Blogging the Bridgertons

Of course, you can play. The game’s more fun that way. :)

Oh! And I forgot to add Ben-Hur. The book was a DNF for me, way too convoluted in its sentence structure to be enjoyable reading.

I’ve heard that The Devil Wears Prada has a better movie than book, but I haven’t read it, so I didn’t mention it. Also, I’m told that Forrest Gump is a better movie. Actually, parts of the book sound downright dreadful or what-the-heck-ish from what I’ve heard.

As for The Godfather, I think the book is good for what it is- decently written pulp. But you are so right about Coppola making it a work of art. Thank goodness he stood his ground, because the studio would have made it suck. I probably don’t need to reiterate how they wanted to cast Robert Redford or Ryan O’Neal as Michael Corleone. Coppola really had to fight for Pacino, whom the studio didn’t want on the grounds that, in addition to being an unknown actor, he was “too short, dark, and ethnic-looking.” Ugh! Coppola really called them out on that one for reasons that should be entirely obvious. Plus, the studio wanted to film the Sicily scenes in the backlot to save money. Again, ugh!

Have you seen Midnight Cowboy by any chance? I know I included it on the list of movies better than the book, but I would say there were parts I liked better in each with the movie being better overall. The movie streamlined the story, which was a huge improvement. Plus the scene with the religious paraphernalia on the bathroom door in some guy’s apartment comes across so much better in the visual medium of film than on the page. (If you haven’t seen the movie, it’s a long story. If you watch it, you’ll know exactly the scene I’m talking about.)

But some of the lingering movie censorship at the time forced the director to tone down some of the actual and/or perceived homoeroticism of the original. There’s still quite a bit, make no mistake, but there are definitely times the movie plays it safe compared to the book.

One example I can think of was the fight the director had to concede on about Joe Buck and Rizzo having separate cots in the movie- like married couples in old films. In the book (IIRC), they share a blanket on the floor and sleep together for warmth. Nothing sexual goes on between them; it’s just sensible to snuggle up when they’re pretty much homeless in 28 degree weather. But no, the studio said they couldn’t be shown sleeping together, period. So you have to exercise some suspension of disbelief that two guys squatting in a condemned apartment conveniently have two cots in the movie.

The one big difference I liked better in the book was the scene after the Andy Warhol-style party where Rizzo falls down the stairs.

It’s interesting to see what decisions filmmakers make when adapting a story from a book or play. A lot of things may not translate well from one medium to another, which is part of the problem, but sometimes it’s just avantgarde craziness that can tank a film that had good source material. What always amazes me is when someone can take a mediocre story, see the potential in it, and make it into something spectacular. Now that’s talent.