novels on par with films:better or worse?

[Shaman_Raman]

So after watching the Green Mile about a hundred times on television, I decided to read the novel for the heck of it. As I've gotten into it, I'm surprised at how similar Stephen Kings novel is to the film, almost identical in content. I guess it threw me off because I'm used to novels either containing a lot more content, or even sometimes being completely different, besides a general premise from their film versions, (Heart of Darkness might be an example of this.)

So question: do you enjoy it more when a novel and film are more alike, or when they're more different, aside from general characteristics, which can also at times be different?

[Calidore]

Can't really say whether more or less different is preferable, as it could be a better or worse sort of different. It works the same with song covers. I like Devo, but I don't know what they were thinking when they covered "Satisfaction." On the other hand, Ram Jam's cover of "Black Betty" also has nothing to do with Leadbelly's original, but now everyone else who does it covers the cover because it's so good.

I assume with Heart of Darkness that you're referring to Apocalypse Now. That's a good example of vastly-different-but-great. Another might be Forbidden Planet (Shakespeare's Tempest).

Not too hard to find relatively faithful filmings of novels that aren't that good, unfortunately. I've recently seen one in the 1956 War and Peace, though I've started appreciating some things about it more now after watching the 1966 Russian version and about 3/4 of the 1972 BBC-TV serial (note: haven't read the novel yet--that's next).

[free]

I find that books are always better than films. And since Calidore mentioned, it is interesting to compare various countries' versions of a same novel. It is amazing how, for example, an American film version of Brothers Karamazov presents Russian characters in an American way - cool and unexcited. While, the Russian novel characters are rather deeply emitional and easily excited.

[Lokasenna]

I enjoyed the film version of Atonement much more than the novel, but then I'm not much of a fan of McEwan's style. Generally speaking, I'm quite good at separating film and novel in my mind - the only time I get irked is when I feel that the film version is being disrespectful to its source material, such as in that abominable Beowulf film from a few years ago.

[Desolation]

I think that the best best film adaptations (A Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, Apocalypse Now) are the ones that aren't afraid to deviate from the source material. There are plenty of things that work well on the page that wouldn't be any good on film. So, changes are necessary.

Besides, why make a movie if it's just a carbon copy of the novel? What's the point? It's like cover songs...If you're not going to go the Hendrix route and make the song sufficiently enough different than the original to be enjoyed on its own merits, then why bother doing it?

[Shaman_Raman]

I think that the best best film adaptations (A Clockwork Orange, Fight Club, Apocalypse Now) are the ones that aren't afraid to deviate from the source material. There are plenty of things that work well on the page that wouldn't be any good on film. So, changes are necessary.

Besides, why make a movie if it's just a carbon copy of the novel? What's the point? It's like cover songs...If you're not going to go the Hendrix route and make the song sufficiently enough different than the original to be enjoyed on its own merits, then why bother doing it?

Yeah, the two are different forms of self expression, or different mediums of publication. So I guess a carbon copy is self defeating. However after reading King´s novel, I can't help but wonder if he writes his novels with the hopes and intent of seeing them adapted to the screen. Same with Nicholas Sparks I wonder too.

[*Classic*Charm*]

the only time I get irked is when I feel that the film version is being disrespectful to its source material, such as in that abominable Beowulf film from a few years ago.

Ha, that was a TERRIBLE film.

Occasionally, I think a film can actually make a book better, simply because of an actor's job of portraying a character. I'll use "Silence of the Lambs" as an example. The novel is clearly not a masterwork by any means, but I think reading it with Anthony Hopkins in mind adds something to it that would otherwise be lacking. The character is fascinating, but far more intense having seen a physical portrayal of him.

On the whole, I find that seeing a film based on a novel you've already read tends to be disappointing because it's never the way you pictured it, and things get left out etc. It's difficult to distance yourself from that. If I can, I'll watch a film first, before having read the novel, so that I can appreciate the film in its own right, then love the novel as well. That way, I'm disappointed far less.

[islandclimber]

I prefer quite liberal adaptations of novels. The film format just isn't lengthy enough to justify close adaptations of literary works. Vladimir Bortko has adapted several Russian classics as tv movies, and they remain quite close to the novels, at 10 hours in length though.

Likewise, Bela Tarr's Satantango is a fairly close adaptation of the Krasznahorkai novel at 7 hours, and might be one of the best films ever made, but I prefer his shorter work Werckmeister Harmonies, which is quite an adaptation of Krasznahorkai's The Melancholy of Resistance, it discards parts of the novel, and modifies elements to work better as a film. One of the interesting things Tarr and Krasznahorkai manage to do in their collaborations, is establish a parallel between the author's spiralling coils of quite hypnotic prose, and the director's, at times, seemingly endless long takes.

The other film adaptation I adore, is Tarkovsky's Stalker, which improves upon the Strugatsky's novel Roadside Picnic. The film medium with this work allows the emptiness, the fractured nature of the landscape, the fear of the unknown, to become more prevalent and powerful themes, which is something the novel lacked. Another adaptation that didn't worry too much about a literal following of the novel.