I’ll be writing something about Jane Campion’s excellent new film, “The Power of the Dog,” when it debuts on Netflix this Wednesday, but for the moment I want to pose a question: What does a movie owe to the book on which it was based? I ask because Netflix sent a critics a copy of the 1967 source novel by the late Thomas Savage, and I could have read it before setting out to write about the film but chose not to. I did flip the book open to the first page and read the opening paragraph, and that was all I needed to know that A) the novel is written in a very distinctive voice and B) it’s not the same voice as the movie. And the movie is what a movie critic should be attending to. I want to watch Campion’s “The Power of the Dog” without hearing the ghost of Savage’s.
The movie/book that immediately occurs to me after reading this blog is The Shining. Having read the book literally in one sitting, suspensefully turning page after page while on an overnight flight, I couldn't wait to see the movie version. Anyone who has read the book knows that the ending is nothing like the famed movie's ending. And while I'm a huge fan of the movie through and through, ending included, I was initially disappointed that the ending had been changed so dramatically. With Stephen King's unique style of psychological horror, I do respect Stanley Kubrick having taken artistic liberty. The slow drip of insanity that Jack Torrance, the Jack Nicholson character, experiences in the book could have been difficult to translate to the screen and achieve that same terrifying effect (think imperceptibly slow moving, terrorizing topiary animals). Net, I enjoyed both versions tremendously, and these days typically do not read the book before seeing the movie.
“ I go back and forth about this. Reading the book ahead of time automatically means I’ll compare it to the movie, since I can’t unread it and it will always be lurking in my head. Is that fair to readers who haven’t read the book, as is most likely the case? The answer is it depends.”
I watched Atonement this past weekend, and enjoyed it. Quite a bit of time has passed since reading the book, that helped me enjoy the movie without fixating on comparison of the two.
Good question! I've thought about this a lot. When I like a book a lot I usually try not to see the movie. I feel that it will wreck the book for me and I don't need to see it. Not so much for plot changes but because my image of the characters will immediately be the actors portraying them
There are two movies that I despised due to their mangling of the book, but possibly would have enjoyed if I had not read the source. Seeing and reading both were many, many years ago so I may be blanking on the details but the emotions are vivid. They are "Name of the Rose" which completely inverted the ending and "The Color Purple" which took a dark book into light fare.
The one case where I found the movie much better than the book was "Contact"
I read all of the time, which is probably why I always like the book better. A book takes several hours to read, and so much has to be left out of a 2 hour movie. If I see the movie first (for example, Gone With the Wind) I can only see Rhett Butler as Clark Gable. However, there is one movie (or to be fair, a tv mini-series) I thought much better than the book; QBVII by Leon Uris. He wrote the book as revenge for a suit someone brought against him for the book Exodus. The book contained a lot of animosity and the tv show was better.
Well, for starters, I totally disagree with Susan. I thought the movie of The Shining was WAY WAY better than the book. But then, I think that Steven King, though entertaining to read: is a terrible writer. Especially when it comes to the end of his poorly planned and written books (he commits SO many crimes against good writing! How do people not realize this?) Kubrick took some ridiculous supernational stuff and made it a lot more about insanity: he changed the whole perspective and it was a change for the better. He made the characters real instead of the always cliched characters King so endlessly dreams up. Anyway, a movie/book combination on my mind lately is; the Ox Box Incident. Great book, by Walter Tilborn Clark. Powerful movie that was very true to the book. A great, sadly, it seems, forgotten movie. in 1943 (I just looked this up) it was nominated for the best picture acadamy award. But the award went to Casablanca. A movie I think someone should remake: it's a western, but it's vastly more than that, and very timely....I don't think it shoudl be remade because it needs improvement, but so that people will see it.
I thought the film, Where are you Bernadette, which deviated quit a bit from the book was way better than the book.
Being There, a masterpiece of a film was true to the book, I think. I've seen that film many times, have read the book, but so long ago that it's hard to remember clearly, but I do think the movie was true to it.
I liked the book, The Bonfire Of The Vanities, and I liked the movie, too, though apparently I'm the only person on the planet who did.
I've seen two different movies of Catch 22, and both were not very good, compared to the book, espeically the more recent one.
On the other hand: the novel (damn, I can't think of the title) that became "Dr. Stranglove" was nowhere near as good as the movie.
I didn't think it was possible to make a movie of the Lord of the Rings, but for me: it worked, and it captured the essence...so I guess it just depends.
Interesting question. While I think you have to take the film on its own merits, I always find that I appreciate reviewers who have read the original book (or listened to the podcast these days) and can supply some real insight on its tone and the adaptation.
My de facto rule of thumb appears to be: read the novel or story first only if your friends are surprised that you haven't and A) you don't trust the filmmakers (A Winkle in Time, but not The Great Gatsby), or B) you know the author personally (Arrival).
The movie that is vastly better than the book is _The Prestige_. Given that Christopher Priest's novel deservedly won the World Fantasy Award, that's an outrageous claim, but you can test it for yourself. First, you need to see it enough times (three, I think) to understand what's up with Christian Bale's character in each separate scene, or else you simply don't understand the story; armed with that knowledge, the ending may move you to tears.
But then you have to watch the film with the thought that everything that is said about magic in the film is also about "the self"; that the film argues that the self is a magic trick that we play on others and, perhaps unwittingly, on ourselves. This is in accord with neuroscience; one of the few things that isn't brain-meltingly awful in Daniel Dennett's _Consciousness Explained [Away]_ is his theory of the self as a "narrative center of gravity" (Chapter 13). As magic in the book is a metaphor for storytelling, the metaphorical depth here is essentially squared.
The excellent movie that is, however, an act of criminal assault of its vastly better novel is _The Natural_. There's a reason why the most beloved essay written about baseball, by Bart Giamatti, begins "It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart." Hence the last four words of Bernard Malamud's novel are "wept many bitter tears."
And it's not like Hollywood at this time believed that a movie needed a happy ending to sell tickets; The Natural was released less than six months after _Terms of Endearment_! You have a well-known novel with a tragic ending; all you have to do to sell just as many tickets (more, I actually think) without desecrating your source is replace Malamud's black humor and bleakness with a conventional Hollywood tear-jerk. And of course *you can never now remake it properly.*
I think the bottom line is if it's a good film or not. If it's a good (or great) film, but not true to the book, and the book was more of an inspiration, that to me, is okay. One I mentionted, but couldn't remember the title of was a book called "Red Alert". Pretty medicore book. And not to mention funny. Stanley Kubrick made it into one of my all time favorites, in the both terrifying and yet still amusing film, Dr. Strangelove. Probably not very many people have ever read that. I had to look for it to find it...on the other hand, books that many people know and love may be a different matter, as then: you cannot help but compare.
I think you, as a movie critic, should probably see the movie before reading the book. But I see the dilemma. Perhaps you could speed read the book right after seeing the movie so you could comment on any important distinctions. I am a reader and I could not do that so quickly - and I am sure you have deadlines. My general rule is that I read the book first if it is a book that I am aware of and interested in reading because I find I am less motivated to read the book after having seen the movie. However, I am motivated by the movie "The Power of the Dog" to read the book, which I had not read. I am one of the apparent minority who did not love the movie, although there were parts I very much admired - especially the ever wonderful Benedict. I found the transition of part of the story (I will not give details) happened too quickly and it was not understandable for that reason. Perhaps the book will give me better insight. So there are exceptions when a movie will motivate me to look further and pick up the book.
I always try to see the movie first (if I know in advance). There are rare exceptions where the movie is better. However, I can’t think of ANY instance where seeing a movie made me like the book less. I’d say you have your priorities completely straight - best seller? Try to speed read it after. Presumed Innocent perhaps was one like that?
One that I’m always surprised to hear people don’t know WAS a book is The Princess Bride, which is a faithful adaptation (adapted by its author who of course was also an incredible screenwriter). I had read it many, many times before the movie was made, and was one of the few to see the movie in a movie theater. I’ve seen the movie many many times since (and read the book at least once more). I still miss the endless lists and the better wrapper of the book. What can you do?
Some books I’ve loved that the movies got me to read: The Godfather, No Country for Old Men, The World According to Garp, A Widow for One Year, and American Splendor. (Only one of these was a bad adaptation.)
Absolutely terrible film adaptations I read first: Seabiscuit, A Beautiful Mind. Did reading those first ruin the movies? I’ll never know.
Mediocre or bad books I read after: Forrest Gump, Shoeless Joe, The Watchmen, Kick-Ass. I can’t believe any of these books were ever good. It’s not the fault that the movie was way better.
The movie/book that immediately occurs to me after reading this blog is The Shining. Having read the book literally in one sitting, suspensefully turning page after page while on an overnight flight, I couldn't wait to see the movie version. Anyone who has read the book knows that the ending is nothing like the famed movie's ending. And while I'm a huge fan of the movie through and through, ending included, I was initially disappointed that the ending had been changed so dramatically. With Stephen King's unique style of psychological horror, I do respect Stanley Kubrick having taken artistic liberty. The slow drip of insanity that Jack Torrance, the Jack Nicholson character, experiences in the book could have been difficult to translate to the screen and achieve that same terrifying effect (think imperceptibly slow moving, terrorizing topiary animals). Net, I enjoyed both versions tremendously, and these days typically do not read the book before seeing the movie.
“ I go back and forth about this. Reading the book ahead of time automatically means I’ll compare it to the movie, since I can’t unread it and it will always be lurking in my head. Is that fair to readers who haven’t read the book, as is most likely the case? The answer is it depends.”
I watched Atonement this past weekend, and enjoyed it. Quite a bit of time has passed since reading the book, that helped me enjoy the movie without fixating on comparison of the two.
I preferred the Girl With a Pearl Earring in film form compared to the book. And I loved the book. It's the only example I can think of.
Good question! I've thought about this a lot. When I like a book a lot I usually try not to see the movie. I feel that it will wreck the book for me and I don't need to see it. Not so much for plot changes but because my image of the characters will immediately be the actors portraying them
There are two movies that I despised due to their mangling of the book, but possibly would have enjoyed if I had not read the source. Seeing and reading both were many, many years ago so I may be blanking on the details but the emotions are vivid. They are "Name of the Rose" which completely inverted the ending and "The Color Purple" which took a dark book into light fare.
The one case where I found the movie much better than the book was "Contact"
I read all of the time, which is probably why I always like the book better. A book takes several hours to read, and so much has to be left out of a 2 hour movie. If I see the movie first (for example, Gone With the Wind) I can only see Rhett Butler as Clark Gable. However, there is one movie (or to be fair, a tv mini-series) I thought much better than the book; QBVII by Leon Uris. He wrote the book as revenge for a suit someone brought against him for the book Exodus. The book contained a lot of animosity and the tv show was better.
Well, for starters, I totally disagree with Susan. I thought the movie of The Shining was WAY WAY better than the book. But then, I think that Steven King, though entertaining to read: is a terrible writer. Especially when it comes to the end of his poorly planned and written books (he commits SO many crimes against good writing! How do people not realize this?) Kubrick took some ridiculous supernational stuff and made it a lot more about insanity: he changed the whole perspective and it was a change for the better. He made the characters real instead of the always cliched characters King so endlessly dreams up. Anyway, a movie/book combination on my mind lately is; the Ox Box Incident. Great book, by Walter Tilborn Clark. Powerful movie that was very true to the book. A great, sadly, it seems, forgotten movie. in 1943 (I just looked this up) it was nominated for the best picture acadamy award. But the award went to Casablanca. A movie I think someone should remake: it's a western, but it's vastly more than that, and very timely....I don't think it shoudl be remade because it needs improvement, but so that people will see it.
I thought the film, Where are you Bernadette, which deviated quit a bit from the book was way better than the book.
Being There, a masterpiece of a film was true to the book, I think. I've seen that film many times, have read the book, but so long ago that it's hard to remember clearly, but I do think the movie was true to it.
I liked the book, The Bonfire Of The Vanities, and I liked the movie, too, though apparently I'm the only person on the planet who did.
I've seen two different movies of Catch 22, and both were not very good, compared to the book, espeically the more recent one.
On the other hand: the novel (damn, I can't think of the title) that became "Dr. Stranglove" was nowhere near as good as the movie.
I didn't think it was possible to make a movie of the Lord of the Rings, but for me: it worked, and it captured the essence...so I guess it just depends.
OH OH OH! I nearly forgot a superb book/movie combination. Truman Capote's IN Cold Bold. Chilling book, great film adaption of it.
Interesting question. While I think you have to take the film on its own merits, I always find that I appreciate reviewers who have read the original book (or listened to the podcast these days) and can supply some real insight on its tone and the adaptation.
How about Lonesome Dove? I loved both the series and the book.
My de facto rule of thumb appears to be: read the novel or story first only if your friends are surprised that you haven't and A) you don't trust the filmmakers (A Winkle in Time, but not The Great Gatsby), or B) you know the author personally (Arrival).
The movie that is vastly better than the book is _The Prestige_. Given that Christopher Priest's novel deservedly won the World Fantasy Award, that's an outrageous claim, but you can test it for yourself. First, you need to see it enough times (three, I think) to understand what's up with Christian Bale's character in each separate scene, or else you simply don't understand the story; armed with that knowledge, the ending may move you to tears.
But then you have to watch the film with the thought that everything that is said about magic in the film is also about "the self"; that the film argues that the self is a magic trick that we play on others and, perhaps unwittingly, on ourselves. This is in accord with neuroscience; one of the few things that isn't brain-meltingly awful in Daniel Dennett's _Consciousness Explained [Away]_ is his theory of the self as a "narrative center of gravity" (Chapter 13). As magic in the book is a metaphor for storytelling, the metaphorical depth here is essentially squared.
The excellent movie that is, however, an act of criminal assault of its vastly better novel is _The Natural_. There's a reason why the most beloved essay written about baseball, by Bart Giamatti, begins "It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart." Hence the last four words of Bernard Malamud's novel are "wept many bitter tears."
And it's not like Hollywood at this time believed that a movie needed a happy ending to sell tickets; The Natural was released less than six months after _Terms of Endearment_! You have a well-known novel with a tragic ending; all you have to do to sell just as many tickets (more, I actually think) without desecrating your source is replace Malamud's black humor and bleakness with a conventional Hollywood tear-jerk. And of course *you can never now remake it properly.*
I think the bottom line is if it's a good film or not. If it's a good (or great) film, but not true to the book, and the book was more of an inspiration, that to me, is okay. One I mentionted, but couldn't remember the title of was a book called "Red Alert". Pretty medicore book. And not to mention funny. Stanley Kubrick made it into one of my all time favorites, in the both terrifying and yet still amusing film, Dr. Strangelove. Probably not very many people have ever read that. I had to look for it to find it...on the other hand, books that many people know and love may be a different matter, as then: you cannot help but compare.
I think you, as a movie critic, should probably see the movie before reading the book. But I see the dilemma. Perhaps you could speed read the book right after seeing the movie so you could comment on any important distinctions. I am a reader and I could not do that so quickly - and I am sure you have deadlines. My general rule is that I read the book first if it is a book that I am aware of and interested in reading because I find I am less motivated to read the book after having seen the movie. However, I am motivated by the movie "The Power of the Dog" to read the book, which I had not read. I am one of the apparent minority who did not love the movie, although there were parts I very much admired - especially the ever wonderful Benedict. I found the transition of part of the story (I will not give details) happened too quickly and it was not understandable for that reason. Perhaps the book will give me better insight. So there are exceptions when a movie will motivate me to look further and pick up the book.
I always try to see the movie first (if I know in advance). There are rare exceptions where the movie is better. However, I can’t think of ANY instance where seeing a movie made me like the book less. I’d say you have your priorities completely straight - best seller? Try to speed read it after. Presumed Innocent perhaps was one like that?
One that I’m always surprised to hear people don’t know WAS a book is The Princess Bride, which is a faithful adaptation (adapted by its author who of course was also an incredible screenwriter). I had read it many, many times before the movie was made, and was one of the few to see the movie in a movie theater. I’ve seen the movie many many times since (and read the book at least once more). I still miss the endless lists and the better wrapper of the book. What can you do?
Some books I’ve loved that the movies got me to read: The Godfather, No Country for Old Men, The World According to Garp, A Widow for One Year, and American Splendor. (Only one of these was a bad adaptation.)
Absolutely terrible film adaptations I read first: Seabiscuit, A Beautiful Mind. Did reading those first ruin the movies? I’ll never know.
Mediocre or bad books I read after: Forrest Gump, Shoeless Joe, The Watchmen, Kick-Ass. I can’t believe any of these books were ever good. It’s not the fault that the movie was way better.
I thought the Shootist was better than the book, although I liked Swarthout's style - but Wayne was just too good to ignore.