Never judge a book by its movie!

December 4, 2005 4:14 PM

I'm interested in hearing personal experiences of movies based upon literary works. Which movies are best experienced only after you've first read the book? Has reading the book afterwards altered your opinion of a movie or indeed has your appreciation of a book changed after you watched the film adaptation?

For instance, I had always avoided watching Nineteen Eighty-Four, starring John Hurt, because I presumed it would bore me rigid. It was only after I first read the George Orwell classic that I watched the movie and found it rewarding to compare my own imagery with that which was realised on film. Have you ever found the director's vision radically different from what you had imagined?

Another question is the degree to which movies influence the visuals we create when reading literature? For instance, I have a habit of "casting" Harrison Ford as the main protagonist in books I read.

posted by wannalol to media & arts (45 comments total)

I was never able to envision Dune for myself after watching the the David Lynch production as a kid. That movie doesn't hold together for shit plotwise but it does an absolutely amazing job of imagining the material visually. I have seen the newer SciFi channel effort and the Lynch film still wins by a long mile.

In such a case, I don't mind so much having seen the film first, though in general I avoid it.
posted by scarabic at 4:22 PM on December 4, 2005

there are scenes in To Kill a Mockingbird that are better in the film than in the book, and there are scenes that are better in the book than in the movie. Both are worth experiencing.
Also, movies based on Shakespeare are usually very interesting, and definitely have added to my understanding of the play. Especially Baz Lehrman's Romeo and Juliet and whatever version of Twelfth Night I watched in 9th grade. But that's because they're plays and meant to be performed.
My English teachers have a weird habit of showing us the film of every book we read, no matter how terrible an adaptation it is. This has messed me up because I've spent time searching my books for quotes that turned out to have been in the movie.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 4:24 PM on December 4, 2005

Are you talking in terms of plot or visuals? For plot, I think you need look no further than the latest Harry Potter film. My non-Potter-reading friends enjoyed it, but they still got the sense that they were missing out on a lot of references (and unexplained plot details) that the rest of us knew from the text. I imagine it would be the same for many movies that get their plots from ridiculously long books.
posted by web-goddess at 4:37 PM on December 4, 2005

I agree with web-goddess's assertion about the Harry Potter films, EXCEPT for the first one...I found that one to be PAINFULLY faithful to the book. I guess you can do that when you're doing a 3+ hour adaption of a 200 page book, though.

As for other books made into movies, I've often found that having a preconceived notion from a movie of how something should look totally taints my interpretation of the book (as scarabic said about Dune). I've always kind of believed that its best to read the book first...best case scenario, the movie gives you some new insights/interpretations of the book but in the worst case scenario, the movie simply doesn't live up to the book. I don't think a book can ruin a good movie in the same way that bad movie can ruin a good book. But it's hard to say, because you can't experience them BOTH first.
posted by johnsmith415 at 4:49 PM on December 4, 2005

My favorite film adaptations are ones that could be called, "Scenes from _____" instead of the actual title. As in, they don't try to conform the book to the movie's limitations, but instead meticulously reproduce whole elements of the book such as tone and subtext, at risk of leaving out broad strokes in the plot and making movie that will appeal to a narrower audience.

I consider examples of this to be films such as "The Ice Storm" or "Beloved" or "The Virgin Suicides". In these and others the filmmakers and actors make plenty of decisions that reach directly into the heart of the corresponding parts of their books, even if doing so means more people in the theatre said "huh??" and were turned off. Fans of the books may not approve 100% either, but as someone who has twice adapted literature to theatre, I can relate to wanting to be as faithful as possible to the material that inspired me to begin with, and if you wind up having to make drastic changes in order to accomodate your personal vision of it, you should probably be reined in.

Also I feel that some novels are very dense and my imagination of the characters etc. is aided by having an actor's image or delivery to draw from while reading-- I usually have my own version of the character fleshed out in my mind by the end of the book, even if I've seen a filmed version, so I don't relate to people's complaints of only being able to imagine what they had seen in movies.
posted by hermitosis at 4:57 PM on December 4, 2005

Answering your first question, Lord of the Rings is one book that is best read BEFORE you see the movies. Not so much because you need the book to understand the movies, but rather because I don't think your mind can ever do the book justice if see the movies first. I think this is probably true of any epic/fantasy/sci-fi books that are longer than 25 pages...short stories seem to make great screen fodder, however (anything by Philip K. Dick, for example, although a few of those have been mangled, too).
posted by johnsmith415 at 4:57 PM on December 4, 2005

I read Arthur Schnitzler's Dream Story before I saw Eyes Wide Shut and was stunned by how meticulously Kubrick followed the novella.

I'd also read The Magus by John Fowles many times before seeing The Game. Knowing that no movie could possibly be accurately made of the novel makes The Game even more impressive as an excellent interpretation.
posted by forallmankind at 5:29 PM on December 4, 2005

Not to be a snob, wanna, although I expect it's what a snob might say.... but I'm really hard put to think of a movie I've EVER seen that did justice to the book. Even back when movies were worth a damn. (OK, THAT was snobbish, but let's be real.)

Possibly I've just been unlucky... but I think the inherent limitations of the film medium, both technical and commercial, make it difficult or almost impossible even to come close to the richness and depth of a book and the imagery we conjure in our minds. Both visually and otherwise.

Don't get me wrong: I love film, but it's just a different world. I guess I've learned, rightly or wrongly, that I'm happier when I either read the book OR see the movie, but not both. The only exception is one that "proves the rule" (an expression I've never understood): "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf," the film version of which was--if I remember right--uncharacteristically and almost uniquely faithful to the play. Plus it doesn't count 'cause it was a play to start with.
posted by clicktosubmit at 5:36 PM on December 4, 2005

I thought Blade Runner was better than the book, which was sort of a bore.


I also like the movie of Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. The book is funny, but not so great you must read it before you see the movie.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 5:52 PM on December 4, 2005

I also like the movie of Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy. The book is funny, but not so great you must read it before you see the movie.
oh god no. the book has so much that the movie left out. Doug Adams' writing style seems hard to recreate on screen, and that's really what makes his books good, not the plots which really exist.

also I just remembered another category of movies based on books that no one has mentioned: movies where disney takes the title and one sentence worth of plot from an old, obscure book and attempts to modernize it while destroying any charm that the book once had. Think Freaky Friday, Cheaper by the Dozen and Yours Mine and Ours.
posted by martinX's bellbottoms at 6:32 PM on December 4, 2005

General rule: if the book is any good at all, read the book first. That gives you an opportunity to create your own visual impressions which viewing the movie later will complement. If you watch the movie first, you're stuck with the movie's visuals with no corresponding gain.

Also, if you've read and enjoyed the book first, watching the preview will give you a good idea how reckless the adaptation is and whether you should just skip it: Fletch, Big Trouble, Skipping Christmas (Christmas with the Kranks), Bonfire of the Vanities, etc. Watch the movie version of any of these first and you'll probably dismiss the books as crap without reading them.

On the other hand, some movies transcend their source material to such an extent that you shouldn't even bother with the book: Jaws, Three Days of the Condor, Die Hard, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, etc.
posted by zanni at 6:41 PM on December 4, 2005

I read Forest Gump after the movie, and was blown away at the differences in the two...

I'm a a big Nick Hornby fan, and prefer to read his stuff before watching the films based on his works. Although most have stuck closely to the basics.
posted by vagabond at 6:53 PM on December 4, 2005

On general principles I try not to recommend this movie to anyone, but it is really good: Requiem For a Dream. What is an incredibly gut-wrenching, moving, and well-written book became an equally gut-wrenching, moving, and well-executed movie.
posted by carsonb at 7:25 PM on December 4, 2005

Nineteen Eighty-Four is one of my favorite books, and I thought the version with John Hurt was a great adaptation. I'd read the book several times before I saw the movie.

I thought both The World According to Garp and The Ciderhouse Rules were good adaptations of John Irving's books, and they both were good at presenting the essential elements of long, complex plots that span decades. I saw The World According to Garp before I read the book, but read The Ciderhouse Rules before I saw the movie.

I also really like Nick Hornby. High Fidelity was a great adaptation; I read the book first, but I enjoy the book and the movie about equally (which is saying something, because I really enjoy looking at Catherine Zeta-Jones). I liked the movie of About a Boy a little more than I liked the book, but neither the book nor the movie is as good as High Fidelity. Fever Pitch is one of my favorite books of his, and and I've seen both movies based on it even though I was hesistant because I feel the main point of the book--his psychological relationship with the soccer team--is essentially unfilmable.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:54 PM on December 4, 2005

Sorry, I hit Post instead of Preview.

I'd read all of Nick Hornby's books before I saw the movie.

I was an English major, and in my early 20s I used to annoy my friends by being excessively pedantic about movies' fidelity to the books they were based on. Now I appreciate that they are different media with different strengths and weaknesses, and they're two different ways of telling the story.

I'm very apprehensive about the supposedly forthcoming London Fields movie (it's another one of my favorite books,). The IMDB plot outline, which I've seen elsewhere, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the story.
posted by kirkaracha at 8:00 PM on December 4, 2005

I tried reading Lord of the Rings before seeing the movie, but kept getting lost in the vocabulary and details. Once I saw the first movie I went back to the book and loved it, because I could now keep everything straight in my head.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:00 PM on December 4, 2005

This might be debatable, but I found the film adaptation of Sense & Sensibility superior to Austen's novel. It's her first and perhaps her weakest book (but then I loved Mansfield Park), and the motivations of the characters didn't come through in an emotionally realistic manner when I read the novel. Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet brought out the resonance that was missing.
posted by amber_dale at 8:12 PM on December 4, 2005

I generally like the books better- a book can spend more time delving into the characters, whereas a movie is shorter and has to rely on things that can be represented visually (or the dread voice over). There are exceptions, and even a relatively bad adaptation can be fun to watch, especially if done in serial TV form by the BBC.

There are also some books I disliked so much I won't see the movie: Cold Mountain for one, I refuse to be dragged through such a preposterous tear jerking ending twice!
posted by fshgrl at 8:20 PM on December 4, 2005

I detested how The Firm's ending was purposefully entirely rewritten when it was taken from book to film.
posted by WCityMike at 8:48 PM on December 4, 2005

My favourite adaptation is easily Blade Runner from PKD's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? ... Blade Runner took a bare framework of a story idea and turned it into a living, breathing experience. Awesome.
posted by smitt at 9:16 PM on December 4, 2005

Northanger Abbey was Jane Austen's first book.

It wasn't until I saw the film of American Psycho that I understood the novel's satire. The films of Bridges of Madison County and Circle of Friends were much better than the books--although any change to BoMC would have been an improvement.
posted by brujita at 9:29 PM on December 4, 2005

I seem to have a different preference than most people on this thread. I'd rather go from less detail to more detail so I try to watch the movie before I read the book. Or if I've already read the book, I wait to reread it until after I've seen the movie. I've found it very easy to drown out movie visuals while reading a book. But I can't seem to just let myself fall into a film without comparing it to plot points in a book I've already read. Oddly this is especially true with very visual movies like Orlando (Woolf) or Angles and Insects (Byatt). I loved both versions of these two stories.

One movie that has always struck me as better than the book is A Midnight Clear. I just remember being incredibly disappointed by the book when I sought it out after seeing the book. Also the ending to the movie the Firm is just so much more satisfying than the end of the book.

I think generally I just concentrate of different things when watching a movie or reading a book; so for example I can often quote lines directly from a book but almost never from a movie.
posted by DarthDuckie at 9:30 PM on December 4, 2005

One notable book-to-film experience was the laughably forgettable 80s star vehicle for Tom Cruise -- "Cocktail." You remember the movie, where Tom is flipping bottles all around and not pouring any drinks.

On a lark, I picked up the book it was based on, by Heywood Gould. Turned out to be one of my favorite books of all time, and I was left scratching my head as to how they turned the book into ... well ... a forgettable 80s star vehicle for Tom Cruise.

I mean, it's a mind-boggling difference. The film is maybe 10 key pages of an excellent 300-page novel about a middle-aged never-was that stumbles into redemption, not a cutesy Tom Cruise who falls for cutesy artist chick.

Just goes to show you how wrongly a screenwriting pass can be.

Get the book. I really do recommend it. If you must, tear off the cover with Tom Cruise's portrait on it.
posted by frogan at 9:53 PM on December 4, 2005

I always found the key to consider the book and the movie different slices of the same story.

The Potter books are critical to getting the films - #3 had huge holes in it.

Read the Princess Bride, Maltese Falcon, Fight Club, Virgin Suicides and Girl, Interrupted.

All are excellent works aside from the films and for me, they both complement each other (not detract.)

Oh, and Mr. Jesse Helms? Hitchhikers? The film pales compared to the books....which is just heightening the radio version. You should totally listen to the radio stories to get a real feel for what Adams was great at - radio comedy.
posted by filmgeek at 9:53 PM on December 4, 2005

forallmankind, do you mean the Michael Douglas vehicle "The Game?" According to IMDB, there was a Magus movie with Michael Caine from 1968, the working title of which was The God Game, but I found no references to Fowles or The Magus in relation to the Douglas film.

And for my two cents, 84 Charing Cross Road was a much better movie than book. It was an epistolary novel, though, so they had to do something besides have Bancroft and Hopkins read at each other and the audience.
posted by cdadog at 10:00 PM on December 4, 2005

I adore the novel "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" by Milan Kundera. I also love the movie, the casting is perfect...but much of the metaphor and poetry of the movie will be lost on those who haven't read the book.

Armistead Maupin's "Tales of a City" series of books are exactly like the film adaptations, so there's no harm in renting there if you're looking for a long but light and fun flick (particularly the 3 tape series of that name).
posted by smartypanties at 10:03 PM on December 4, 2005

I usually find movie adaptations just don't work as well because you can't ever separate them from the books, which naturally have more information about what's going on. (Unless you're the BBC, and you're making Pride & Prejudice, and then you just film the entire book.) Because film is a different medium, and not necessarily best-served adapting novels.

The Maltese Falcon probably stands out because it's an apt, faithful adaptation but also a great film in its own right, but that's a line that very few filmmakers can walk. I sort of make an exception for hard-boiled detective novels because I always picture the protagoist as Humphrey Bogart anyway. (Though Dick Powell made a surprisingly good Marlowe in Murder, My Sweet, the adaptation of Farewell, My Lovely. They changed the title because everyone thought it was a crappy Dick Powell musical.)

However, when I saw the (not very good) adaptation of The Great Gatsby with Robert Redford in high school, it actually helped me understand the book better because they'd mucked it up so badly.
posted by SoftRain at 10:49 PM on December 4, 2005

The Naked Lunch film is quite different from the book. I like both but the movie is the more accessible by far.
posted by juv3nal at 11:35 PM on December 4, 2005

cdadog: yep, that's the one. It is an *interpretation* of the book (The Magus is an incredibly complex story - way too difficult to recreate in full on screen) which is maybe why it's not listed as a direct this-is-the-movie-of-the-book in IMDB. Nonetheless, having read the book first - for me at least - certainly enhanced my enjoyment of the film.
posted by forallmankind at 11:38 PM on December 4, 2005

I had a hard time really picturing The Handmaid's Tale (Margaret Atwood) as being about real people. The movie came out the year I read the book -- this was a great help. Suddenly, I could relate to the main character. Before, I'd been unable to see her as a real person. I was 17 and kept focusing on the mistakes the character had made in her previous life. I couldn't relate to the character's age. When I saw the movie, she really became a person to me. And I was suddenly able to really appreciate the works of Margaret Atwood, Margaret Laurence, Alice Munro, Michael Ondaatje. I realized that characters didn't have to be "pure" or "perfect". Before that, I'd mostly read books that had much younger characters, that were written 100 years ago, or that simply didn't portray real characters, especially women, with warts and all. The movie helped my understanding (and empathy) evolve. And I went on to do an English degree.
posted by acoutu at 11:42 PM on December 4, 2005

Let's see....

I saw "Fight Club" before I the read the book, and while I found the movie to be an excellent adaptation, I simply could NOT read the book without seeing Edward Norton and Brad Pitt.

Related to what Frogan said, I recently read "Gone With the Wind" on a lark. I never had any use for the movie - classic or not - and, much to my shock, I really enjoyed the book.

I would argue that "The Wizard of Oz" is a better movie than book, and I collect the Oz books!
posted by Windigo at 11:53 PM on December 4, 2005

I saw The Beach after reading the book, and am so glad. I would hate to have Mr. "I'm the King of the World" super-imposed on my image of the character. But I liked the movie well enough.

Angela's Ashes was an amazing book, another one I'm glad I didn't see the movie first.

With each Harry Potter movie, I resent a little more the super-imposition of those little brats on my image of the books.

In Goblet especially - I found it very off-kilter and so rushed to make the movie, I would imagine, unintelligible to someone who hadn't read the book.

A second for BladeRunner - but anyone who says that Bladerunner is better than DADOES should read it again. It's an amazing book, and I think Dick's best.
posted by Dag Maggot at 3:07 AM on December 5, 2005

I read Fight Club before I saw the movie. The book was riveting. The movie was a pretty respectable adaptation, but I did prefer the book.
posted by raedyn at 6:31 AM on December 5, 2005

I quite enjoyed Battlefield: Earth, the book. I read it before I found out about scientology, otherwise I probably never would have bothered reading it. It's a pretty good epic post-apocalyptic-earth story. The movie, however, was cover-your-eyes awful.
posted by antifuse at 6:37 AM on December 5, 2005

LA Confidential, One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas are better to see once you've read the books for context...
posted by AJaffe at 7:18 AM on December 5, 2005

amber_dale, Even though Emma Thompson's adaptation of Sense and Sensibility came out yeeeeears ago, one part still drives me crazy -- when Willoughby rushes back as Marianne is deathly ill, and later as he gazes longingly toward her from his horse on the hill, his remorse gets played out as mere regret -- shades of "she was the one that got away."

In the book, Willoughby was heartily condemned for his bad treatment of Marianne -- he marries another for money, and suffers the eternal torture of a terrible marriage. His fate in the book is more "moral," and his movie-fate of mere emotional regret doesn't highlight the weight of choice in marriage that is the major theme of the book.

Also, I hate Hugh Grant and his stuttering.
posted by mdiskin at 7:22 AM on December 5, 2005

As films that added to my appreciation of the novels, I second Eyes Wide Shut, One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest, and The Unbearable Lightness of Being -- I agree with smartypanties, that one does lose a lot but on the other hand the casting was so perfect, I re-read the novel after and I always pictured Juliette Binoche and Daniel Day Lewis, and Lena Olin, it's them, can't imagine anyone else in those roles.

Others that come to mind: Death in Venice and John Huston's adaptation of Joyce's The Dead. You can never beat that kind of source but they did a great job.

And most of Roddy Doyle's stuff that was made into movies, but that's because he wrote a lot of the screenplay adaptations too.

I also loved Coppola's Dracula, overblown as it may be, the visuals were so stunning, and I like the way he rewrote the story while sticking strictly to the original in parts (like the letter exchanges). That to me is a good example of liberal adaptation that works and sort of adds to the story.

One liberal adaptation that I didn't like much was The Beach. It sort of worked until about a third, then just went off on sex and love plots that were just not there in the book and had no reason to be there in the film other than eye candy. It's not the taking liberties, it's that they sort of diluted the story. I had read the novel before and enjoyed it, so I just couldn't get past that. I guess that's the kind of film that could be more enjoyable without having read the book first.
posted by funambulist at 8:26 AM on December 5, 2005

I'll agree about The Beach. I saw the movie first and really enjoyed it. Then I read the book, and really really enjoyed that. The movie was never the same.

The English Patient is just the opposite. There's a nice dreamlike quality to book that I think the movie captures well. When someone's history is a duststorm blur, their face tends to follow suit--the appearance of the main character in the book is so important, it's nice to have Ralph Fiennes face to map onto it.
posted by carsonb at 8:40 AM on December 5, 2005

I think Being There was just about pefect as a film, and only pretty good as a novel. Since it's largely about a man's relationship with television, the visual presentation of the film works a lot better than text.
posted by COBRA! at 8:52 AM on December 5, 2005

I am of the camp that I think the Harry Potter movies are very good adaptations of the books. Enough to not alienate those who haven't read the books, but captures enough important elements so that readers can get a kick out of getting a visual.

I haven't touched Lord of the Rings since I was 14 and now I think the movies have ruined it for me and I have no desire to return to the books. A shame, I know (but perhaps a compliment to the movie?).

Not a strict book adaptation, but I thought Clueless did a great job of interpreting Emma for the intended audience.

As an aside, is anyone else just frightened to see Memoirs of a Geisha and Chronicles of Narnia? I'm so in love with these books I'm scared of what the movies will do to them. Of course, the books will always be around, but a bad adaptation will do no good in getting people to pick up a book they haven't read.
posted by like_neon at 9:01 AM on December 5, 2005

I am shocked nobody has mentioned Shoeless Joe/Field of Dreams. SJ was an okay book but Field of Dreams turned it into a very impressive exploration of mysticism, heros, life-choices and father-son relationships.
posted by phearlez at 9:29 AM on December 5, 2005

A big thank you to everyone who took the time to share their thoughts on this issue. I enjoyed reading all the responses.
posted by wannalol at 10:40 AM on December 5, 2005

I've always thought "Fail Safe" one of the few films that turned out better than the book. I've heard it said (and I agree) that the John Hurt-Richard Burton "1984" is exactly like the book. "The Sheltering Sky" also made a fairly accurate translation. One of the worst, most disappointing books-to-movies I've ever seen is Tobias Wolff's "This Boy's Life" -- all the good stuff was omitted, and the bad was rendered much worse.

Feedback:
I agree with Dag Maggot on Blade Runner -- great movie, but the book's a whole 'nother reality.
SoftRain -- the adaptation of "Farewell, My Lovely" -- what? I think the Robert Mitchum version's really good.
And like_neon -- I wouldn't say I'm frightened, but I do have doubts regarding Geisha. As for Narnia, at this point, could really care less (loved the books when I read 'em as an adolescent, but since then, zero interest).
posted by Rash at 11:21 AM on December 5, 2005

The first movie based on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (with Willy Wonka in the title instead of Charlie) was OK but it wasn't true to the story - they changed the story and almost the point of the story.

The second, more recent movie added some elements (mainly Willy Wonka's history and his family) but it was a lot truer to the book and also to Roald Dahl's writing style - funny yet also slightly sadistic if you think about it. It was like Dahl in pictures.

The two most recent Harry Potter movies (3 & 4) may not have had all the plot but it definitely captured the essence of the story in visual form. It was especially spooky how some minor events in moviee #4 managed to predict or hint at major events in book #6.
posted by divabat at 1:20 PM on December 5, 2005

Nobody has mentioned "2001," so I'm afraid I'm breaking an unwritten taboo...

I saw the movie first (in a theater), and was all, "Woo, cool!" then "Huh?" The book, however, was much clearer with the point. Fewer pretty pictures; more thought-provoking ideas. Both great works, I'd say.
posted by booth at 6:51 PM on December 5, 2005