Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I recently watched the cinematic adaptation of P.D. James' "Children of Men", a dystopian novel set in a future in which the entire human race has become infertile. This may be one of those films that I would have appreciated more had I not read the book ahead of time. It was well-made but the story, which departed significantly from the source material, seemed flat in comparison to the book.
For one thing, the novel tells a much richer story, with deeper characterization. The film, which came in at just under two hours, probably could have spent more time developing a backstory. The novel is full of details that provide a vivid and poignant picture of a world without children, one in which society is slowly dying. James alternates chapters between the third-person and the first-person perspective of her protagonist, Theo. This allows us to imagine the novel's decaying England through Theo's eyes and to learn all there is to know about him, much of it unpleasant. We barely get acquainted with the Theo of the film before he is thrust into action, becoming involved with a revolutionary group that is sheltering the first woman to bear a child in a generation.
All told, the novel is sadder and darker, with a less likeable hero and a more ambigious ending. In the film, England is ruled by an openly repressive regime whose jack-booted enforcers operate with impunity. The tyranny of the government in the novel is hidden by a veneer of paternalistic benevolence, which makes it seem somehow more insidious and chilling. "Children of Men" was one the best books I've read in the past year. The film was entertaining but ultimately forgettable.
For one thing, the novel tells a much richer story, with deeper characterization. The film, which came in at just under two hours, probably could have spent more time developing a backstory. The novel is full of details that provide a vivid and poignant picture of a world without children, one in which society is slowly dying. James alternates chapters between the third-person and the first-person perspective of her protagonist, Theo. This allows us to imagine the novel's decaying England through Theo's eyes and to learn all there is to know about him, much of it unpleasant. We barely get acquainted with the Theo of the film before he is thrust into action, becoming involved with a revolutionary group that is sheltering the first woman to bear a child in a generation.
All told, the novel is sadder and darker, with a less likeable hero and a more ambigious ending. In the film, England is ruled by an openly repressive regime whose jack-booted enforcers operate with impunity. The tyranny of the government in the novel is hidden by a veneer of paternalistic benevolence, which makes it seem somehow more insidious and chilling. "Children of Men" was one the best books I've read in the past year. The film was entertaining but ultimately forgettable.
Labels: "Children of Men", film adaptations, P.D. James
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
I just read "The Shining" (spoilers ahead), and it's one of those books, which I've discussed before, that I'm glad I read after seeing the film adaptation. I wouldn't have enjoyed Stanley Kubrick's movie version nearly as much had I read the book first.
Stephen King, you may know, was not too pleased with Kubrick's adaptation. For one, he thought Jack Nicholson's interpretation of the character of Jack Torrance left little doubt that he would go insane and try to murder his family. When we meet him, he seems halfway there already.
Indeed, Jack Torrance was a far more complex character in the novel, and the film by necessity dispensed with much of his backstory. Jack Torrance of the film was clearly ill-suited for domestic life, and barely cared to conceal it. The Torrance of the novel, however, was a loving father who wanted to be a good husband. Nonetheless, he was beset by demons that cost him his job, and it was out of desperation that he agreed to become the caretaker for the Overlook Hotel.
In the book, Jack Torrance struggled against insanity, but was overcome by the hotel's malignant power. This was a tragedy in the novel; in the film, it was the subject of black comedy. Torrance was merely a horror film monster that had to be evaded and destroyed. I do give the film credit, however, for providing a more chilling ending than the book. At the end of the novel, the hotel was destroyed, its evil laid to rest. But in the film, it lived to fight another day, and Jack Torrance had become part of its dark history.
Stephen King, you may know, was not too pleased with Kubrick's adaptation. For one, he thought Jack Nicholson's interpretation of the character of Jack Torrance left little doubt that he would go insane and try to murder his family. When we meet him, he seems halfway there already.
Indeed, Jack Torrance was a far more complex character in the novel, and the film by necessity dispensed with much of his backstory. Jack Torrance of the film was clearly ill-suited for domestic life, and barely cared to conceal it. The Torrance of the novel, however, was a loving father who wanted to be a good husband. Nonetheless, he was beset by demons that cost him his job, and it was out of desperation that he agreed to become the caretaker for the Overlook Hotel.
In the book, Jack Torrance struggled against insanity, but was overcome by the hotel's malignant power. This was a tragedy in the novel; in the film, it was the subject of black comedy. Torrance was merely a horror film monster that had to be evaded and destroyed. I do give the film credit, however, for providing a more chilling ending than the book. At the end of the novel, the hotel was destroyed, its evil laid to rest. But in the film, it lived to fight another day, and Jack Torrance had become part of its dark history.
Labels: "The Shining", film adaptations, Stephen King
Saturday, January 12, 2008
The New York Times has had a couple of essays recently about adaptations and re-tellings of novels and classic stories, here and here.
Labels: criticism, film adaptations
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Copeland links to a site where writers discuss their favorite book-to-film adaptations. "Out of Sight" and "1984" are two of my favorites.
My opinions of film adaptations often depend on whether I've first read the book and then seen the film, or vice versa. I'm convinced that first reading "A Civil Action", which was a superb book, spoiled my appreciation for an otherwise good film. On the other hand, I loved the film "Sideways", which I saw before I read the novel upon which it is based. The film captured the spirit of the book and its characters, but it made some significant departures that were probably necessary to adapt the story from one medium to another. However, I might have quibbled with those changes had I read the book first.
Worst adaptation? For my money, "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil."
My opinions of film adaptations often depend on whether I've first read the book and then seen the film, or vice versa. I'm convinced that first reading "A Civil Action", which was a superb book, spoiled my appreciation for an otherwise good film. On the other hand, I loved the film "Sideways", which I saw before I read the novel upon which it is based. The film captured the spirit of the book and its characters, but it made some significant departures that were probably necessary to adapt the story from one medium to another. However, I might have quibbled with those changes had I read the book first.
Worst adaptation? For my money, "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil."
Labels: criticism, film adaptations
