More books, and movies

Given yesterday's book post, I've been thinking more about the printed page. My old pal, Vol Abroad, recently opined on the general suckiness of seeing a movie based on a book you've read. I'll quote VA:

I only get annoyed by the pesky differences and perceived dimunition of the work. I feel compelled to tell my companion(s), "See, in the book this what happened." Or "I can't believe they left ______ out. It was a pivotal moment in the book." Or "Now, you see that didn't happen in the book - it couldn't have happened because the X couldn't be the killer, oops sorry - you didn't know that..." So then not only am I annoyed, so is my companion and potentially everyone seated around us.

For the most part, I couldn't agree more. I am, though, running VA's musings through a hormone filter these days as I hear pregnancy can tinker with one's thoughts. Great big CONGRATS to the VA from 3rd B. As an aside, I wish the Vols nothing but love, joy, happiness, and a perfectly delightful child. I do, though, shudder to think of some of the cosmic inbalances a mini VA will engender.

See, much as I love her, the VA is one of those obnoxious UT fans. They exist for all schools; well maybe not Vandy, CERTAINLY not Mississippi State -- what would they have to be obnoxious about? Ang's husband even showed me there is such a thing as the obnoxious Ole Miss fan -- this despite the fact I can't tell you the last time UM won a bowl game not named Liberty or Independence. [Yes, I FULLY expect Ang to provide that answer soon.] Anyway, back to the VA. I can just hear it now. This little tyke (Cletus for now) will be all decked out in his bright orange sweatshirt underneath an appropriately staid British blazer and he'll be saying things like, "UT's going to flather some serious bum against Bama this week. Quite so!" Sorry, I'm not an expert on Brit slang, I had to make it up. Still, I'm thinking I'm not too far off base. Durr, UT trash talking of any sort is bad enough, I hate to imagine it coming from a precocious British lad. Still, I bet it'll be awfully cute! Regardless, congrats VA, ViL, and Cletus!

Anyway, back to the point, ... Movies based on books. For the most part I completely agree that the best way to ruin the experience of a good book is to see it on the big screen. I used to be unyielding on this point, but I've mellowed. [I hear with age comes wisdom; I'm so hoping that's so.] What if, though, the book is not such a good book? For instance, does anyone seriously claim the book Nothing Lasts Forever is better than the movie Die Hard? Or what about The Silence of the Lambs? I liked the book okay, but the movie was infinitely better.

Well what about "good" books? Sometimes I run into a problem even there. I often feel the book is a good bit overrated and the movie actually is better. For example, the wonderful film The Virgin Suicides. I absolutely loved the movie and immediately bought a copy of the book. Though it was critically acclaimed, I didn't think it was such a great read. In fact, without the movie I doubt I'd even remember having read the book. Of course it is possible that the movie colored my opinion of the book. I'm sure it did to some degree, but I don't think it changed my overall verdict. Though it may be sacrilege, I feel roughly the same way about Field of Dreams.

Then there are cases such as Breakfast at Tiffany's and Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's one of my favorite books and it might be in my top 10 (maybe 20) favorite movies. The two are so different I don't even think of them as the same story. [For instance, if you've never read the book -- the George Peppard character is, let's just say, not a ladies' man in the book.] Still, I thoroughly enjoy both. I feel the same way about many, though certainly not all, of the Stephen King movies. Pet Sematary (or Cemetery, if you prefer) is an okay movie, but the book is fabulous. On the other hand, the original movie version of The Shining is top notch -- if you can get past the godawful clothes.

I know I seem to have been arguing against this, but in most cases I feel the polar opposite. I usually hate it when a treasured book of mine is headed for the big screen. I figure they'll completely butcher it, totally miscast the main characters, and overlook the subtle nuances that make the book special. [Note, this is my same argument against music videos as well. They destroy the universal soul of a song.] For example, ... Okay I started to make a list and realize there aren't enough hours in the day to list all the movies that have offended me in this way. If you really want an example, think of just about any movie based on a Raymond Chandler or Larry McMurtry book. I especially hate it when they decide to "happy up" a book to get the good movie ending (e.g., Bridget Jones's Diary). Yes I'm a hetero man who read and enjoyed Bridget. No comments needed.

Even though I think they're missing a wonderful movie opportunity, it makes me kind of glad they haven't managed to get A Confederacy of Dunces onto the big screen. Oh, and I literally howled with pain when I saw they are making this movie! Sigh.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the whole movie-to-book thing. I'm generally agin' it, but there are exceptions. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd say, "Hands off our lit, Hollywood. Come up with your own trash." Still, many of the films mentioned above make me glad I don't have to make such blanket choices. After reading a bit about The Last King of Scotland, though, I think I will go with Vol's advice and just read the book.

Your thoughts on best/worst movie-to-book treatments?