25 best book to film adaptations

[MovieWes]

There's a lot of actual non-freelance "journalists" who are terrible, especially film critics. As far as I know, Tom O'Neil is now an actual staff member of the L.A. Times. And Richard Roeper is with the Chicago Sun-Times. And of course, there's Armond White, quite possibly the biggest troll in the history of film criticism.

Additionally, there's an appalling lack of credibility among broadcast film critics, who include Michael Medved, Gene Shalit, Jeffrey and Ben Lyons, and the late Joel Siegel. The best among broadcast-only film critics is probably Leonard Maltin, and even he's not that great. He's actually better as a film historian that an actual critic. However, Leonard Maltin's Video & Movie Guide has become the gold standard among video guides, so I guess that's something.

[OscarGuy]

I was not speaking ill of all freelancers, but as Sonic stated, freelancing has become the standard and not the aberration. So, people are constantly trying to find work. My entire point was it would not be at all surprising if she created this lackluster piece with populist elements just to secure a release. Would something detailed and filled with films or books many had never heard gotten her published? Very unlikely in this climate.

But, sure, let's just assume that she's an idiot and didn't know full well that she was writing would land her a paycheck. No freelance writer would ever stoop that low.



Edited By OscarGuy on 1256227221

[flipp525]

Yeah, I agree with Sonic. What's wrong with freelancing all of a sudden? Let's not let one woman's incomplete and boring list (and writing) speak for freelance writers everywhere. It's a painfully reductive statement.

[Sonic Youth]

Well, the word Freelance should tell you something.

All it means is that she's hired to do work without receiving any staff benefits. Thanks to the economy, more and more reporters and entertainment journalists are forced to freelance, either to supplement their livelihood or pick up a few bucks when their livelihood was taken away. It says nothing about their writing or thinking abilities.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1256221332

[OscarGuy]

Well, the word Freelance should tell you something. By going with this kind of superficial analysis, she ensures that whomever pays her for the article is pleased because it appeals to the lowest common film-watching denominator.

[flipp525]

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? is up there with turning a pile of printed crap into something approaching magnificence. Horace McCoy's novel is meandering, features several cheap, dead-end subplots (including a murder that shuts down the dance contest and the very setting for the action of the novel) and is generally regarded as poorly-written. James Poe's Oscar-nominated screenplay cuts out much of the fat of the novel, limits the action to inside the dance hall and, aside from retaining those unfortunate flash-forwards, vastly improves upon the source material.

This list doesn't really dig all that deep.



Edited By flipp525 on 1256216915

[Big Magilla]

Who is this ignoramus, anyway?

She's a free-lance British journalist.

[Damien]

Who is this ignoramus, anyway?

Kiss Me, Deadly is one of the greatest of all film adaptations because it turned the novel's (and the genre's) conventions on their head. That's the kind of film this person shouuld be babbling about.

[Big Magilla]

My take is that she was going for a list of great films made from great books whether they were faithful adaptations or not, a daunting task.

The article might have more credibility if she simply called it a list of favorite films made from books instead of the "25 best".

[Uri]

What should be the criteria?

Is it about managing to not disgrace a great source material when adapting it? Is it about being faithful or rather bringing a new and even revisionist approach to a known material? Or maybe it's only about which movie, based on a literary piece, is a great piece of filmmaking.

My take on it – go for the biggest improvement made on the way from the printed page to the screen, the way the string of crapy, dumb letter assembled on paper I unfortunately once read where turned into a decent, even profound film in the case of The Bridges of Madison County.

[anonymous1980]

That more has been written about how unfaithful and questionable many of the Potter films makes it really silly to include it here...

Actually, with the first two Harry Potter movies, its fault was that they were a little TOO faithful.

[Penelope]

The BBC adaptation of Doctor Zhivago is much more faithful to the novel and, in some ways, more effective than Lean's film--as much as I love the '65 movie, the BBC version is much, much more emotionally affecting. Lean's film, however, is much more lavish and cinematic and Julie Christie is far superior as Lara than is Kiera Knightley.

As for Pasternak's novel compared to Lean's film, not only does Bolt's screenplay cut down on much of the political undercurrents but by emphasizing the romantic aspect he makes the movie a lopsided version of the book--almost the first 2/3rds of the film are actually just the first 1/3rd of the book. In a way, it's kind of similar to Gone With the Wind in that regard: having built up to a certain point in the book, both films start rushing head-long to their conclusions.

Aside from trashy dime novels or beach books--such as, say, Airport or Jaws--it's rare for a film to be better than the literary work it's based on; one that does come to mind, however, is Ian Fleming's On Her Majesty's Secret Service, which is probably the best of his novels, but the films version is even better, particularly by incorporating Tracy more effectively into the story and thus making the climax that much more affecting.



Edited By Penelope on 1256174980

[Big Magilla]

She's pretty much talking out of her ass.

To Kill a Mockingbird and All Quiet on the Western Front, sure, Great Expectations and Wuthering Heights, maybe, but the rest?

Where is Gone With the Wind, indeed? And where are The Grapes of Wrath, East of Eden, How Green Was My Valley, David Copperfield, A Tale of Two Cities and The Wizard of Oz for starters?

[Damien]

Oh. Jeez, this list is so full of crap in so many ways that I can't even commence to begin . . .

The two that DWS cites are excellent examples. Although I would say that, in its denouement, Remains of the Day does become a comic novel, one worthy of Kinglsey Amis.



Edited By Damien on 1256161544

[dws1982]

4. DOCTOR ZHIVAGO by BORIS PASTERNAK

Published: 1957

Film adaptation: 1965

Director: DAVID LEAN

Lean’s snowy cinematic masterpiece starring Omar Sharif, Julie Christie and Alec Guinness brings to life the Nobel Prize-winner’s story of revolutionary Russia with tremendous style. Although beaten to 1965’s Best Picture Oscar by The Sound of Music, this memorable realisation honours all the emotional and political complexity of Boris Pasternak’s original novel.

And that tells me all I need to know about this list. People who only know Doctor Zhivago the movie would be forgiven for thinking that the book must be some dull epic soap opera. There's no indication that it's actually based on one of the great novels of the 20th century. There was a BBC adaptation about five, maybe six years ago that was much better, although it's not a book that's going to translate onto the screen with all of its richness and complexity intact.

Also have a problem with The Remains of the Day being listed. I think the movie basically works, but as its own entity, rather than as an adaptation of the novel. The movie is dour and humorless, while the book...it isn't a comic novel, but it has a good deal more wit and humor than you'd expect from the film. That aspect of the novel was great, and essential to the success of it. I think the movie misses that aspect, and it's the lesser work because of it.

And 2001 couldn't be included here, Wes, because it was an original screenplay. The novelization was developed as Clarke worked on the screenplay (mostly on the early drafts), and was released after the movie.

The Godfather is a surprising omission, but the novel is, in some parts, such unadulturated garbage, that it may have hurt it. I think the fact that Coppola and Puzo turned it into something respectable (not t o mention one of the classics of American cinema) is a credit to their adaptation. As for Giant, I'm not sure that anyone really knows that book anymore, and were it not for the James Dean thing, I don't think anyone would be talking about the movie now.