Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Well, well, well, now that we are in a new year, having read, read, read while we were relaxing over the restful holiday break, I am just wondering how many of you will have suggestions about what your favorite books into movies have been. . .now that Academy Award season is upon us I am naturally curious as to how many of our favorite books and - maybe, not so-favorite-books - have been transformed into delightful, charming, wonderful or at least good movies.

Let's see . . . I have not read "Atonement"- maybe many of you have read it? The film is a visually lovely film, boasting some interesting acting and plot turmoil. However, I can't really say much else, as I did not read this particular novel by Ian McEwan. I also have not read the Upton Sinclair short novel Oil on which the fill "There will be Blood" is loosely based. However, I did see the film, which is a very moving experience-a stunning movie with its very dramatic soundtrack, boasts some remarkable acting, probably unlike anything I have seen in recent years.

Let's look back even a more than a few years at another interesting movie: "The Girl with the Pearl Earring", which was also a very enjoyable book by Tracy Chevalier. What I enjoyed so much in both is that there isn't a great deal of action, in fact, there's very little. However, this works so well with the subject, as we're invited to glimpse, study, behold Vermeer's seventeenth-century life as he becomes acquainted with a servant girl he is interested in portraying on canvas. The movie, starring Colin Firth, Scarlet Johansson, Cillian Murphy is such a deliberate, slow-moving, perhaps even lugubrious, film but it's looks so splendid-the colors, the light, the atmosphere, the interactions between characters. I really enjoyed it.

More recently, I saw the film version of the novel, The Kite Runner. While I thought it included lovely acting by the young boys as well as and especially the actor portraying the main character's father, I was rather surprised at how the filmmakers toned-down many of the explosive, political elements of the film. I recall that the novel really gave the reader an understanding of the dangers of the Taliban, representing some of its leaders as violent megalomaniacs. Much less so with the film, or, at least these portions were not dwelled upon, nor were they nearly as violent as Khaled Housseni portrayed them in his novel. Overall, while the film "The Kite Runner" was enjoyable, it also seemed somewhat "safe".

I have not read Into the Wild, nor have I seen the film. I understand there is a wide array of diverse opinion on how the story is treated in the film "version" of the non-fiction book.

I can think of two film experiences that were leaps and bound better than the books each was based upon. These would be "Forrest Gump", a thoroughly engaging movie, but a more dismal, senseless book cannot be found; "Big Fish" was also a somewhat entertaining movie, but the book was so ludicrous, lumbering and lumpy that even at a short 208 pages it seemed interminable. Ideas for others that have disappointed or surprised you??

How about the Joanne Harris' book Chocolat? A perfectly lovely film, "Chocolat" starring Juliet Binoche and Johnny Depp; one that can be seen repeatedly . . .

One pont to take into consideration: a novelist or writer has a seemingly infinite number of pages to write and we can spend hour upon hour with his/her creation. A filmmaker has a finite number of minutes to be used for his/her purpose and, therefore, some of our most favorite themes, threads, topics may be glossed over or omitted.

I am eager to find out what your choices will include! Let's hear from you. . .

1 comments:

Juno said...

What a great topic! Yes, it seems like 4 out 5 five movies I've seen this year were based on books. But, to answer your question about which film adaptations--past & present--delighted or disappointed me:

The Surprising Delights:

1) "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly"--

Based on a heartbreaking memoir by the same title, this film is at once a tribute to its subject's life, a challenging look at the human experience, and a cinematic masterpiece. A certain film critic was spot on when he said in his review that this film was nothing less than a rebirth of the cinema. If the director is not at least nominated for an Oscar, he will have been robbed.

2) "3:10 to Yuma"--

Like "Brokeback Mountain," this film was based on a short story; and, like that film, it did a wonderful job of filling in what was needed to stretch a spare work into a feature-length film--and it accomplished this while maintaining true to the spirit of the original story. Brilliant acting performances, authentic settings and costumes, and perfect pacing made this film a Western to remember.

3)"Enchanted"--

Based on virtually every fairytale ever written, plus a dose of King Kong, this film allowed viewers to make fun of and admire all of the things we love (or hate) about Disney at the same time. Charming performances, great fairytale costumes, catchy tunes, and wholesome--yet witty--humor made this enjoyable kiddy flick fun for the whole family. Bonus: A guilty pleasure cynical adults can see and still respect themselves after.

4) "Atonement"--

Like my all-time favorite book-to-feature-film adaptation, "A Room With A View," this movie is everything you'd ever want in a period piece based on a great novel. Perfectly matched casting, stellar performances(even from Miss Knightly!), fabulous costumes and settings, beautiful(even when bleak)scenes/cinematography,non-abtrusive direction, and a captivating story that is much more than a mere epic romance (as advertised). *Warning* the next sentence is a spoiler!!!
Best of all, the film version of "Atonement" brings the story to life in such a believable way that viewers who have not read the book are caught off guard when they learn, at the end, that much of the events of the characters' lives never happened.

***

The disappointments:

I cannot think of any book-to-film that disappointed me this year, but last year I was not impressed by the newest addition to the ongoing Austenmania--"Pride and Prejudice," starring Keira Knightly. How could this be the same actress and the same director as in "Atonement" and yet be so poorly acted/conceived? No one but the gent who played Mr. Darcy seemed to know why they were there or what they were saying--especially Miss Knightly. This film was not only dull and misguided, it was unnecessary. Why bother making it when the 1996 A&E production captured the spirit (surface text) and the nuances (subtext)of the book perfectly? But, of course, the film could have been worse, and I am glad that it was not a distorted mess, like the film "Adaptation" (perhaps my all-time least favorite screen version of a book).

And while I am on the subject of "Pride and Prejudice," I should add that another telling of this story, the updated, modern-girl version, "Bridget Jones's Diary," (sequel not included)is one of few film adaptations that was BETTER than the book. I loved the movie, but found Helen Fielding's "Bridget Jones" series tiresome.

Well, I think that is enough commentary from me. I would be very interested to see others' comments (not about what I said, but about the topic!).

Kind Regards,
Juno