FAVOURITE ADAPTATIONS OF LITERARY MATERIAL - The Exorcist – I fell in love with the book after falling in love with the film and read the book afterwards. It was great to see that the book is brilliant in its own right, but the film is faithful to the book's message, its characters, its dialogue, and William Peter Blatty deserved every award he received for that screenplay.
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas – I think the book was described 'unfilmable' and certainly the richness of the text and numerous strange events described in Hunter S. Thompson's book would be a challenge to any screenwriter and director, so it's to Terry Gilliam's credit that the film is not only cohesive and coherent, but stands up to repeated viewings. Something which always helps is Johnny Depp's dedication to the project, spending time with HST (and having his head shaved by the writer) to accurately portray his mannerisms and cadence.
- The Princess Bride – Another book I read after watching the film and although I think the book is better because it is so fascinating in its construction, the way the film cuts between the boy's bedroom and the events in the book Peter Falk is reading is sublime and William Goldman's adaptation of his own book is brilliant. Since the first time I watched the film and read the book, I've done both a couple of times and am always struck by the brilliance of both, individually and collectively.
- Don't Look Now – Daphne Du Maurier's short story is quite limited in its scope but changing Christine's death from meningitis to a (prophesied) drowning and tying that loss to the tragic ending makes the film more impactful that the story on which it is based. It can't hurt when you have a film with such tremendous direction, a great score and astonishing chemistry between the two leads.
- The Shining – As I mentioned before, I love what Kubrick and Diane Johnson did with Stephen King's book, reducing it to its bare elements and making the patriarch, rather than the building, terrifying.
- Psycho – I can see why Alfred Hitchcock chose this because the book has a (then) unusual plot in which likeable protagonists are killed off at unexpected times. I like it, but I don't think it's a great book, but very engaging and a quick read. Joseph Stefano made it something greater and with Hitchcock incorporating the Kuleshov effect, interesting camera angles and taught editing, as well as a set design which can be analysed according to the Freudian idea of the human mind, makes it a bit special and probably my favourite horror film.
- A Clockwork Orange – This could be controversial because the film is the adaptation of the American publication of the novel, not the British one, so omits the final chapter from the British release in which Alex sees the error of his ways and becomes a reformed citizen. However, with the film finishing on the "I was cured all right!" line, it has a much more sinister and memorable ending.
- The Godfather – Mario Puzo's crime novel is, like Robert Bloch's, really a piece of pulp fiction so it's to Francis Ford Coppola's credit that he stripped out the lurid details about such things as Sonny's massive penis and concentrated on making a film which is both high art and commercially accessible and successful. The film is better than the book, the characters seem better defined, the narrative more streamlined and engaging, but I would happily read the book again.
- The Haunting (1963) – I consider Shirley Jackson's book one of the greatest works of horror fiction of the 20th century. With that in mind, Nelson Gidding's faithful adaptation and Robert Wise's direction makes the film a masterpiece and a piece of art on equal standing with the novel which inspired it.
- The Birds – Another Daphne Du Maurier short story and another Alfred Hitchcock film. This time, the film is very different from the source material, with the action moving from England shortly after Second World War to 1960s California, and the protagonist changing from an elderly ex-serviceman to a wealthy female socialite I remember the story being intense read, but I never had the sense of terror during the bird attacks, or tension as the birds gather, as in the film. Whether or not the story is an analogy for aerial bombardment during the war is something I don't know, but Evan Hunter turned it into something very different and, under Hitchcock's direction, it became something more complex and scary.
Just missing out: Fight Club – I hadn't read the novel by Chuck Palahniuk when I saw the film, a movie which really impressed me and continues to do so even though I wish I could watch it again for the first time. I think I read the book about a week after seeing the film and feel the screenplay is even better than the novel in the way it introduces the two main characters and then resolves their 'relationship'. I think Palahniuk is on record as saying he thinks the film ended the story better than him, and with the stylish direction by David Fincher, memorable performances and a great soundtrack (my introduction to The Pixies), it's an improvement on the literary source. Ghost World – I really like Daniel Clowes' book and think he and Terry Zwigoff did a wonderful job with the screenplay, putting the drawings into text format and then Zwigoff converting them back into a visual medium with Thora Burch and Scarlett Johansson perfectly cast as Enid and Rebecca, respectively. The supporting cast are all pitch perfect, from Steve Buscemi as Seymour, the misanthropic record collector they befriend, Bob Balaban as Enid's long-suffering father, and Ileana Douglas's hilariously upbeat art teacher. The design and music are all perfect and the dialogue is very well transposed from the book to the film.
In hindsight, I could have made up about half my list with classic noir: Mildred Pierce, The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep, Kiss Me Deadly, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Double Indemnity and Out of the Past, but that would be a little boring! Need less to say, all of those film adaptations are (in my opinion) better than the books on which they are based.
|