sorry for pointing out the obvious here but in response to the OP, the reason you feel like it should have been "different" is because you're watching someone else's interpretation of a novel, not your own.
Printable View
sorry for pointing out the obvious here but in response to the OP, the reason you feel like it should have been "different" is because you're watching someone else's interpretation of a novel, not your own.
Sometimes a film can introduce you into a novel you probably never heard of, or can help you imagine it in a clearer way to your senses. I like to see the story from both angles and I think they have different purposes and shouldn't be compared.
I agree with lima. Besides, if a particular film is a particular interpretation of a novel, then how can we know it's not a good interpretation just because it's different from how we would have told the story? What could make us believe that our interpretation is better than the makers' interpretation?
Last but not least, I believe a film is not supposed to be better than a novel. It's supposed to be... one interpretation out of many.
The majority of Hithcock's films were based on books.Quote:
Originally Posted by poehee99
2001: A Space Odyssey film was a LOT better than the book.
Breakfast At Tiffany's movie was (a tad) better than the original Truman Capote novel.
Schindler's List.
The Godfather.
The Shawshank Redemption.
Goodfellas.
No Country For Old Men.
And the list goes on and on and on.
Generally, if you go back and look at all the greatest movies of all-time, the vast majority of them are based on books. So i think it really depends.
I'd say 90% of the time I like a book better. But I have some exceptions.
The Godfather. I thought the book had some random, bizarre fascination with Sonny's genitalia and some really crappy prose. But the film was amazing.
The Graduate. The book wasn't that great, but the movie was.
The Red Riding Trilogy. The books this trilogy was based on were actually a quartet, but although the books were good, the movies were amazing.
Don't Look Now. I read the Daphne du Marnier short story and thought it was pretty good, but the movie by Nicolas Roeg was amazing, and got way more in depth with the characters than the short story.
The books are almost always better than the movies but there are exceptions and Mathor pointed out some great examples.
Here are some others.
Fight Club
Basic Instinct
The Rules of Attraction
The Color Purple
Trainspotting (the book and movie were equally as good as each other)
I wouldn't say that Breakfast at Tiffany's is a better movie than a novella. But I would say that both are wildly different and both deserve their stature as classics. Audrey Hepburn is about as far from Holly as I could possibly begin to imagine. Yet she defies the odds, and brings something of the heart and soul of the piece, as well as something wholly new and vivid. The movie is extremely different from the book in many ways. George Peppard is wonderful. The beginning and the end of the film are indelible.
Art is funny. As different as Breakfast as Tiffany's movie is from the novella it remains much more artistically faithful to it than some "on paper" loyal screen adaptations which fail to suggest an ounce of the source material's soul.
(I hope it goes without saying that I in no way approve of Mickey Rooney's caricature of the Japanese neighbor.)
One could imagine a beautiful, "to a t" faithful version reaching the screen with Marilyn Monroe. But it wouldn't change the fact that the movie we have and the images of Hepburn's morning walk on 5th Ave. and Hepburn and Peppard in the rain with the cat are, justifiably, part of the film cannon.
While there are many reasons I didn't like the movie of "Interview with a Vampire," I was shocked at how many ways it visually matched my reading of the novel.
"Daniel Deronda" with Hugh Dancy, Romola Garai, and Jodhi May uncannily matched my visualation of the novel, and is an absolutely stunningly beautiful adaptation, Faithful to Elliot, brilliantly performed and directed (by the director of The King's Speech, I believe, whose name I forget at the moment) sublime television-filmmaking.
An example from the other end of the spectrum.
If there ever was a modern bestseller - we can all argue its merits as a novel - that was "born" to be a great film - it is Isabel Allende's The House of the Spirits. The film adaptation with Irons, Streep, Close, Banderas and Ryder is so ill-conceived in every respect, one can hardly begin. It is simply, a bad movie, and a justifiable flop. And the absence of any Latin American actors in any of the leading roles is quite embarrassing.
first one that comes into my mind where film is much better than the book is A Clockwork Orange.
also Mathor gave a good list. however it doesn't change a fact that in most cases book is always better.
-------
ogrody
The Jaws film was much better than the novel, as they trimmed out lots of extraneous soap-opera filler like Hooper's affair with Ellen Brody.
Here are a few more.
The First Wives Club. Whoever made this movie did it justice and made it just as funny and entertaining as the book.
I mentioned this in another thread but Mel Gibson gave a spectacular performance of Hamlet in the film version, making it the best screen version of a Shakespeare play for me.
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I liked both the old and the new film adaptations.
yeah may be 'The Social Network' film would be better than its book 'Accidental Billionaires.' I don't exactly know, as I haven't read it yet...
I don't think most people think "The Color Purple" the movie is better than "The Color Purple" the book.
I've seen several versions of Jane Eyre and read the book and enjoyed them. I love the book and think the most recent adaptation is really good.
The children's novel, "Bridge to Terebithia" was good. I thought the movie was good, but for some reason I didn't find it as compelling as I did the book.