Books vs. film adaptations

v.harader DeleteThis @comcast.net (gina harader) wrote in message news:<d66a11e0.0403051813.365a4e70 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>...
 > I just received a DVD copy of "Seance on a Wet Afternoon." I haven't
 > read the novel on which it is based, although I plan to shortly, which
 > brings me to a question about others' reading and film viewing habits,
 > specifically in the supernatural genre. Given the choice, do you
 > prefer to read a book first and then see the film version, or vice
 > versa? For many years, I would read a book, then see it in film form,
 > and wind up being disappointed with the latter (which is heretical for
 > an old film major). I primarily missed characters' train of thought
 > and the mental dialogue which is easy to convey in written form, but
 > is very difficult to transfer to the film medium, unless a lot of
 > voice-over narration is used, which would be cumbersome and
 > distracting. On the other hand, some films have caused me to seek out
 > books which I might have otherwise overlooked, such as 'The
 > Uninvited,' which is one of my favorite haunted house novels.
 >
 > So, to make a long story short, I've adopted a sort of apples and
 > oranges attitude, and try to appreciate the storytelling techniques
 > particular to each medium. But whenever possible, I do try to see the
 > film version first.
 >
 > I would be very interested to hear other group members' opinions on
 > this subject.
 >
 > Gina Harader


Generally speaking I don't watch a film and then rush out to find the
book. On the other hand having enjoyed a book I don't seek out the
film. Usually I find film adaptations of my favourite books
disappointing. However there are exceptions:

I love Patricia Highsmith – but found the recent film version of THE
TALENTED MR RIPLEY interesting, but flat. THE AMERICAN FRIEND directed
by Wim Wenders and based on Highsmith's RIPLEY'S GAME was a work of
brilliance in its own right (in my humble opinion). Scenes from that
film have stayed with me, in a way that the original novel has not.

Hitchcock's STRANGERS ON A TRAIN – well, a classic. As was the book!

The 1961 production THE INNOCENTS must rate as one of the most
effective ghost stories ever filmed – it's a film I could watch again
and again but Henry James's TURN OF THE SCREW (from which the film was
adapted) as with most of his work is such hard going – all those
complex sentences. Why use one word when thirty will do!

Which brings me to Shirley Jackson's HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE. Robert
Wise's 1963 film THE HAUNTING is one of the greatest haunted house
films of all time. Both book and film are works of genius. Sadly Jan
de Bont's more recent remake is appallingly bad.

Other films are George Pal's TIME MACHINE, and THE WAR OF THE WORLDS,
both from H.G.Wells. The more recent version of THE TIME MACHINE is,
well, dreadful! The 1996 film INDEPENDENCE DAY with a story line
loosely based on Wells's WAR OF THE WORLDS is okay from the point of
view of graphics and special effects but beyond that its pure boy's
own (Lord, I hope they do drop the work they're doing on an ID-2
script).

I could go on and mention THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA (1958) directed by
John Sturgis a fabulous adaptation of Hemingway (I haven't seen the
remake). Or Kubrick's THE KILLERS a great film but with little
connection to Hemingway's short story of the same name.

I'll make no comment on Kubrick's space oddity or that God-awful
adaptation of King's THE SHINING.

While I do think you should approach a book, a play or a film
adaptation as a work of art in its own right, its difficult not to
allow expectations to influence both your opinion and your enjoyment
of them. At least I find this to be the case.

I should also apologise for some of my examples being a tad off topic.

Regards

Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

 > I could go on and mention THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA (1958) directed
by
 > John Sturgis a fabulous adaptation of Hemingway (I haven't seen the
 > remake). Or Kubrick's THE KILLERS a great film but with little
 > connection to Hemingway's short story of the same name.
 >

 > Peter


Kubrick's movie was "The Killing" not "The Killers" and it was a
screen original by Kubrick and Jim Thompson. Nothing to do Hemingway.

Hemingway's short story "The Killers" was expanded and made into a
1946 movie brilliantly directed by Robert Siodmak. The opening of
"The Killers" is Hemingway's short story practically scene for scene
and word for word even down to the food the killers order in the
small town diner. Hemingway liked this movie a lot and thoughts it was
one of the best screen adaptations of his works.

Dave in Toronto<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

gothicpt12.RemoveThis@aol.com (Gary W. Crawford) wrote in message news:<fbf7c1ec.0403060200.9b431ad.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
 > v.harader.RemoveThis@comcast.net (gina harader) wrote in message news:<d66a11e0.0403051813.365a4e70.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
  > > I just received a DVD copy of "Seance on a Wet Afternoon." I haven't
  > > read the novel on which it is based, although I plan to shortly, which
  > > brings me to a question about others' reading and film viewing habits,
  > > specifically in the supernatural genre. Given the choice, do you
  > > prefer to read a book first and then see the film version, or vice
  > > versa? For many years, I would read a book, then see it in film form,
  > > and wind up being disappointed with the latter (which is heretical for
  > > an old film major). I primarily missed characters' train of thought
  > > and the mental dialogue which is easy to convey in written form, but
  > > is very difficult to transfer to the film medium, unless a lot of
  > > voice-over narration is used, which would be cumbersome and
  > > distracting. On the other hand, some films have caused me to seek out
  > > books which I might have otherwise overlooked, such as 'The
  > > Uninvited,' which is one of my favorite haunted house novels.
  > >
  > > So, to make a long story short, I've adopted a sort of apples and
  > > oranges attitude, and try to appreciate the storytelling techniques
  > > particular to each medium. But whenever possible, I do try to see the
  > > film version first.
  > >
  > > I would be very interested to hear other group members' opinions on
  > > this subject.
  > >
  > > Gina Harader
 >
 > I try to disassociate films from novels. I find this best because it
 > is helps to view a film as a film and not so much an adaptation of a
 > novel.
 >
 > For example, I think the 1958 version of Dracula with Christopher Lee
 > and Peter Cushing stands on its own as a superb horror film that does
 > not realy intend to "adapt" the novel. This is how I view film
 > versions of works of fiction.
 >
 > Gary W. Crawford

I agree entirely. Some of the best films are based on really cheesy
novels. A film director should be given completely free reign to
interpret or present a written idea in the way he sees fit.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule. One can quite see why
Jackson tried to faithfully follow Tolkein's LORD OF THE RINGS. Ditto
for Gibson in his new furore-inducing Jesus film. Sometimes it makes
sense to adhere closely to the original. However, I do have concerns
about fan groups who pressure directors for scene-by-secne verbatim
adaptations. In particular, I think many ghost stories, being composed
of huge amounts of atmosphere, just wouldn't work as well on film as
they do on paper (or indeed audio-tape). For that reason, I would give
a good director carte-blanche to portray the idea as he best sees fit.

I greatly like Tourneur's NIGHT OF THE DEMON but there is no doubt
that he has taken liberties with M R James's original text. The
insertion of a hard-talking American athiest, the contrived link to
Stonehenge, the creation of a non-existent monster - but for me this
all works very well. Besides, there *was* visual horror in James's
original tale ("Casting The Runes") - there was the magic lantern
slideshow Karswell showed to the children - but owing to the
limitations of film production at the time, this could not have been
filmed convincingly. Thus Tourneur's inclusion of a monster is simply
a substition rather than a complete invention.

Other James stories have fared less well because of directorial
experimentation, though I attribute that more to poor talent than
detraction from the original story. I don't have any problems with
Lawrence Gordon Clark's depiction of lascivious hypocritical
witchfinders torturing bare-breasted women in obvious homage to
Michael Reeves's THE WITCHFINDER GENERAL in THE ASHTREE - after all,
this underlying sub-text of sexual frustration runs through the
history of witchcraft, even if James shied away from overtly exploring
it himself - but I do have concerns about Clark's chopping up the plot
and dialogue into a goddawful disjointed and scrappy mess. As the
lighting is also abominable, the film must appear hopelessly confusing
to anyone unfamiliar with the original. Even though the spiders look
convincingly frightening - with the added and unexpected frisson of
horror supplied by their issuing babylike human coos of blood-sucking
satisfaction as thye guzzle blood from Fell's neck - the whole thing
is badly paced, badly edited and so badly lit that it looks like the
very worst of student experimentation.

My favourite adaptation of DRACULA is the BBC version, but not because
it is the most faithful. However, I like Lee's version almost as much.
Coppola's version also has its merits. This all reminds me of Jonathan
Miller who when defending his liberty-taking adaptation of M R James's
OH WHISTLE AND I'LL COME TO YOU said that he was not not so much
making a copy of the original as doing an essay on it. There is much
to commend his opinion.

TTFN,

Chris Barker
The Haunted River
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver" target="_blank">www.users.waitrose.com/~hauntedriver</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

"gina harader" <v.harader.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:d66a11e0.0403051813.365a4e70@posting.google.com...

 > So, to make a long story short, I've adopted a sort of apples and
 > oranges attitude, and try to appreciate the storytelling techniques
 > particular to each medium. But whenever possible, I do try to see the
 > film version first.
 >
 > I would be very interested to hear other group members' opinions on
 > this subject.

I try, as much as possible, to judge a film on its own terms; i.e. does this
succeed as an effective filmed entertainment in its own right? One has to
bear in mind that the written word and films are completely different
mediums, which seems obvious, but tends to be forgotten by enthusiasts who
are dismayed when their favourite book or story is changed on its way to the
screen. Something which works well on the printed page won't necessarily
translate on to the screen; THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is a case in
point. I love the 1939 Rathbone/Bruce version, and think it succeeds
wonderfully well as a film and as a film of the book; but there are
Sherlockians who grumble about this and that: "Oh, Laura Lyons isn't there;
Lestrade isn't there; Frankland hardly appears; Dr Mortimer is very
different to the character in the book; there's no reference to drugs in the
book; Holmes doesn't appear in disguise in the book;" etc., etc. So what? If
I want strict adherence to canonical detail I'll read the book. One suspects
that purists would only be happy if the film of the book consisted of actors
reading straight from the printed page, which would be pretty boring for all
involved.

That's why I enjoy the film version of GHOST STORY. It makes a stab at
tackling a very complex and sprawling narrative, captures enough of the
original to please me as a fan of the book, and succeeds as a good movie in
its own right.

Regarding which comes first - reading the book or seeing the film - I prefer
to read the book first, simply because it will inevitably give more detail
and information than the film and will enhance the viewing experience. Of
course, if the only way to make sense of what's on screen is to know the
book pretty well, then the filmmakers have failed.

Barbara<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

"David Matthews" <dmatthews03 RemoveThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<Mmo2c.17511$JZ6.602069@news20.bellglobal.com>...

 >
 >
 > Kubrick's movie was "The Killing" not "The Killers" and it was a
 > screen original by Kubrick and Jim Thompson. Nothing to do Hemingway.
 >
 > Hemingway's short story "The Killers" was expanded and made into a
 > 1946 movie brilliantly directed by Robert Siodmak. The opening of
 > "The Killers" is Hemingway's short story practically scene for scene
 > and word for word even down to the food the killers order in the
 > small town diner. Hemingway liked this movie a lot and thoughts it was
 > one of the best screen adaptations of his works.
 >
 > Dave in Toronto


Hi Dave

you're quite correct – I dunno what went wrong with the old grey cells
on that one! Siodmak's 1946 film was classic noir and based on the
Hemingway story. I also had in mind the remake with Lee Marvin, Angie
Dickinson, Clu Gulager and Ronald Regan in his last film performance.
This, of course, from 1964 and directed by Don Siegel, paid only lip
service to the original short story. Still enjoyable for that.

And I've gone way off topic now.

Happy Haunting.

Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

 >
 >So, to make a long story short, I've adopted a sort of apples and
 >oranges attitude, and try to appreciate the storytelling techniques
 >particular to each medium. But whenever possible, I do try to see the
 >film version first.
 >
 >I would be very interested to hear other group members' opinions on
 >this subject.
 >
 >Gina Harader

I read the book first, because very few books that I like are made into
movies. There was an idiot movie reviewer in Baltimore some years ago (now
thankfully working for the Washington POST) who said that he never read
anything that might be made into a movie. He said this in a review of the
movie version of DUNE, which meant he was willing to wait at least 25 years to
make sure. (Or one assume about 50 with LOTR.)
I think some things in books cannot be done easily on film, I can think of
one or two examples of movies better handled than their books. Generally
speaking an adaptation is far more original than an original screenplay because
there are more good books to steal from than recent good movies, and
scriptwriters only seen to have seen recent movies.
Mark Owings<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

For example, I think the 1958 version of Dracula with Christopher Lee
 > and Peter Cushing stands on its own as a superb horror film that does
 > not realy intend to "adapt" the novel. This is how I view film
 > versions of works of fiction.
 >
 > Gary W. Crawford

This has got to be a Hammer film? LOVE em! Go out of my way to view em,
tape them, even occasionally buy em!


Paula<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

<snip>
 > translate on to the screen; THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES is a case in
 > point. I love the 1939 Rathbone/Bruce version, and think it succeeds
 > wonderfully well as a film and as a film of the book; but there are
 > Sherlockians who grumble about this and that: "Oh, Laura Lyons isn't
there;
 > Lestrade isn't there; Frankland hardly appears; Dr Mortimer is very
 > different to the character in the book; there's no reference to drugs in
the
 > book; Holmes doesn't appear in disguise in the book;" etc., etc. So what?
If
 > I want strict adherence to canonical detail I'll read the book. One
suspects
 > that purists would only be happy if the film of the book consisted of
actors
 > reading straight from the printed page, which would be pretty boring for
all
 > involved.
 >

Oh, I don't know Barbara. I think by far the best film (of course this was
for TV so it might not count) adaptation of Sherlock Holmes was the Granada
series starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes.

Ian Patton<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

I agree!!!

Paula

"Ian Patton" <iyun.DeleteThis@hyperscribe.ca> wrote in message
news:104n64k2jui1008@corp.supernews.com...
 >

 > Oh, I don't know Barbara. I think by far the best film (of course this was
 > for TV so it might not count) adaptation of Sherlock Holmes was the
Granada
 > series starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes.
 >
 > Ian Patton
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 14:47:58 -0700, "Ian Patton" <iyun DeleteThis @hyperscribe.ca>
wrote:


 >
 >Oh, I don't know Barbara. I think by far the best film (of course this was
 >for TV so it might not count) adaptation of Sherlock Holmes was the Granada
 >series starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes.
 >

There are those who loathe Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Holmes, Ian;
but I'd agree with you in so far as Brett's, to my mind, was the most
sustained portrayal of Holmes (sustained over several series, that is)
that we have ever seen (and yes, I know there are Sherlockians who
would argue for Peter Cushing, or for Douglas Wilmer, etc,). But
really, I couldn't support an argument for the Brett (or Granada)
HOUND coming with arm's length of the '39 Hound with Rathbone.
Everything about the Granada presentation was wrong, and Brett was the
first to admit that he'd have liked to have the opportunity to do it
all over again. Unfortunately, by that time, his health was so poor
that the idea wouldn't even have been contemplated. And the Brett
Holmes didn't even approach the two versions that Peter Cushing made,
nor, I think, was it in the same league as the most recent TV
adaptation with Richard Roxburgh and Ian Hart.

My two pennorth.

Christopher<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations 

 > "Ian Patton" <iyun DeleteThis @hyperscribe.ca> wrote in message
 > news:104n64k2jui1008@corp.supernews.com...
  > >
 >
  > > Oh, I don't know Barbara. I think by far the best film (of course this
was
  > > for TV so it might not count) adaptation of Sherlock Holmes was the
 > Granada
  > > series starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes.

I think that, certainly in the early days of the series, the Brett
adaptations are as faithful to the canon as any devotee could wish, bearing
in mind the alterations that needed to be made adapting short stories
written a hundred years ago to the medium of television. The fact that the
stories were being adapted (for the most part) to fit a one-hour (less
adverts) time slot helped; padding was unnecessary. Where the series ran
into problems was in later days, when the best tales had already been
cherry-picked and some were being adapted for a two-hour slot, which meant
that padding needed to be added to flesh them out.

As far as HOUND goes, my own favourite (and I think still the best as far as
maintaining and respecting the original goes) is the 1939 Rathbone/Bruce
version. The 1968 BBC-TV version with Peter Cushing and Nigel Stock is also
very good (and criminally unavailable commercially), while the Richard
Roxburgh/Ian Hart version the BBC made two years ago is also, in my opinion,
very fine (although a good many Sherlockians disliked it, mostly, I think,
because of the casting of Roxburgh as Holmes). It's interesting that all
these versions play fast and loose with the original text in various
regards, yet they all, I think, respect the spirit of the book.

I think the best Holmes movie I've seen is MURDER BY DECREE; it's a
pastiche, obviously, but all involved obviously respect the characters. And
pound for pound, Christopher Plummer and James Mason are probably the two
best actors to have played Holmes and Watson on the screen; Plummer
convinces as the great detective, and Mason is a superb Watson, without ever
stopping to the subservient lapdog that so many other screen Watsons have
felt compelled to give us. There's a lovely little line, after the scene in
which Holmes has explained about the "Juwes", where Watson says admiringly
"The things you know, Holmes", and it comes over as a sincere tribute and
not the more usual blustering "Amazing, Holmes!" And at the end, where
Holmes says that there is still decency in the world, in Watson, if nowhere
else, we get a real sense of two men who are friends, and not just thrown
together because the plot demands it.

And it may be heresy, but WITHOUT A CLUE also presents a believable, if
uncanonical, Holmes and Watson; in my opinion, all involved in this romp
have far more sympathy and affection for the characters than the makers of
many a more serious Holmes film.

Barbara<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Books vs. film adaptations