Movie vs. Novel

My friend the Author posted a review of The Road on her blog. I want to see the movie next year, the story line being moderately interesting and the cast interesting. Her review makes the story line even more appealing. (i.e., not just some post-apocalyptic meandering) The ’stuck’ part is my general philosophy: haven’t read the book? Don’t do it before seeing the movie. I’m looking forward to having a bit of free time around the holidays. After reading her review, I’m tempted to put it on my holiday reading list. But the movie’s coming out! What am I to do??

One of the most striking examples of why I cling to this Kinoweltanschauung ... L.A. Confidential The Movie. If you've never read the book, I recommend it in the strongest terms. It's huge. It's an epic work of modern American fiction. James Elroy writes brutally honestly. The violence was occasionally brutal. It's the first time I've ever had a "oh, god I can't look" moment while reading.

The film remains one of my all-time favorites. The multiple stories intertwine elegantly, an accomplishment few manage, much less manage well. It's a story of huge scope, with a cast of - if not thousands - hundreds. Yet the book is ... surprisingly different.

L.A. Confidential The Book is far more complicated than the movie. In an interview with Elroy, he expressed his enthusiasm for the quality of the screenplay, since he thought the novel was "just fucking un-adaptable". Thankfully he was wrong. The simplification of the story lines into the screen play is an example of the scriptwriter truly seeing the important events & facts. Rather like Lord of the Rings, where lines appear in the script in different places by different characters, but being artistically critical (rather then person-critical) are used where needed to make the screen play work.

The Mexican girl in the movie, who gets rescued by Exley, is indeed in the book as well, with a completely different role beyond "girl who gets rescued". Or Rollo Tommasi, who appears from a completely different direction (as Exley Sr. isn't dead in the book).

One is left realizing the film and the book are two very different creations using the same ingredients to achieve very different, if superficially similar, pieces. The movie, to be taken on its own merits, really needs to be seen without prior knowledge of the plot. Else one is left, sort of like Harry Potter, with the abrupt interruption your submersion into the story by realizing 'hey, that's not in the book'. It's easier to ignore things that are missing than things that have been added, no matter how effectively. Prisoner of Askaban being a good example: it wasn't just a matter of cutting things out, but how some integral information is put back in, done well, but a burp in the story flow, if one's already read the book.

One is, in the reverse, conflicted with the impact of the director's visual presentation versus your personal imagination. Having seen the movie version, I was left with the images of Guy Pierce, Russel Crowe and Kevin Spacey while reading L.A. Confidential. Whereas with Harry Potter or Master & Commander, I had a pretty clear picture from the books of what I thought the characters looked like before seeing the films. While I'm not so sure about Potter (having read Sorcerer's Stone a week before the movie), watching Lord of the Rings or Master & Commander was like putting on a jacket you are surprised to find fits so nicely: that's just how it ought to look, even if it's not how I had pictured it myself.

I've rarely been disappointed in a book, after enjoying a good movie. The reverse is, unfortunately, not true.

-- ed. - The Road got postponed to "some time in 2009" ... sigh ...

[movie review] Commanding my Attention

The epitome of Procrastination, I sit watching 'Master and Commander'. Peter Weir is amazing. Utterly and absolutely amazing.

In the first 2 or 3 minutes of the movie, the only sound is the ocean. No music. No dialogue. Nothing loud. Simply the gentle susurration of the water. And yet, such an amazing amount of information is conveyed in that short period of time.

The opening volley - in the quite literal sense - was shocking. Completely shocking in its violence, its comprehensiveness. Even watching it tonight, for the n-th time, I am jolted from the mild, placid tension to a breathtaking, gut-clenching cringe from the screen. Yes, a feat of CGI; but the actual choice of imagery is the wonder. [sure, STFU&GBTW no doubt has a completely different opinion... don’t rain on my parade]

People can drone on about the ‘accuracy’ or ‘authenticity’ of the visual presentation (sure, I can be one of them). But the more amazing feat is the astonishing amount of the story which is told without words. Either in a simple visual manner, such as the initial minutes of the film, or as a miscellaneous background, a subliminal presentation, such as the dinner with the captain in the middle of the film where he announces the Galapagos Is. as their destination. It isn’t the dialogue here, but the simple manner in which the dinner occurs, with singing and drinking and drinking with everyone having a crewman behind his chair, with the absolute absence of any women (there are 2 on screen for about 30 seconds while they’re picking up stuff in Brazil).

It is the manner in which Weir frames the dialogue, with images and motion, and music which make the film so powerful.

I’ve read all of O’Brien’s Aubrey/Maturin novels, and several of his others. (Did you know he wrote Bedknobs and Broomsticks??) When I realized “Far Side of the World” was being made into a movie, I swore in delight. I then swore in frustration. If I decide to see an adapted screenplay, I avoid reading the book, if possible. It lets me take the film on its own merits. I was only on no. 8; Far Side of the World is no. 10. I had to put off reading the rest of the novels for a year and a half. Argh!

Quite a bit is missing; several bits are from other novels in the series. E.g., Ensign Hollum doesn’t commit suicide, he jumps ship with the gunner’s wife, whom he’s gotten pregnant. Dr. Maturin does name some huge tortoise after Capt. Aubrey, but it’s a few novels earlier when they’re somewhere in the Indian Ocean.

With the whole concept of framing the story, the entire story is on ship, with a brief respite on the Galapagos Is. There is no world outside of the crew. And yet, with such a small, enclosed space, it is presented as just that, a world within itself. This will assuredly remain one of my favorite movies of all time. The judgment of which is whether or not I’ll buy the next-generation of video medium (blue-ray HD DVD whatever).

Elizabeth’s rating:
Definitely go see it on the big screen at full price (if you ever get a chance)

1 - Go see it on the big screen at full price.
2 - Go see it on the big screen, at matinee prices.
3 - Buy your own on video.
4 - Definitely see it on video.
5 - Well, if someone else it paying for it ...
6 - Go get your teeth cleaned.



I’ve had to reconsider my movie-rating scale. I decided to add “buy it on video”, but I’m not sure where “buy your own” should be. Is this the highest accolade or not? There is just that certain ability to completely engulf you, when seen on the big screen. Not even the monster-HD can match it. I think “see it in the theater” will remain my highest recommendation. The full-price vs. matinee was simply how important I thought it was to see that way. Full-price isn’t simply a matter of “it’s the only way to see it” (some things come here at the indy-theaters, and simply will never get to the $2.5 discount place in Hopkins). Is the film so completely visually astonishing that you just have to see it on the big screen, even if it means paying $9? Then go pay $9. Whereas, “at matinee” means I’ll wait to see it in Hopkins at $2.5, but I still think the visual experience will be better there than on TV. I had previously had the list in order of importance to you, the viewer, in getting the optimal experience. E.g Star Wars on my 13” B&W TV just doesn’t match the front-row seat I had in 1977. Whereas “Pride & Prejudice” (A&E, of course) is okay on my (now 21” flat screen) TV.

A friend once asked me for examples on this scale. It was far easier to provide the extremes. Picking between must-see and ought to buy was harder, and perhaps far more dependent on personal tastes. I think most films I would otherwise give a 5 get weeded out before I see them. So, sticking to relatively recent films*:

1 - Master & Commander; Terminator; Alien **

2 - L.A. Confidential; American Beauty; O Brother, Where Art Thou; 7 Samurai

3 - Dogma, Better Off Dead, Blues Brothers (Ride of the Valkyries/giant police-chase scene definitely gets a “see it on the big screen” commendation)

4 - Four Brothers, 8-Mile, Painted Veil, Fargo
5 - Becoming Jane; Indiana Jones #2; Home Alone; Signs
6 - Boogie Nights; Charlie's Angels



* sure, you don't agree. go write your own blog.
**come on, everyone's going to put LotR there, be original