Book or Film: Which Worked Best?

I recently watched The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – not the Daniel Craig version, I must hasten to add, but the 2009 Swedish original. Whilst the general feel of the film was sombre and grim, I still found there was enough going on to keep my eyelids from closing; it was a rather interesting film. It made me wonder, for comparison’s sake, whether a viewing of the newer version would be worthwhile. With this in mind, I ventured onto the net to read some reviews.

It turned out that rather than comparing the two films, I ended up more interested in the comparison between Stieg Larsson’s book and the film it spawned. It seems that some hardcore fans of the literary version found the film to be poor at best. Although readers often object to the way filmmakers decimate story lines – I felt this way about the screen adaptation of Michael Connelly’s Blood Work – it surprised me in this instance because the film didn’t seem too bad at all. I can’t help but question whether my view of the film would have been different had I picked up the book first.

Whilst a book can alter an opinion of a film, I also found the opposite to be true. It’s my opinion that Jaws made for a better film than book. Whilst, Benchley’s book contains the descriptive horror lacking in the film, I felt that Spielberg’s plot omissions actually improved the story rather than diminish it. Perhaps the subject matter simply works better visually - even when the shark is clearly made from rubber!

Perhaps there are some stories that work, in their own ways, on both levels. Take The Lord of the Rings for example. As a work of historical fiction, Tolkien has produced a masterpiece. But is it over descriptive, or are the finer details an integral part of the story as a whole? Does the brevity of Peter Jackson’s films, by comparison, lack depth, or has he been successful in producing a perfectly abridged, visually stunning adaptation of the story? In this instance, I think it’s possible to admire both the book and the film, but for differing reasons.

So, regarding novels turned into films: did you prefer the literary or film version of the story? Or did you simply like both?

Perhaps there are some stories that work, in their own ways, on both levels. Take The Lord of the Rings for example. As a work of historical fiction, Tolkien has produced a masterpiece. But is it over descriptive, or are the finer details an integral part of the story as a whole? Does the brevity of Peter Jackson’s films, by comparison, lack depth, or has he been successful in producing a perfectly abridged, visually stunning adaptation of the story? In this instance, I think it’s possible to admire both the book and the film, but for differing reasons.

I think this sums up the contests between book and film quite well to be honest. Rather than comparing the books and the films, they should be viewed and judged separately. A lot of the things books can be praised for are impossible to achieve within the medium of film because of time constraints and the lack of a narrator, where as some things that films can be praised on are not possible within the medium of the book because of the lack of image.

Crimey wrote:

Perhaps there are some stories that work, in their own ways, on both levels. Take The Lord of the Rings for example. As a work of historical fiction, Tolkien has produced a masterpiece. But is it over descriptive, or are the finer details an integral part of the story as a whole? Does the brevity of Peter Jackson’s films, by comparison, lack depth, or has he been successful in producing a perfectly abridged, visually stunning adaptation of the story? In this instance, I think it’s possible to admire both the book and the film, but for differing reasons.

I think this sums up the contests between book and film quite well to be honest. Rather than comparing the books and the films, they should be viewed and judged separately. A lot of the things books can be praised for are impossible to achieve within the medium of film because of time constraints and the lack of a narrator, where as some things that films can be praised on are not possible within the medium of the book because of the lack of image.

A film will always be a condensed version of a book, so omissions are inevitable, but I still think the two can be compared – particularly if there’s a major change in the story.

Take the example I gave – Jaws. In the book Matt Hooper (the marine biologist played by Richard Dreyfuss), embarks on an affair with Ellen Brody (Roy Schneider’s on-screen wife). Had this been included in the movie, it would have ultimately affected the viewers’ perception of the relationship formed between Dreyfuss and Schneider in the film. It’s good the two men survived and ended up as mates. Had Chief Brody caught a whiff that Hooper was sleeping with his missus, I sure he would have liked to fed him to the shark instead. Spielberg was right to leave this out; Hooper is a likeable character in the film but less so in the written version.

Another example is The Shawshank Redemption. In the book Red (played by Morgan Freeman in the film) is actually an Irishman with red hair – hence the moniker “Red”. Casting Freeman in this role was inspired genius and, in my view, an improvement on the original idea. It also explains why when questioned about his name “Red” in the film, Morgan responds by saying he’s Irish. A nice touch, I think.

A final example is David Morrell’s book First Blood. Rambo doesn’t survive in the book but he does in the film. I guess your preference here depends largely on your view of the Rambo sequels.

I think the Lord of the Rings is the only book/film combo where I've equally enjoyed both. Hate the Harry potter movies with a passion.

Graeme Swann's Cat wrote:I think the Lord of the Rings is the only book/film combo where I've equally enjoyed both. Hate the Harry potter movies with a passion.

Are we related?

Did you like the Harry Potter books then, Graeme Swann's Cat?

For me, book will always triumph over film. As much as I love film, it just can't rival a book.

Film is the directors interpretation of a story with which you are fed to digest. The thing with a book is, you are gifted the words but left with only those and your imagination to visualise the story yourself. That is the magic of book and something that film will never be able to combat.

The power of imagination makes every book you read that little bit more special.

The Green Mile is a good example of this, great film, fantastic book. Same with Shawshank Redemption once again as mentioned above.

A book just engages you on a whole other level that I don't think film will be able to do so purely because of the concept of it.

I was having a similar conversation with a friend the other week.

For me, one great thing about reading a book is that it can spend more time on back stories to build depth and a greater understanding of the characters. Another would be that it can explain what a character is thinking at a given point when they aren't speaking and the real significance of certain things that cannot be spelt out so clearly in a flim.

Also, my friend made the point that the average film will take between ninety minutes to three hours of your life, time where you might be enthralled, but it's a short time. A book might take three weeks, three weeks where it is always on my mind what might happen on the next page. It's by nature a far slower and more immersive medium and I like that.

Our conversation came about because I had just finished reading The Godfather but have never seen the film. I didn't even realise the film was based on a book until relatively recently.

My friend told me that the film has less of the back story. I'm sure I'll enjoy it when I get around to seeing it, but there might now always be the feeling of "they missed out that scene?"

If you haven't read the book by the way, it is terrific. Highly recommended.

I read I Am Legend after seeing the film and it was very different. Very different indeed.

As mentioned earlier with Morgan Freeman's Red, the main character in the book was a blond haired bloke of German origin, I think. Maybe Scandinavian. It was a while ago but whatever his lineage, he looked bog all like Will Smith.

The worst thing was, as the copy I read had been printed after the film had been released, it had the former Fresh Prince on the cover. This was of course completely at odds with the man described inside but I guess cashing in on the film was more important than accuracy between cover and content.

As mentioned earlier with Morgan Freeman's Red, the main character in the book was a blond haired bloke of German origin, I think. Maybe Scandinavian. It was a while ago but whatever his lineage, he looked bog all like Will Smith.

Wasn't he red-haired and Irish?

Crimey wrote:

As mentioned earlier with Morgan Freeman's Red, the main character in the book was a blond haired bloke of German origin, I think. Maybe Scandinavian. It was a while ago but whatever his lineage, he looked bog all like Will Smith.

Wasn't he red-haired and Irish?

Maybe I didn't word what I meant to say very clearly. Apologies.

What I mean is, the character in the book I Am Legend is white with blond hair and blue eyes but was played by a black man (Will Smith) in the film, which was a similar thing to Morgan Freeman playing the red-haired Irishman in The Shawshank Redemption. Skin colour-wise if not hair colour.

Il Gialloblu wrote:

Crimey wrote:

As mentioned earlier with Morgan Freeman's Red, the main character in the book was a blond haired bloke of German origin, I think. Maybe Scandinavian. It was a while ago but whatever his lineage, he looked bog all like Will Smith.

Wasn't he red-haired and Irish?

Maybe I didn't word what I meant to say very clearly. Apologies.

What I mean is, the character in the book I Am Legend is white with blond hair and blue eyes but was played by a black man (Will Smith) in the film, which was a similar thing to Morgan Freeman playing the red-haired Irishman in The Shawshank Redemption. Skin colour-wise if not hair colour.

Aha, I wondered why you were saying Will Smith, I just thought you were being mildly racist...

Loved Blade Runner.

Read the book (Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?") some while after having seen the film several times. Was left underwhelmed and slightly confused - difficult to suppress a gut reaction of rejection once the mind has formed such a definitive view of a world / characters / story. Still, it was said that PKD was bowled over by the footage of the movie which he saw just before he passed away; the filmmakers must have been really pleased to receive his blessing/endorsement after such a troubled production.

I loved the Jurassic Park films but after reading the books I now prefer the books. The book of JP is so much better in my opinion and it's not at all like the film.

I am also a big fan of the Nick Hornby books. The films are ok but not a patch on the books

If I can I will always watch the film before reading the book because I'm never left dis-appointed where as if it's the other way round I feel the film rarely lives upto the mantle the book has placed it upon.

Phillip K Dicks work is brilliant. If you look at the amount of film adaptations made from his work it's phenomenal and most people aren't ever aware.

Blade Runner
Totall Recall
Minority Report
A Scanner Darkly
Paycheck
Next
Adjustment Bureau

Granted all not brilliant films but without a shadow of a doubt one of the best Sci-Fi writers of all time.

The Red Riding Trilogy based on David Peace's quartet of novels, was superbly adapted for film. I actually read all four books after the films were broadcast and they're very different from each other, but understandably so due to the difficult task of adapting such a series of books. To start with, they could only make three films due to budget limitations, but they're much better than the books. Basically, it's a British fictional crime drama about corruption and the lengths people go to for their own greed, set over a period of time - 1974 to 1983 - so there's lots of recurring characters and situations. The films were made by three different directors, and yet they all fit together perfectly. Tony Grisoni who wrote the screenplays, definitely had his work cut out when he took on the task of adapting Peace's novels. Peace is very good at writing about the darker side of humans - particularly cruelty, so his novels are very violent and at times (given the setting) controversial. He also uses a lot of imagery in his books, so they seem to go off on a tangent a bit. They also tend to finish rather suddenly (usually with a death) as if Peace suddenly gave up and couldn't be arsed finishing the novel. Grisoni did a great job making the films less complicated whilst maintaining the suspense though and watering them down a bit suitably for TV films. The directors did a fab job capturing the period and some imagery from the novels creating an extraordinary piece of entertaining TV.