. Rarer still I head for theater the day a film releases. And yet, that’s just what I did last week when David Fincher’s adaptation of Gillian Flynn’s best-seller Gone Girl was released.
What did I think? Well, I liked the movie and found it to be an accomplished piece of cinema. (I’ll save for another blog my sense that the film’s portrayal of Amy and Nick Dunne, the protagonists, strays away from the equal partnership depicted in the book and instead veers into, ah, troubling territory.) I enjoyed the movie, yes. But I prefer the book.
This is almost always the case with me. I like the Harry Potter films; I love the books. Whether it’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Ella Enchanted, or Thank You for Smoking I’ll take the book almost every time. I’m a reader, so, duh. I like books.
There are, though, a few adaptations better than the books. Some of these are glaringly obvious: Casino Royale, The Sound of Music, The Graduate, and The Notebook. But many film adaptations aren’t as universally loved and it often comes down to what one prefers.
So, what lesser heralded adaptations do I think bested their written inspirations?
If you’ve never seen The Last of the Mohicans, you are missing out. I read Cooper’s novel in high school and have no interest in ever reading it again but the film, starring a “I haven’t yet won more than one Oscar but give me time” Daniel Day Lewis and a radiant Madeline Stowe is a visually walloping, heart-breaking work of art. I, and several other AAR staffers also prefer Sense and Sensibility (the one directed by the versatile Ang Lee in 1995) to Austen’s sisterly tale. Another British gem, Enigma, takes an dense sad book and turns it into a compelling story with a happier ending.
When I asked my co-workers to name films they preferred to their originating books, several mentioned Gone with the Wind. (I am always amazed to remember that Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind won the Pulitzer in 1937.) Also proffered were the Twilight movies, The English Patient, Forest Gump, Austenland, and (one of my favorite period pieces) A Room with a View.
None of the above film choices seem likely to elicit outrage. I do, however, have a few choices that many do not agree with.
I’d pick Atonement the movie over the book–I find the shocking last chapter far more palatable on film. The ideas and plot of Lord of the Rings are easier to follow and care about on the big screen. North and South the book I read once and am done, thank you. The BBC adaptation, I’ve watched four times since I discovered it–I’m a bit slow with TV things–last year. Thus far, the Hunger Games movies are kicking the books’ butt. Don’t get me wrong–I’m an admirer of Ms. Collins’s books, especially when read as a trilogy. But the movies, fueled by Jennifer Lawrence’s first-rate turn as the warrior woman Katniss, inspire me in a way the books don’t quite.
Producers never tire of drawing on books for their films and TV shows and that’s fine with me. As I said, I really like books. Currently I’m watching the transcendently gorgeous Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries. I love this show. And maybe, after I’ve gobbled up Season Two, I’ll seek out the books.
How about you? What movies do you like better than the books on which they are based?
The Dancer Upstairs – Nicholas Shakespeare
The Camomile lawn – Mary Wesley as well as several others by Ms Wesley
It occurs to me. Annemarie Selinko’s book, Desiree, was made into a movie in the 1950’s. The book was very good. The movie was a Hollywood type that tended to glamorize everything — not that that book didn’t glamorize but I would love, love to see a miniseries based on that novel. Could be really good.
Book:
http://www.amazon.com/D%C3%A9sir%C3%A9e-Bestselling-Story-Napoleons-First/dp/1402244029/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412902023&sr=1-1&keywords=Desiree
Movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046903/?ref_=nv_sr_2
I usually wait to read a book until after seeing the movie, because I almost always think the book is better. Exceptions are John Grisham books/movies; while a movie like “”The Firm”” isn’t a masterpiece, it was enjoyable suspense. The book, however, I found practically unreadable.
I usually prefer the books to the movies, even when they are amazingly well-done. Movies like The Lord of the Rings, the Hunger Games or Ender’s Game give you the kind of epic images that you can only try to imagine while reading the book. But knowing that, if the original book is very good, I usually prefer the book to the movie.
But when the book is not so great, a bestseller at best but nothing more, then, I usually prefer the movie, specially if it is shot by a director with a lot of talent. As somebody has already said, The Godfather or The Bridges of Madison County are movies with more quality than the books.
You can take a look at the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay list to see how many movies are based on books, dramas or other sources, and then you can imagine that the original books perhaps were not very interesting but they made great movies with that material.
Anyway, I’d like to mention some movies that I find that are examples of a movies more powerful than the original books – Silence of the Lambs, The Constant Gardener, Traffic, Dances with Wolves, Out of Africa…
I think I’d agree with all of your movie choices there. I think most of LeCarre’s work is improved by making it visual and that is especially true of The Constant Gardener.
I completely agree about the LOTR and the Notebook. while I loved the plot when I read LOTR I had to plod through the book because I didn’t care for the writing style.
I’d also like to add “”A Walk to Remember”” to the list, the movie is one of my favourites while the book was just okay (perhaps it’s me but I’v always felt that a good many of Nicholas Spark’s books come across better in film).
If we are considering animated then I prefer the Disney version of “”The Little Mermaid”” over the original story
I can’t believe I forgot “A Walk to Remember” (pun intended). Yes, yes, yes–film was far superior.
Bridget Jones’s Diary. The movie was tightly plotted and not afraid to be original; the book hewed slavishly to P&P and became a hot mess. It was utterly silly to think Darcy needed to rescue Bridget’s mom
Two romances which spring to mind are: The Time Traveler’s Wife and Somewhere in Time. Both books desperately needed an editor. The movies used only the best bits, while making changes that improved the stories. The difference is especially stark with Somewhere in Time. The novel is nearly intolerable, whereas the movie is a masterpiece. But the same author wrote the screenplay!
I respectfully disagree about The Time Traveler’s Wife. I thought the book was a knockout story with more heartbreak than I could almost handle. The movie seemed pallid to me in comparison.
I saw the TTW movie first, so that certainly affected my experience. In the book, I got bored really fast with Henry’s friends. I thought most of that was unnecessary. I also thought Henry losing his you-know-whats was going too far. Just yuck.
Fair. Very fair. :)
LA Confidential. I loved the movie so much that I picked up the book, and was disappointed. The streamlined plot of the movie worked much better for me, and James Ellroy’s clipped prose in the book didn’t appeal to me.
Oh yes. Now I need to see that movie all over again.
It’s a great movie, isn’t it? I even own the DVD.
Guy Pearce is so damn good in that movie. He’s an underrated actor in my view.
How come nobody has mentioned the Godfather movies yet? Yes, even the third one, mainly because it finishes the story and has some wonderful moments, despite most of it being turgid.
The book? Read it once, and it was pretty tedious. Seem the movies any number of time and they are masterpieces. There are actually more nuances and references in the movies than in the book.
I think that’s the gold standard for movies>book!
I think some movies do a very fine job and may even surpass the book. However, I do encourage my students to read the book first, and the primary reason why is that you allow your imagination to do the hard work of interpreting the text rather than allow someone else to do that creative work for you. Your imagination not only gets to think through the written words but gets to visualize the characters before an actor/director/creative team puts their stamp on them. After you’ve read the book, by all means, see the movie or movies of the literary works and enjoy the comparisons!
That is almost always what I’ve done. And, as a teacher, that’s definitely the way to go in my opinion.
I am one of the few, but I prefer Maria Von Trapp’s autobiography to the movie. (I’m never sure if that’s the book people refer to.) The book seems more real in a good way, and less Disneyised, less magical. I also prefer the play to the movie. I like all three.
I do prefer Breakfast at Tiffanys the movie. It’s one of the few I prefer. I find the ending so much more hopeful.
Yeah, there’s rarely hope in a Capote work.
I’ll be interested to hear what people think about Gone Girl. I liked the movie but most definitely prefer the book.
A lot of movies from the past were developed from books … only I’ve never read the books in order to compare.
To of my favorite movies are Gigi and Breakfast at Tiffanys, and they were developed from rather short stories. So, they’d be two I might suggest.
That’s “”two”” not “”to.”” (Wish there was an editing function.)
Breakfast at Tiffany’s makes me think about a Capote piece that the book is superior: In Cold Blood. That is one hell of a book. The movie didn’t touch it for me.
Yes, _In Cold Blood_ is so much better in book form!
Great topic! (I think I’ve done the same at H&H). DEFINITELY agree with North & South, The LOTR films; I think both Atonement the book and movie were just as good as the other, and HOLYHELLYES to The Bridges of Madison County, which was a lovely film. And of course Casino Royale, yes, much better on screen.
I’d agree with the tightening up of TGwtDT. I haven’t seen Gone Girl, but I did love the book, so I’m unsure it’ll live up to that. I’m trying to think of ones that haven’t been mentioned, but usually, I think the book is better, as you say too.
I just love this topic. I totally agree with you about North and South. What an excellent on-screen interpretation! I’m also with you on The Graduate and The Notebook. Gone with the Wind, however, I’m not sure I can get behind. Don’t get me wrong, Clark Gable and Vivienne Leigh are great, but the movie dragged on in a way that the book did not, despite its length.
Another movie that was far superior to the book it was based on was “”The Bridges of Madison County””. Yes, Meryl Streep got to use another accent (Italian), and she was very good, as usual, but even better was Clint Eastwood, who both played the male protagonist, and directed the film. I’m not usually an Eastwood fan, but his portrayal of the photo-journalist was excellent. The novel was pure schmaltz–the movie was pure magic!
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo – the American version with Daniel Craig and Rooney Mara. Yes, they changed quite a bit (OK, a lot) – but they also cut out all the stuff from the book that annoyed me – namely I found the book to be bloated, overstuffed and in desperate need of an editor with a box of red pens.
And ditto on Gone With The Wind and Forrest Gump.
That’s good to hear about TGwtDT. I disliked the book but feel left out now having not read the books or seen the films. I’ll give the movie a shot. Thanks.
I thought the Swedish version of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was SOOOOOOOOO much better than the Daniel Craig version. The latter was a carbon copy of the original movie. And Noomi Rapace was awesome.
I only saw the Swedish version, and it was also much, much better than the book. They fixed the pacing by getting rid of all the bloat, especially at the beginning and end (the book really ends about 150 pages before the actual end!), but most importantly, Mikael in the film is not so much of a male wish fulfilment figure. In the book, every single woman wants him, while he’s much more nuanced in the film, and his relationship with Lisbeth is more interesting.
No book could compete with The Sound of Music because of the lovely songs. And North and South had two excellent actors in the lead roles. Last of the Mohicans — those two actors had some hot chemistry going on. Whew! Let me pat my brow! ;)