Book v. Movie: Best & Worst YA Adaptations: Best: Bridge to Terabithia

Adapting books (or plays) into to movies is a perilous business. They have very different forms, and usually you can hear the dreaded put-down: "It's not as good as the book." Sometimes, it is better (usually when the book isn't too good) and sometimes it's just different.

Hitchcock's classic thriller, "The Thirty-Nine Steps" (1933)was adapted from a novella by John Buchan, an author Hitchcock admired. He also considered adapting two other Buchan novels: "Greenmantle" and "The Three Hostages." The first involved expensive location shooting in Turkey and the second was abandoned because Hitchcock felt he could not convey hypnotism, a feature of the plot, realistically on screen.

The novella (it's quite short) has a similar structure to the movie, but in my view, Hitchcock alters it to make it more cinematic. A tossed-off reference to a music hall in the book becomes a full music hall sequence in the movie with "Mr. Memory" who plays a key role in the conspiracy. Hitchcock had seen similar acts in London when he was young. The thirty-steps are just that in the book; in the movie they become an organization of spies. Hitchcock also introduces a love interest.

The book is entertaining if you can ignore the typical racism of the time; it was published in 1914, and its casual anti-Semitism is startling. Thankfully, it is minus the tedious Sandy Artbuthnot, the character Buchan based on Laurence of Arabia, and which manages to mar all of the other four Richard Hannay books.

The movie is full of suspense, inventive touches (I particularly liked Mr. Memory) and Robert Donat is great fun as Hannay.

This one is a draw.

 

Suprisingly, this story was required reading for me my senior year in high school. I agree, they are both very good and equal to each other on their own merits.

 

Haven't read the book but I fancy the film.

It felt like practice for North by Northwest to me.

 

There are definite similarities.

Next: "Harry Potter"

The books start out on the 11-year-old level and gradually become longer, darker and more complex.

When Steven Spielberg asked which of the novels he'd like to direct, he chose "The Prisoner of Azkaban." (Book 3) There's a reason.

The first two books: "The Philosopher's Stone" and "The Chamber of Secrets" were directed by Chris Columbus. It was fashionable among critics to decry Columbus's direction, but I thought he reflected the books themselves with reasonable accuracy. There is no way to capture Rowling's voice, though. She has a sort of throw-away wit and a great sense of humour, and only some of that translates.

The adaptation of the third book was directed by Alfonso Curazon. When I saw it in theatres, I was disappointed, but watching it on DVD, I liked it much better. At first the style is highly kinetic, much more cinematic than Columbus. This works terrifically in the first scene, when Harry puts a spell on his obnoxious aunt; and the ride on the Knight Bus is a hoot. But in the last 45 minutes or so of the movie, the life leaks right out of it. This is because Curazon and Kloves (the scriptwriter) can't find a cinematic means of conveying the Time Turner section of the plot, and the audience becomes bored and restless at the repetition.

I think all three of the movies are as good as you can do given the limitations. But the books are much, much better.

 

Great topic and as soon as you get to some where I've actually experienced both I'll comment.

I still haven't seen the 39 Steps or the Harry Potters movies. Neither have I read any of the books. Sad, I know. They're all on my list.

 

I feel that all three of the HP movies have been very good. Well, they have hade their flaws, they are good adaptions.


P.S- I think the Lemony Snicket movie would be an interesting discussion

 

Haven't read the book or seen the movie, unfortunately.

Next: "The Godfather"

The book is highly entertaining--Puzo could really tell a story--but it's pulp.

The movie edits most of the pulp right out---gone are the Mancini subplot, elements of the Vegas and Hollywood subplots, and the Nino subplot. Usually the movie sacrifices energy when it does this. In this case, not.

No one would call the book great, though it's highly readable. The movie is one of the best American movies ever made.

The winner: the movie.

 

^^^^ That, along with " Jaws " is widely considered the primary example of the movie trumping the book, although I have to say the book is really, really good. The movie stays close to the book, too, and the main difference is that after Johnny Fontaines' Hollywood problem's are squared he is relegated to an unimportant role , in the movie, while in the book he's a P.O.V. main character throughout and meant to be seen as the guy who goes in the opposite direction morally from Michael.

 

The book is a revelation if you read it after you've seen the movie. For instance, why do they spend so much time on a bridesmaid and her gynecological problems? Talk about sacrificing energy.

One of the reasons that a movie is often not as good as a book is because the casting often isn't done well. A lot of times that sinks it. This movie nails that dead on. Every single character is perfectly cast and perfectly played. I certainly think that the cast was able to get, in some instances, a little deeper than the novel had written. Maybe the best American ensemble of all time, certainly the best of the seventies.

So, while it often helps assure the book is better, sometimes cutting actually does the reverse and helps the movie be better. That's the case here.

 

The book is a revelation if you read it after you've seen the movie.


I think thats true and thats why I really love the book and with the exception of Kays character the book really could be considered a companion piece to the movie.

 

I enjoyed the book, but would never dub it a work of great literature.

Next:

"Catch Me If You Can" by Frank Abagnale, Jr. plus ghostwriter v. the movie directed by Steven Speilberg and starring Leonardo Dicaprio (as Abagnale) and Tom Hanks (as his FBI nemesis)

Saw the movie first, and then read the book. Abagnale is the fraud and con artist who started at age 16 and bilked banks and airlines (mostly) of many dollars by posing as an airline pilot, doctor, lawyer and university professor before his 21st birthday. There's an interview with him at the end of the book, and he says he loves Dicaprio's performance in the movie (it is very good, no argument) but thinks the movie portrays his father not very realistically. In the book, his first scam was on his father, a Mobile card on which he ran up $3,400.00, a lot of money in 1964. He pled addiction to girls and was not punished.

Abagnale does public appearances and lectures about his career in fraud, and many incidents in the book have the air of anecdotes told many times. He denies that he started in fraud because his parents divorced. The book, in fact, is relentlessly cheery and upbeat, except for his incarceration in the dreaded Perpignan prison in France, which is even more horrifying in the book than it is in the movie. You can see why the scriptwriter added a rather darker tone to the movie.

Still, you can also see why Abagnale was a successful con artist. He has charm to burn. From the interview in the book: Q: "Did you settle in France [when you were on the lam] rather than say, Brazil, a country with no extradiction agreement with the USA because you were homesick, or to be close to your mother's relatives?" A: "No. I just liked French girls."

The denial of any sentiment or emotion (and the lack of self-pity) is typical of Abagnale. The book is a romp, the movie rather more.

The movie, by a nose.

 

I actually totally agree. The book is charming and incredibly entertaining.

The film is a great work of art. It's both charming and emotional. It may not be totally accurate, but when you've got Walken, Di Caprio and Hanks, who cares? The relationships are fictionalized in the film, both between Abagnale and his father and between Abagnale and the character played by Hanks. But that's okay, because it makes the movie better than it would have been.

The movie is better, but the book is great fun too.

 

Well, you won't agree on the next one, I think.

"The African Queen"

Novella by C. S. Forester v. the movie directed by John Huston, starring Humphrey Bogart & Katharine Hepburn.

Forester is frying many a fish in the novel; the effects of culture; the stupidity of patriotism; and the amazing power of dumb ideas. Hollywood emphasises the love story and the adventure (which is far tougher in the novel).

Both are very entertaining. A draw.

 

Next: "How Green Was My Valley" novel (1939) by Richard Llewellyn v. movie of the same name directed by John Ford (1941).

Read the novel after I saw the film. The film is good, but the novel represents several problems in adaptation. It's a very long, complex family novel, with numerous characters and incidents. The other problem: the novel, told in the first person, is extraordinarily poetic in style and content. It tells the story of a large Welsh family of miners at the end of the century. Llewellyn himself wasn't Welsh (though his grandfather was) and Welsh people have used this to indicate this book is inauthentic. Nationalism is a curious thing. It's a great book, and be damned to them.

The movie has good things: the cinematography (which is black & white); Maureen O'Hara and Anna Lee as Angharad and Bronwen; and some of the incidents. It has some of the book in it, but a good many things are missing.

The movie has bad things, too: most notably Walter Pigeon, cruelly miscast as the Rev. Mr. Gruffydd. In the book, there is an incident where a small girl is raped and murdered. Mr. Gruffydd rallies the villagers, hunts down the guilty man, and when satisfied that he's guilty, turns him over to the father and brother of the murdered child (they kill him). You never get the impression that the lightweight Pigeon would ever be capable of that kind of tough-mindedness.

The other problem is that John Ford Irishizes the Welsh. The family is loud, proud and sentimental, instead of the reserved, tough and pained family of Llewellyn's book. Not all Celts are alike, and he doesn't get these ones right. The script sentimentalizes the story as it goes. Unfortunately.

The neutral things: Roddy McDowell (he never changes, though he should be in his early 20's when the book ends), and the rest of the male cast (Donald Crisp is at least 20 years too old for the part of Huw's father)

The movie seems good until you read the book, and then it seems mediocre at best. The stoic power of Huw's description of his father's death in the book doesn't come across in the movie, nor does his mother's bitter and shocking reaction.

The book, by a mile.

 

Never read it or seen the book, but damn, it's good to see my part of the world getting appreciated

 

I've never read the book but the movie is fine piece of cinema. The film looses steam near the end--i dont know if this is simply a matter of it being tied down by the structure of the book or not. Good cinematography though.

 

Both you and noggins should try the book. It's well worth your time. Decide for yourself, and post your conclusions.

Next: "The Magnificent Ambersons"

Book (1918) by Booth Tarkington v. Movie directed by Orson Welles (1942)

My opinion of the book is reposted from the "Top 100 Modern Library Novels" thread:

"It's not very long, but there are important themes in it, not the least of the great divide in American history: the end of the 'Gilded Age' (from the end of the Civil War in 1865 to approximately 1895) and the start of the machine age. And the effects of same. The leisure 'gentlemanly' class which George Minafer represents gradually becomes obsolete. The author presents this in varying ways. The nominal hero of the book, Eugene, is an exponent of the machine age. But Tarkington can't hide his profound ambivilence about the changes, and shows how they effect, for one example, the environment. Though it has been a long time since I read "The Magnificent Ambersons," I still remember the "Beautiful House" that George and Lucy pick out--a white house in the country that they dream of owning. Near the end of the book in the extended tour-de-force sequence where George gets his 'comeuppance,' he visits the house again. It is no longer on the outskirts of the town; now, it's right in the industrial section, and the narrative says that the current owner has painted it 'a despairing chocolate' because he can longer keep it clean. Always remembered that phrase.

This book is a bit odd. Tarkington specialized in a sort of nostaglic humour, and at the beginning, the book seems to be a comedy. But by the end, it's a tragic, even painful book. Tarkington takes an unlikable character as the centre of the plot, and it's a triumph that at the end, despite everything, the reader mourns the end of bucolic America, and George's standing along with it. Eugene's a nice guy. But it's proud, spoilt George Minafer and his neurotic aunt, Fanny Minafer, that you remember."

And the movie's good, too. Unfortunately, the suits at RKO, nervous because of the fall-out over "Citizen Kane" in 1941, refused to let Welles make the scenes of George's realization of the passing of the old order at the end of the book. For years afterward, Welles still spoke of making them.

Tim Holt is horribly miscast as George, but the rest of the cast is excellent, especially Agnes Moorehead as Fanny, Joseph Cotten as Eugene, Dolores Costello as Isabel, and Richard Bennett as Col. Amberson. The style is claustophobic at time, but it's a very, very good movie.

But the book is still better.

 

Yes, the book is better. I keep going back to one scene in particular: George Jr. telling George Sr. what he's just done about his mother's suitor. What he's done, of course, is screw up horribly, but he doesn't realize that.

In the book, it's beautiful, brooding and just unbearably dramatic. In the film, it's played, idiotically, for laughs. Best dramatic scene in the book, played for laughs. Sad.

The film has moments. The book is stellar from start to finish.

 

It's funny: I remember the scene where Lucy tells Eugene the Indian legend. Everybody remembers something different, I suppose.

Next:

"Gone With the Wind" (the novel, 1936) v. "Gone With the Wind" (the movie, 1939)

The novel was a best-seller in its day, and is still read, though now it labours against the stigma of non-PCness.

The movie is one of the most famous ever made.

The novel has a reputation (usually from people who haven't read it) as a conventional bodice-ripper. It isn't. For one thing, the heroine is unsympathetic throughout. For another, the author knew her subject, and the most interesting part of the book--the immediate pre- and post-Civil-war period---is unfortunately slighted. I still remember Scarlett's conversation with old Mrs. Fontaine at Gerald O'Hara's funeral. The old woman is trying to tell Scarlett something, but typically, Scarlett doesn't get it. Her coarseness is profound, which oddly, is one of the attractive things about her. She cares nothing for cant, which makes her odd woman out in the post-War South.

The racial attitudes are condescending, at best, though the movie has less of that. But it does have some: see any scene with Butterfly McQueen in it.

There are, of course, conventional bodice-ripper elements in the book, which are probably the things that made it popular. These are basically the things that got transferred to the screen. The movie has good momentum up until the "I'll never be hungry again" scene, and then it loses steam in the post-war period.

Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, and Olivia DeHavilland are all very well-cast; but Leslie Howard, as Ashley, is too old.

There were three directors: George Cukor; Victor Fleming; and Sam Wood. Fleming is credited, but this is a producer's film. The producer in question was David O. Selznick. This movie was the huge success that probably ruined his career in the way some successes do.

A tough call; but I'll still go with the book.

 

The book was better. Scarlett was a spoiled and blind, and while the movie did its best to convey that, there's only so much you can cram into a 3-hour movie.

The movie had it's good points; it's burning of Atlanta was an awesome sight to see. Having read the book first, however, it seems like there was too much lost in the transition into the movie.

 

I read the book some years before I saw the movie. I enjoyed the book from start to the end. I have seen the movie only once (maybe ten years ago) and remembered I was disappointed. it had, of course, some very good scenes, but I'll go with the book.

 

This is almost an impossible call to make. The book is stunning, epic and it puts you in the world of the characters with incredible effectiveness. I recall going through a melancholy period while reading the period where everyone is starving after the war. I literally felt as though I was the one going through it all.

The film is brilliantly acted by all concerned and is just perhaps the greatest long film ever, with the exception of Branagh's Hamlet. It is engrossing and never boring.

I cannot make the call. They are different, but the mediums are different and both are, in my opinion, near the pinnacle of their respective mediums. A dead heat.

 

These two are very close.

 

I never read the book, but all I know is that Clark Gable was awesome in the role and I had a thing for Vivien Leigh, who was also fantastic.

The movie is long as hell (like Ben-Hur), but a great film. It's amazing how many of my friends (between the ages of 18-30) have not see this movie. So I doubt they read it either so without having read the book, I can't make a fair comparison, but I still vote movie.

 

I, too, would go with the book. The movie is entertaining, but the book includes so many details about the world in which the drama takes place. I especially found the explantions of social mores of that time to be facinating. How long a widow's veil must be, and for how long; who could be "received" and who could not; how a "man could rail about a broken fingernail, but a woman must stiffle the pains of childbirth, lest she disturb him." Great stuff.