When the film is better than the book, and Stalingrad

[sartorias]

I was watching The Thin Man last night, with William Powell and Myrna Loy. The opening of the film simply shows the cover to the book, which was tremendously popular at the time, though Hammett has not worn well. (The Maltese Falcon is another I think is far better on film.) The sprightly dialogue and above all the acting is so superior to Hammett

Comments

[rysmiel]

For myself, I'd count The Name of the Rose as turned into something largely different but as good for what it is, and there's definitely a class of moderately good films made from books that are utter rubbish, like Angel Heart.

There is also of course The Princess Bride; whether book or film is better by the standards of the relevant medium is a thing I go back and forth on, but I cannot think of any other plausible candidates for understanding the mechanics of both novel and film better than William Goldman

[sartorias]

Yeah--Goldman had a hand in both. I've heard people favoring one or the other, but never saying that the second one is abysmal. More like, oh, "I love chocolate chip ice cream a bit more than I like chocolate ice cream."

[carbonel]

Someone I know (lydy; you may have seen her handle here and there) is extremely vehement on how much she hates the movie. With a burning passion, even. I think she thinks the movie took all the marriage-failing bitterness out of it, and thereby vitiated it. Me, I disagree.

[sartorias]

That is an interesting take. If I ever managed to get back to MPLS again, I hope I can hear her on the subject.

[desperance]

I'd add - Jerzy Kosinski's inconsequential (and possibly plagiarised) novel transmuted into a film that really seemed to matter.

[rysmiel]

I've not read the novel, but that is one remarkable film, and held up so much by Peter Sellers' genius that I can totally see it not working in any other medium.

(And now I'm wanting a young Peter Sellers to play Eddie Casson-Perceval. Hell, is it time to reread The Ring Master already ?)

[sartorias]

Oh, good choice.

[asakiyume]

I wonder if there are any fans of books who think the movie versions of the same books are better than the books. (I doubt it: If you start off liking a book, I think the best a movie can do achieve as-good-as status.)

For the movies you've mentioned that are often cited as being better than the books, I'll bet most people see the movie first, and that's inevitably going to affect their opinion of the book. But then, too, the fact that the movie versions of those stories are arguably better known than the books maybe indicates that the books didn't have as much to them as the films do--maybe if it weren't for the films, the books would have been forgotten.

[sollersuk]

Over the decades I've come to the conclusion that for me the key question is which I experienced first.

There is a problem in that if a film is made of a novel, for time reasons a lot has to be left out, and if it's made from a short story, more has to be put in. The ideal length is the novella, which is probably why the rare cases where I find both the written and the filmed versions equally satisfying are made from novellas (usually by Stephen King, but that may just be due to a lack of good novellas in English).

[sartorias]

Or maybe a lack of good filmable novellas in English? So many of them are very cerebral, not film material.

[houseboatonstyx]

Yes. If you read the book first, you'll be disappointed at how much got left out. If you see the movie first, you may be happily surprised by all the richer detail put in. (Also you won't be shocked by movie characters that look different than your imagined ones.)

[ann1962]

Children of Men. I found the book unreadable and weak, yet the (somewhat loosely based) movie is tremendous.

[sartorias]

Haven't seen it or read the book.

[kalimac]

As with The Princess Bride, I knew Who Framed Roger Rabbit as a book before the movie ever appeared. They're both clever adaptations, not better than the books but true to the spirit. Also brilliantly true to the spirit of the book, Schlesinger's Cold Comfort Farm.

It simplified the book greatly, probably to its benefit, and so did the movie of The World According to Garp, too sprawling of a book.

I suspect that most movies I'd think were better than the book, I haven't read the book, but there is one case where a good story was turned into a far better movie: James Thurber's "The Catbird Seat" which became The Battle of the Sexes - terrible title, but a superb 50s comedy starring Peter Sellers, Constance Cummings, and Robert Morley.

I've never read The Godfather, but I did see the movie, and if that's a great work of art, give me lousy trash, the lousier the better. That was one of the ten stupidest, dumbest, most unappealing movies I've ever seen all the way through.

[sartorias]

I totally did not get the "Godfather" gene either.

Must check out that Peter Sellers movie--missed it, and I've been binging on screwball comedies lately. Over to Netflix, my best friend!

[kalimac]

I see on checking that The Battle of the Sexes was directed by Charles Crichton, he of everything from The Lavender Hill Mob to A Fish Called Wanda. So it's in worthy company.

Strangely, although it is in IMDB, it doesn't come up in a title search. You have to find it by somebody associated with it.

[kalimac]

The film version of "The Godfather" bores me to death. I've never understood why it is so highly regarded.

Ditto for "The Shawshank Redemption", another perennial favourite on all-time best films lists. I've never read the novella (at least it's short), but the film just bores me.

Cora