Children of Men
I must begin by saying that I saw the movie before I read the book and so my reading of the book was shaped by that fact. I loved the movie, in fact, found it haunting and compelling. The book does not have the same effect. There are always differences between a book and its movie adaptation, but in this case, the differences are substantial.
The pace is very different; where the movie moves forward constantly, the book inches along, spending chapters and chapters on Theo's internal life and childhood.
The characters are different; Theo is older, more conservative here than in the movie, and nearly all of the other characters are presented differently or simply play different roles. I most felt this difference in the character of Jasper, played by Michael Caine in the movie.
The plot is different. The basic premise is the same (near future dystopia in which no more children are being born; until one woman becomes pregnant), but beyond that they go in different directions entirely. Without giving too much away, the movie functions more as a political thriller than does the book and so the Fishes (the group of anti-government radicals) are presented differently and the conflict between them and the government is central. The book is more personal in its focus, more religious in its references, and so many of the crucial scenes differ in the details and the scope.
It's perhaps not fair to compare the two. What James does in the book is what literature can do well (focus on character development and internal conflict) and that film does less well; what Cuaron does in the film is what film can do well (visual presentation of ideas, action and movement). But these seemingly superficial differences add up to different artistic experiences, different atmospheres and moods, even different statements on the situation.
Since it is so hard for me to disentangle the two works (literary and filmic), I will just say that, in this case, I much preferred the film.
The pace is very different; where the movie moves forward constantly, the book inches along, spending chapters and chapters on Theo's internal life and childhood.
The characters are different; Theo is older, more conservative here than in the movie, and nearly all of the other characters are presented differently or simply play different roles. I most felt this difference in the character of Jasper, played by Michael Caine in the movie.
The plot is different. The basic premise is the same (near future dystopia in which no more children are being born; until one woman becomes pregnant), but beyond that they go in different directions entirely. Without giving too much away, the movie functions more as a political thriller than does the book and so the Fishes (the group of anti-government radicals) are presented differently and the conflict between them and the government is central. The book is more personal in its focus, more religious in its references, and so many of the crucial scenes differ in the details and the scope.
It's perhaps not fair to compare the two. What James does in the book is what literature can do well (focus on character development and internal conflict) and that film does less well; what Cuaron does in the film is what film can do well (visual presentation of ideas, action and movement). But these seemingly superficial differences add up to different artistic experiences, different atmospheres and moods, even different statements on the situation.
Since it is so hard for me to disentangle the two works (literary and filmic), I will just say that, in this case, I much preferred the film.