movies

By Mary Jo

This month the Wenches are talking about film adaptations of movies.  What we loved, what we hated, and what we’d like to see made.  What adaptations have you loved or hated?

Anne here. In general, I prefer the book to the movie. There’s so much more in the book; characters’ thoughts, impressions, backstory, and things like subplots and minor characters that the movie makers often have to cut. But it’s a bit like comparing apples with oranges — they do different things. One adaptation I really enjoyed was the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, the one with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, but that was serialized, so it was able to include a lot of things that  a movie of the same book would have to miss out on. That said, I did enjoy the 2005 movie with Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen, even though there were some things that really annoyed me — like that pig wandering through the house! And the old movie of To Kill A Mockingbird, with Gregory Peck was brilliant and though it had to leave some of the book out, it conveyed its essence superbly.

But in general, I don’t rush to watch adaptations. I only watched a little bit of Bridgerton, for example, and though I’ve read Wuthering Heights a number of times, I’m not lining up to go and watch the new film adaptation. I never liked the book and from everything I’ve heard about the film, it won’t convert me. I understand why movie people want to make over old books and stories to appeal to a new audience, but I don’t particularly enjoy their flights of fancy.

But if I haven’t read the original book, often watching a movie will entice me to read it. I read One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest after seeing and enjoying the movie,  for instance. The same with M.A.S.H. after seeing the movie and the TV show. They were different, but I felt the essence was ‘right’ and the book respected. And there are movies that are much better than the book: The Princess Bride, for example. I saw the movie first, and hoped to like the book more, but I didn’t.

Christina here. I’m the same as Anne and usually much prefer the book to the movie. However, also like her, I really enjoyed the BBC TV adaptation of Pride & Prejudice, as well as the film version of Sense & Sensibility starring Emma Thompson. And I loved the Jane Eyre TV series starring Toby Stephens. I quite enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I saw the films first and they made me want to read the books. I had tried in the past and never got into them but once I’d seen the movies it all made more sense somehow.

Most of the time I find movie adaptations disappointing because they leave out some of what I consider important stuff. If it’s a film there isn’t enough time to fit everything in and sometimes they simply don’t catch the essence of the book. One movie that was better than the book though was Inkheart (based on the book by Cornelia Funke). The reason I liked it so much was because the film gives us a happy ending whereas the book didn’t (sorry if that’s a spoiler!). I would really, really love to see some TV adaptations of Georgette Heyer’s stories. I think her dry humour could come across brilliantly if it was done properly. Any producers out there listening?

Nicola here. I’m another one who usually prefers books to films. Generally, you get so much more depth in a book compared to a two-hour summary of a story in a movie. TV adaptations are often better because there are more episodes, which allows for a greater exploration of the themes and characters. I was massively disappointed in the 1998 film of Frenchman’s Creek, which is one of my all-time favourite books. I thought Anthony Delon as the pirate hero was always smirking rather irritatingly and all the subtlety and magic of the original story was lost for me. I’ve had a similar reaction to a number of Jane Austen adaptations although not all of them.

However, one film I loved was The Personal History of David Copperfield, based on the book by Charles Dickens. I don’t enjoy reading Dickens. I’ve really tried to get into his books but they just aren’t for me. So, I approached this movie with a certain wariness and was very pleasantly surprised. It’s funny, clever and the characters are really engaging. I’ve no idea if it’s true to the original book but that doesn’t matter. I thought it was charming. So perhaps the answer (for me at least) is not to watch adaptations of books I have loved but to try something new!

An adaptation I’d really like to see? Hmm, a time slip story like The Rose Garden by Susanna Kearsley would be absolutely brilliant!

Susan King here:  Often it seems movie adaptations are not quite as good as the original book, but there are lots of wonderful notable exceptions. One of the best screen adaptations of a book that I’ve read (and read before the movie was out) is The Martian, starring Matt Damon and based on the novel by Andy Weir. The book, an amazing blockbuster, is a powerful story packed with accurate scientific information and plausible life-or-death situations. When a group of astronauts must suddenly abandon their habitat on Mars in a storm, they believe one of their team died in a freak accident, and they reluctantly leave the planet. But Mark Watney is very much alive and must survive alone on the planet, using science, creative solutions, and incredible resilience until a highly dangerous rescue can be arranged.

The book was excellent, but can be bit of an uphill read with all the scientific information to absorb. The movie presents the same story in an exciting, fast-paced way that emphasizes character over science, makes the science very accessible, and laces humor throughout, even in the darkest moments. Matt Damon’s Mark Watney is a remarkable performance, close to the book yet far more endearing. It’s a fantastic movie, a favorite in our household, and so watchable that we’ve seen it more than once and will probably watch it again.

Andrea here: I’m usually leery of film adaptations of books. All too often, so much gets lost in translation. I do like both Pride & Prejudice films mentioned by the other Wenches, but mostly because they are nice period entertainments, though I don’t think they really capture Austen’s nuances.

That said, I do have few films that I think do a wonderful job of both capturing the spirit of the book and bringing an extra bit magic through the medium of film. First on the list is The Princess Bride, which is one of my all-time favorites. All the actors are so perfectly cast and capture the zany tongue-in-cheek mood of the book. In fact, when the film deviates from the book, it’s for the better! I’ve seen it umpteen times and still laugh at every joke or sight gag.

I also think the Harry Potter films, and the Lord of the Rings trilogy are fabulous at bring to life the world and characters of Hogwarts and Middle Earth.

Pat here.  I seldom watch movies and barely remember those that I have, sorry. Yes, I’ve seen the various versions of P&P and Sense and Sensibility and they were very pretty and well done for what they were—a nice bit of scenery and acting.  They captured some of the essence of the books, which given the limited time span of a movie, is well done. And therein lies the rub—books allow for so much more!

I’m in a book club that reads books made into movies. We tend literary, mostly, so the differences between the two media is extremely noticeable. Literary books are generally heavy on description and atmosphere and meaningful pauses where the reader can sit and ponder the portents and philosophies and themes. Movies are far more fun in this case. <G> They’re entertainment: beautiful people, beautiful scenery, a fast-paced story to please a wide audience. Film necessarily leaves out bits that I enjoyed or thought were extremely important to the book—but weren’t necessary for entertainment. Books like The Boys in the Boat or The Tender Bar (and yes, we have a George Clooney fan in the group) are filled with fascinating details that the movies turned into action sequences. And heck, let’s admit it, it’s far more fun to watch Clooney than to plod through old history!

Mary Jo here:  I join the other Wenches I admiring some of the Jane Austen adaptations, and I think the Lord of the Rings trilogy was magnificent.  (Since I’d read the books years early, I wasn’t hung up about what was left out.)

Sometimes movies I’m enjoyed have encouraged me to read the book.  It doesn’t usually work the other way.  If I read the book first, the movie often will seem lacking because there is so much that had to be left out.

I enjoy most of the same stories-to-movies that the other Wenches have mentioned, but I wanted to elaborate on The Princess Bride. The movie has become a much loved classic, popular with people of all ages.  I never read Goldman’s book which was the inspiration for the movie, but if you enjoy the movie, I recommend reading As You Wish: Inconceivable Tales from the Making of The Princess Bride. 

Written by Cary Elwes, who plays Westley, the romantic lead in The Princess Bride, the book is great fun, describing the actors and the ups and downs of the shooting.  It also gives insights into how movies are made.  The casting was brilliant–it’s hard to imagine any other actors in the roles.  Elwes and Mandy Patinkin spent endless hours practicing their swordsmanship for the key scene between them.  The dramatic Cliffs of Moher became the fearsome Cliffs of Insanity, Reading the book is as much fun as watching the movie.

What about you?  Do you love or hate movie adaptations of books?  If so, which ones?