I haven't seen A Mighty Heart yet, and I probably will – but it isn't without some trepidation, despite the good advance reviews the movie has gotten. I'm often afraid, or at least anxious about, seeing a movie that is based on a book that I loved that was about something I care about. I'm no movie critic, but ninety percent of the time what I like is the book on which a movie was based, a lot more than I like the movie itself. (Memoirs of a Geisha, for example. Ditto Brokeback Mountain – which was a short story) But still, movies are great for books: even if they're lousy, they tend to draw attention to the often-forgotten book and give it and its author a new life in the bookstores and on bestseller lists.
Why do good books often make lousy movies? Of course, I have a theory: that the more simplistic the book, the better the movie. Complicated, interior narratives don't translate so well to screen. Still, there are some exceptions, and if I ruled the world (as if) I'd start a book-to-movie award system, which would go something like this:
Good Movie Made from a Great Book:
Compromising Positions. (Rent it!) Susan Sarandon and the late Raul Julia were impressive as the housewife and the detective trying to unravel the murder of a local dentist. But the 1978 novel by Susan Isaacs is even better at addressing the universal question: Who wouldn't want to kill the guy who mucks around in your mouth – and gets paid for it?
Most Hollywoodized Version of a Surprisingly Dark Book:
Breakfast at Tiffany's. The original narrator in Truman Capote's masterpiece of a novella was obviously gay. In the movies, he's a hyperheterosexual pretty-boy gigolo played by George Peppard. Makes for a better love story, I guess, but a lot of the depth gets lost in the process
Most Convoluted Movie Made from a Convoluted Book:
The English Patient. I loved both, but come on: did anybody understand the whole thing in either format?
Worst Movie Made from a Good Book:
This is a tough one; there are so many. Memoirs of a Geisha, as I said, Bonfire of the Vanities, and A Civil Action. The book was about garbage, the movie was just that.
Most Improved Movie of a Terrible Book:
The dumber the book, the better the film, right? That's why, ladies and gentlemen, we have a tie: Robert James Waller's The Bridges of Madison County and Nicholas Evans's The Horse Whisperer. The latter is a long novel that very obviously falls apart in the middle, suspiciously soon after the author sold film rights to Robert Redford, on the basis of a partial manuscript. He sold just in time, apparently right before he ran out of good ideas.
I guess that's why they say Hooray for Hollywood.
_________________________________________
Sara Nelson is Editor-in-Chief of Publishers Weekly: The International Voice for Book Publishing and Bookselling
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
Even the most ardent Harry Potter fan will undoubtedly come away from any one of the cinematic versions of the books wanting more. I imagine that one of the most successful efforts might have been the Academy Award-winning "Brokeback Mountain", which benefitted greatly, once again, from the magnificent, sweeping vistas of its setting (somewhat difficult to synthesize in mere words). Did it manage as successfully to capture the interplay of emotions at work between the characters as the short story that was its source, or explore the literary themes as well as E. Annie Proulx did? (Interestingly, the author herself, in an essay that accompanied subsequent publication of the story, said that she felt that the film was actually an improvement over her story.) I'd be very interested in knowing what some of the rest of you think about that?
I always used to think this was due, us, the audience having a better imagination for a book, you are with it longer, it grows on you and takes you into the world more, familiar faces do not intrude, and product placements are pretty much non-existent ... yeah, books are much better. Books do not have to be so mass-market either.
For a long time I was a book snob for that reason. Then I started seeing movies that I thought were as good as or better than the book, or when I saw the movie first the book was not as good or different in the same way.
My current thinking is that books and movies are two different art forms, each with good and bad and compromises and limitations. Face it, movies are about two hours of human interaction ... which goes slow, what can you really express in that unless you pare down to one essential theme. Like a short story. Occasionally in a book you can set up a character's whole life in 30 minutes ... movies do not allow that, so they make compromises and take short cuts, and these will affect people differently.
A good movie must be so much harder to make ... just to think of how many people work on it, and how many have their own ideas and interpretations and huge egos that think they know best. A book can have the single minded coherence a movie can only strive for.
They are just different things I have come to realize, and both can be good in completely different ways. It is up to the viewer to see what the movie may offer without being influenced by the fact that you liked the book and they did not do that in the movie.
I am not sure I will see this ... maybe on DVD ... it is one of those depressing type movies I imagine that probably says alot about the human condition ... llike say "Schindler's List" but watching it had me wondering to myself ... what am I doing ... this is painful ... I had to turn it off.
The Dead Zone, the book - excellent Stephen King, Dead Zone, the movie - an improvement - some of the situations were resolved in a way that made more sense, Dead Zone - the t.v. show - no even going to discuss THAT
Whale Rider, the book - interesting, Whale Rider, the movie - gripping, astonishing, wonderful - mucjh better than the book
Girl Interrupted, the book - interesting, a good read, Girl Interrupted, the movie - exciting, engrossing - much better
Beautiful Mind, the book - dense with facts, no "movement", Beautiful Mind, the movie - some "facts" were different, many were deleted, I can see there's a story there and it's exciting
So not all movies made from books are worse, but they ARE different!
Late - Raul Julia(thanks for the info and RIP for him)
Hmmm... well I may not say ''Yes'' to what you said but I keep the possibility withheld.... ''To me it is challenging mentally to read a book and pragmatic or practical to watch a movie even having both of the same story and plot or not...'' and both are good for the mind and spirit... and I think all movies shown in Hollywood came from books(hehehe).
Another book that was shortchanged by the movie biz (even though it wasn't the worst "Adaptation") was Susan Orlean's "The Orchid Thief," a gem of a book. I think if a movie strays far enough away from the novel, like "Bride and Prejudice," the Indian take on Jane Austen's classic, then we don't end up comparing so closely, and the movie can stand on its own.
Thanks for writing the article. Both your article and the comments here have given me plenty to think about, both as a book and movie lover.