Maybe if Cooper had SEEN Daniel, he would've written Nathaniel differently! |
|
This season there are so many film adaptations of novels, memoirs, and graphic novels, I thought it would be a perfect time to discuss the Book vs. Movie debate. Now, these are all my opinions, so I don't want to hear from the Peanut Gallery on what I missed or what I think! Plus, this is a subject that could easily last 20 columns...and I'll probably bring it up now and again. But for now, I'm sticking to just a few.
Let's start with an easy one. Who saw LEGENDS OF THE FALL? Yep--me, too. Loved it. I'm such a sucker for a historic romance. Anyway, I just recently read the short story (by Jim Harrison) that it was based on and guess what? Yeah, nothing like the movie. Surprise, surprise. Glad I saw it before I read it...makes it easier to separate the two. The short story is good and very well-written, but a lot of what's in the movie will never be found in the book!
Also nothing like its novel? THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS (1992). The way Daniel Day-Lewis portrays Nathaniel is swoon-worthy. In fact, it's my opinion that his big kissing scene with Madeleine Stowe is the best in cinematic history. James Fenimore Cooper's Nathaniel is definitely not worth drooling over. And he doesn't even fall in love with anyone! So you can forget the fantastic film score and romantic waterfall scenes. They're just not there. One of the very few times I've been more disappointed in the book than its film adaptation.
So...on to a book I loved, only to see it destroyed on film. BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY was a fantastic novel with amusing parallels to Pride and Prejudice. I loved the characters, and the way Helen Fielding just seemed to know all about me, much less Bridget. The book is downright hilarious and spot on with its observations. And then came the movie. Humourous moments, sure. But casting Renee Zellweger as a quirky Brit was a disaster. I imagined Bridget to look more like the author herself, and instead we get an American with a passably so-so accent who does not embody the title character well enough for my liking. Having Colin Firth portray Mark Darcy, however, was genius. As 
"He looks as if he knows what I look like without my shimmy!" |
|
the character is basically a modern Fitzwilliam Darcy, who else could play him?
Speaking of Mr. Darcy and Mr. Firth, the BBC adaptation of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (1995) is the best I've seen. And yes, Elizabeth Bennett was played by an American, Jennifer Ehle, but you could have fooled me. In fact, it wasn't until her first Tony win in 2000 that I realized the quintessential Lizzie wasn't British at all. (But perhaps having a mother who is British helps. A bit.) There's very little from the novel missing in this series, and everyone was perfectly cast. I think Jane Austen herself would have been delighted. Though she may have thought Colin Firth a tad too dreamy. It certainly beats the 1940 version with Lawrence Olivier, in which the costumes and hairstyles were at least 50 years ahead of their time. According to Greer Garson, the costumes were recycled from GONE WITH THE WIND! I love the BBC for their accuracy and attention to detail!
And since I've mentioned it, GONE WITH THE WIND, clocking in at four hours, still missed some key points, though none that were detrimental to the plot. Clark Gable was hesitant to take the role of Rhett Butler, believing he'd disappoint the book's fans. Those who have seen the movie and read Margaret Mitchell's Great American Novel can testify that he is the only man who can fill Cap'n Butler's shoes. Anyone else playing him would have been a disaster! And when you read the novel, can you picture anyone other than Vivian Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara? I didn't think so. I love this book, and the movie is my #1 All-Time Favourite. Why, fiddle-dee-dee! It is possible to make a wonderful film adaptation! But I won't think about that today, as Scarlett says. I'll think about that tomorrow.
And speaking of epics, LORD OF THE RINGS was another adaptation very well done. In my opinion. They managed to incorporate all the main plot points, even though they had to bypass a good chunk of all three novels. Tolkien wrote a wonderful story, and Peter Jackson brought it to life. In fact, I'll admit that I didn't even read the books until 
Oh, God...what if we SUCK?! |
|
after THE TWO TOWERS came out. And then I had to devour them. Though I've heard complaints that characters like Tom Bombadil were cut out of the movie, I don't feel that too much was missed. (I can hear you up there in the Peanut Gallery! I've already warned you once!)
Much-beloved fantasy novels are hard to bring to life. Peter Jackson had his fair share of problems, but what about the HARRY POTTER series? Everyone, including myself, was so excited to see the movies...but do they do J.K. Rowling's books justice? I'm such a HUGE Potter fan, that I don't like saying anything bad. But there are many scenes I miss--the Death Day Party, for instance! Hermione's S.P.E.W. ! And dozens more. This is an instance where the fascinating sub-plots would have helped develop the story, but there just wasn't enough time. I understand that, but what's wrong with long movies? If GONE WITH THE WIND can have an intermission, why can't we do that now? It doesn't help that the same director isn't at the helm of each movie...on second thought--it does help! Each director breathes new life into the saga, my personal favourite being Alfonso Cuaron. To my great disappointment, he was not able to direct my favourite book, THE GOBLET OF FIRE, but his work on THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN was superb. (Let's just ignore the cheesy-looking CG werewolf, shall we?) It's terrific that they're able to keep the same actors for the main characters, and the three kids are, for the most part, starting to become good actors. I suppose it helps to have the royalty of British actors on set with you all day!
Most of the time, I prefer the book to the movie. But, as you see, exceptions are made. I like to think that film adaptations are getting better through the years, but we'll have to see, won't we?
What do you think? Is there a favourite book of yours that was just torn to bits in the movie version? Or was there a book you didn't care for at all, but loved the film?
I'd love your input! Remember, this is a theme I will probably re-visit many times!
 email this column to a friend
|
| Cannon Fodder |
Every other Thursday
Stream-of-conscious ruminations on whatever pops into Christa's head.
|
| Christa Cannon |
Christa would prefer to live in a world where everyone breaks out into song and dance. Um, and also one in which she is rich and very famous.
|
| Contact |
If you have a comment, question, or suggestion, you can send a message to Christa Cannon by clicking here.
|
|
