It’s rare I go to the movies. Rarer still I head for theater the day a film releases. And yet, that’s just what I did last week when David Fincher’s adaptation of Gillian Flynn’s best-seller Gone Girl was released.
What did I think? Well, I liked the movie and found it to be an accomplished piece of cinema. (I’ll save for another blog my sense that the film’s portrayal of Amy and Nick Dunne, the protagonists, strays away from the equal partnership depicted in the book and instead veers into, ah, troubling territory.) I enjoyed the movie, yes. But I prefer the book.
This is almost always the case with me. I like the Harry Potter films; I love the books. Whether it’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Ella Enchanted, or Thank You for Smoking I’ll take the book almost every time. I’m a reader, so, duh. I like books.
There are, though, a few adaptations better than the books. Some of these are glaringly obvious: Casino Royale, The Sound of Music, The Graduate, and The Notebook. But many film adaptations aren’t as universally loved and it often comes down to what one prefers.
So, what lesser heralded adaptations do I think bested their written inspirations?
If you’ve never seen The Last of the Mohicans, you are missing out. I read Cooper’s novel in high school and have no interest in ever reading it again but the film, starring a “I haven’t yet won more than one Oscar but give me time” Daniel Day Lewis and a radiant Madeline Stowe is a visually walloping, heart-breaking work of art. I, and several other AAR staffers also prefer Sense and Sensibility (the one directed by the versatile Ang Lee in 1995) to Austen’s sisterly tale. Another British gem, Enigma, takes an dense sad book and turns it into a compelling story with a happier ending.
When I asked my co-workers to name films they preferred to their originating books, several mentioned Gone with the Wind. (I am always amazed to remember that Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind won the Pulitzer in 1937.) Also proffered were the Twilight movies, The English Patient, Forest Gump, Austenland, and (one of my favorite period pieces) A Room with a View.
None of the above film choices seem likely to elicit outrage. I do, however, have a few choices that many do not agree with.
I’d pick Atonement the movie over the book–I find the shocking last chapter far more palatable on film. The ideas and plot of Lord of the Rings are easier to follow and care about on the big screen. North and South the book I read once and am done, thank you. The BBC adaptation, I’ve watched four times since I discovered it–I’m a bit slow with TV things–last year. Thus far, the Hunger Games movies are kicking the books’ butt. Don’t get me wrong–I’m an admirer of Ms. Collins’s books, especially when read as a trilogy. But the movies, fueled by Jennifer Lawrence’s first-rate turn as the warrior woman Katniss, inspire me in a way the books don’t quite.
Producers never tire of drawing on books for their films and TV shows and that’s fine with me. As I said, I really like books. Currently I’m watching the transcendently gorgeous Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries. I love this show. And maybe, after I’ve gobbled up Season Two, I’ll seek out the books.
How about you? What movies do you like better than the books on which they are based?
The Dancer Upstairs – Nicholas Shakespeare
The Camomile lawn – Mary Wesley as well as several others by Ms Wesley
It occurs to me. Annemarie Selinko’s book, Desiree, was made into a movie in the 1950’s. The book was very good. The movie was a Hollywood type that tended to glamorize everything — not that that book didn’t glamorize but I would love, love to see a miniseries based on that novel. Could be really good.
Book:
http://www.amazon.com/D%C3%A9sir%C3%A9e-Bestselling-Story-Napoleons-First/dp/1402244029/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1412902023&sr=1-1&keywords=Desiree
Movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046903/?ref_=nv_sr_2
I usually wait to read a book until after seeing the movie, because I almost always think the book is better. Exceptions are John Grisham books/movies; while a movie like “”The Firm”” isn’t a masterpiece, it was enjoyable suspense. The book, however, I found practically unreadable.
I usually prefer the books to the movies, even when they are amazingly well-done. Movies like The Lord of the Rings, the Hunger Games or Ender’s Game give you the kind of epic images that you can only try to imagine while reading the book. But knowing that, if the original book is very good, I usually prefer the book to the movie.
But when the book is not so great, a bestseller at best but nothing more, then, I usually prefer the movie, specially if it is shot by a director with a lot of talent. As somebody has already said, The Godfather or The Bridges of Madison County are movies with more quality than the books.
You can take a look at the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay list to see how many movies are based on books, dramas or other sources, and then you can imagine that the original books perhaps were not very interesting but they made great movies with that material.
Anyway, I’d like to mention some movies that I find that are examples of a movies more powerful than the original books – Silence of the Lambs, The Constant Gardener, Traffic, Dances with Wolves, Out of Africa…
I think I’d agree with all of your movie choices there. I think most of LeCarre’s work is improved by making it visual and that is especially true of The Constant Gardener.
I completely agree about the LOTR and the Notebook. while I loved the plot when I read LOTR I had to plod through the book because I didn’t care for the writing style.
I’d also like to add “”A Walk to Remember”” to the list, the movie is one of my favourites while the book was just okay (perhaps it’s me but I’v always felt that a good many of Nicholas Spark’s books come across better in film).
If we are considering animated then I prefer the Disney version of “”The Little Mermaid”” over the original story
I can’t believe I forgot “A Walk to Remember” (pun intended). Yes, yes, yes–film was far superior.
Bridget Jones’s Diary. The movie was tightly plotted and not afraid to be original; the book hewed slavishly to P&P and became a hot mess. It was utterly silly to think Darcy needed to rescue Bridget’s mom
Two romances which spring to mind are: The Time Traveler’s Wife and Somewhere in Time. Both books desperately needed an editor. The movies used only the best bits, while making changes that improved the stories. The difference is especially stark with Somewhere in Time. The novel is nearly intolerable, whereas the movie is a masterpiece. But the same author wrote the screenplay!
I respectfully disagree about The Time Traveler’s Wife. I thought the book was a knockout story with more heartbreak than I could almost handle. The movie seemed pallid to me in comparison.
I saw the TTW movie first, so that certainly affected my experience. In the book, I got bored really fast with Henry’s friends. I thought most of that was unnecessary. I also thought Henry losing his you-know-whats was going too far. Just yuck.
Fair. Very fair. :)