Book v Film Adaptation

[Rhiannon]

This is a question on Notes and Queries on the Graun. See comments for suggestions.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/feb/19/book-always-better-than-film-notes-queries

One of my favourite films is Enchanted April, gorgeously languorous and uplifting. The book by Elizabeth von Arnim is nice but just doesn't have the same charm.

[Nearly Sane]

Good question I think many of those mentioned qualify, I'd add The Exorcist, The Godfather and Jaws amongst blockbusters. Not many people have read Ben Hur I would suspect but film is better, will continue to think.

[Robbie]

I read 'Jurassic Park' before the film came out; the film was good but there were some particularly beautiful (in my mind's eye, from the descriptions) scenes in the book that were not in the film which disappointed me.

Someone gave me a copy of 'The Beach' with a picture of Leonardo di Caprio on the cover. Not something I'd have chosen but I read it and was quite engrossed; the film though enjoyable was not a patch on the book imo.

[jeremyp]

Ironically, Jurassic Park is the obvious case of the film being better than the book (IMO obviously). They tightened up the plot quite considerably and the ending is much more satisfying. The book just meanders to a close as if Creighton had just lost interest. My brother, who has read many of his books says this is a common failing.

Also Blade Runner is better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

[jeremyp]

Good question I think many of those mentioned qualify, I'd add The Exorcist, The Godfather and Jaws amongst blockbusters. Not many people have read Ben Hur I would suspect but film is better, will continue to think.

I haven't read the Exorcist but I would concur on The Godfather and Jaws.

[Stranger]

2001: A Space Odyssey springs to mind. Not because the film was better than the book but that the film was different but equally good. The film is a cinematic experience that you just couldn't translate into a book.

IIRC Clarke described the book as a possible interpretation of the film.

[Harrowby Hall]

I see one of the respondents to the Guardian's considers "Chocolat" better as a film than a novel.

I think that this really demonstrates the differences that a film maker can introduce which changes the reader's/watcher's understanding.

Chocolat is set by Joanne Harris in Gascony. The location is readily identifiable as Nerac, in Lot-et-Garonne (although the author does a little east to west transition to disguise it). The film is transported to Burgundy - presumably because the producers thought it more scenically attractive or some such.

The book's "villain" is the parish priest, the film's is the maire. No doubt this was done to ensure that the sensibilities of potential filmgoers would not be compromised and, hence, protect income. (The big stories about abusive priests had yet to break.)

Both of these changes weaken the plot.

[Robbie]

'A Passage to India' was an excellent read, read it twice, I loved the TV adaptation too.

The stage play of the same is on at our local theatre (Churchill), my dad an in-laws have been to see it & enjoyed.

[Aruntraveller]

Stephen King has had a fair number of his works adapted to the screen. The only two I can think of that improved in translation are 'Stand By Me' and "Shawshank" although I've not seen every adaptation of every book so there may be others that worked better. But so many didn't work at all in translation, due to bad casting, bad acting, inability of the screen to actually depict what is on the page, changes to plot, for example 'The Mist' springs to mind where an entirely different and more depressing finale was stuck onto the story - the film up till then had been one of the better adaptations of his work.

[Nearly Sane]

While there are some fairly dreadful adaptations of Stephen King, and ge's also written some shite books, I don't think he's been that badly served by a number of films. Carrie is on a par with the book, as was Misery, Dolores Claiborne, The Green Mile, The Running Man.nI don't think the TV adaptation of Salem's Lot was much different, and The Stand is such a mess that the TV adaptation was no worse.




There are many people who will proclaim film of The Shining to be far superior to the book. I think they are incorrect.

[Aruntraveller]

While there are some fairly dreadful adaptations of Stephen King, and ge's also written some shite books, I don't think he's been that badly served by a number of films. Carrie is on a par with the book, as was Misery, Dolores Claiborne, The Green Mile, The Running Man.nI don't think the TV adaptation of Salem's Lot was much different, and The Stand is such a mess that the TV adaptation was no worse.




There are many people who will proclaim film of The Shining to be far superior to the book. I think they are incorrect.

I'd certainly agree on The Shining and about Carrie which had slipped my mind for some reason. Misery was a very good film, but did not scare me like the book did.

Maybe my perception of the 'failure' of adaptations of his work to live up to my expectations is more to do with the medium involved. I remember reading (years ago) Christine  (the demonic car) and the book really swept me along and managed to scare me. A couple of years later I went to see the John Carpenter film version of the story and although there was no great departure from the story and it was done very well within the limitations of budget and special effects available then, it did not involve me at all. It felt almost clinical somehow. I'm now wondering if it is that I find suspension of disbelief easier with the written word than with celluloid. Or is it King's particular knack in his writing that gets me to suspend it?

Elsewhere I think you mentioned the unlikely named Dean Koontz and his writing and how he explains the most ridiculous plot devices - King very often does not do that, for example in 11.22.63 the time travel element is described pretty much as going down a rabbit hole, not a lot of discussion of why it happens - it just does, he leaves the reader to fill in a lot of the blanks.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the hit rate of good vs bad adaptations for King is pretty good. Given the nature of much of his writing, it's not necessarily going to have the highest production aims. I also find his writing patchy when it works it's very good but yes, sometimes films don't quite achieve that. There are very few films that get close to being as scary as books.


On the subject of horror, I'd say that the Karloff Frankenstein is on a par with the book, some of which is borderline unreadable, Dracula has had adaptations that come close to it. None of the adaptations of Dr Jekyll and MR Hyde gets close, and The Innocents is better than The Turn of the Screw

[SteveH]

Film and books are two different media - you can't make a direct comparison. I suppose you could say, as someone said about radio over television drama, that in books the scenery's better.
Jonathan Miller objects to film and stage adaptations of novels, on the grounds that it was originally written as a novel for a reason. I think that's going too far, but I think that film adaptations should be regarded as supplemental to, not alternative to, the original book. If, for example, you watched the BBC adaptation of 'War and Peace', but haven't read the book, you can't claim to really know it until you have.
What about the other way round - "novelisations" of famous films or TV dramas?

[Nearly Sane]

Film and books are two different media - you can't make a direct comparison. I suppose you could say, as someone said about radio over television drama, that in books the scenery's better.
Jonathan Miller objects to film and stage adaptations of novels, on the grounds that it was originally written as a novel for a reason. I think that's going to far, but I think that film adaptations should be regarded as supplemental to, not alternative to, the original book. If, for example, you watched the BBC adaptation of 'War and Peace', but haven't read the book, you can't claim to really know it until you have.
What about the other way round - "novelisations" of famous films or TV dramas?

I'm struggling to think of many that I've read - Alien, which is a workmanlike novelisation and a few Dr Who novels some of which benefit from the higher budget available for the scenery

[Harrowby Hall]

What about the other way round - "novelisations" of famous films or TV dramas?

I once read a "novelisation" of West Side Story - which, anyway, was a stage play adapted to the cinema screen. It spent some time detailing the introspections of Maria and Tony and also included a sex scene.

I saw the original London stage production of West Side Story in 1960 and the 50th Anniversary production in Birmingham (it was touring the world). The stage play is intimate - almost a chamber work - and musically astringent. The film opened up the action and used a full symphony orchestra. Good as the film is, I prefer the original stage play. Interestingly, Maria was played by Natalie Wood as someone with inner strength, played by Sofia Escobar she was fragile.

[Nearly Sane]

I once read a "novelisation" of West Side Story - which, anyway, was a stage play adapted to the cinema screen. It spent some time detailing the introspections of Maria and Tony and also included a sex scene.

I saw the original London stage production of West Side Story in 1960 and the 50th Anniversary production in Birmingham (it was touring the world). The stage play is intimate - almost a chamber work - and musically astringent. The film opened up the action and used a full symphony orchestra. Good as the film is, I prefer the original stage play. Interestingly, Maria was played by Natalie Wood as someone with inner strength, played by Sofia Escobar she was fragile.

So that was a novelization of the film of the musical stage play adapted from Romeo and Juliet - I wonder quite how many degrees of separation is the most any of us may have encountered

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I once read a "novelisation" of West Side Story - which, anyway, was a stage play adapted to the cinema screen. It spent some time detailing the introspections of Maria and Tony and also included a sex scene.

I saw the original London stage production of West Side Story in 1960 and the 50th Anniversary production in Birmingham (it was touring the world). The stage play is intimate - almost a chamber work - and musically astringent. The film opened up the action and used a full symphony orchestra. Good as the film is, I prefer the original stage play. Interestingly, Maria was played by Natalie Wood as someone with inner strength, played by Sofia Escobar she was fragile.

IMHO the stage musical is far superior.

[SteveH]

So that was a novelization of the film of the musical stage play adapted from Romeo and Juliet - I wonder quite how many degrees of separation is the most any of us may have encountered

and that was based om 'The Tragicel History of Romeus and Juliet' by Arthur Brooke, which was based on Ovid's tale of Pyramus and Thisbe...

[Nearly Sane]

and that was based om 'The Tragicel History of Romeus and Juliet' by Arthur Brooke, which was based on Ovid's tale of Pyramus and Thisbe...

There are only seven stories? And I should have said good point.

[jeremyp]

What about the other way round - "novelisations" of famous films or TV dramas?

The book version of The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is superior to the original radio drama in my opinion.

[Nearly Sane]

The book version of The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy is superior to the original radio drama in my opinion.

Good example. I disagree but certainly arguable

[jeremyp]

Good example. I disagree but certainly arguable

The radio programmes are like a rough first draft of the book which is understandable since they were pretty much written as they went along.

Consider, for example the scene in which Arthur Dent, lying in front of a bulldozer, persuades the leader of the demolition crew to cover for him while he goes to the pub with Ford Prefect. In the book, it is Ford Prefect who does this. The scene done this way is more coherent with the characterisation of Arthur and Ford as well as being a nice parody of a lawyer-client relationship.

[Nearly Sane]

Perfecty reasonably argument but the book, all of it felt flat after listening to the radio. The jokes which were staged on the radio felt st a a a a ged in the books. But I am being specifically critical. I remember engorging myself on the book, in delight with it, having something physical to show people .

[Aruntraveller]

Degrees of separation hmmm...Christopher Isherwood's 'Goodbye to Berlin' & 'Mr Norris Changes Trains' became the basis for a film 'I am a Camera' which then became the basis for the stage musical 'Cabaret' which in turn became the film of the same name - which whilst in many ways is one of my favourite films it falls short in one major way and that is that Sally Bowles was in the original stories not a good singer - so the fantastic numbers staged in the film made no sense and bore no relationship to the original stories - on top of that Isherwood muddied the waters further by writing 'Christopher & His Kind' which was supposed to be a truer reflection of his time in Berlin. Which was the best piece of work there I have no idea - but Cabaret is a bloody good film.

As to a true reflection I have read much of Isherwood's work including his huge diaries and I am not sure that the truth was ever revealed in his writings, that may just be my perception of him, but he struck me as someone who never truly revealed himself or indeed wanted to, I also think that he was a deceptive amn too - maybe the opening line of Berlin has it right all along:

I am a camera with its shutter open, quite passive, recording, not thinking

[Rhiannon]

One of my favourite quotes is from Isherwood’s A Single Man:

‘The perfect evening...lying down on the couch beside the bookcase and reading himself sleepy...Jim lying opposite him at the other end of the couch, also reading; the two of them absorbed in their books yet so completely aware of each other's presence.’