Roll ‘em or read ‘em

Is there a movie better than the book? And name a book that you think defies adaptation?

by Dietrich

I think it’s a tall order for a movie to be better than the book. While it’s a visual experience and can be well-acted and executed, the adaptation is a shortened version and many tasty parts found in the book often have to be left out. For instance, a novel can tell the reader what’s going on inside the characters’ heads, revealing their deepest thoughts and what their words aren’t saying. 

And visualizing scenes and picturing the characters while reading can often be better than what ends up on the big screen. The Harry Potter books are a good example. J.K. Rowling's imagination and powerful writing made that possible — and in spite of the outstanding performances in the film versions by Maggie Smith, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman and Gary Oldman.

Although it was a good movie, I think Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Anthony Burgess’s fabulous A Clockwork Orange fell short of the novel.

I’m a fan of Hunter S. Thompson’s novels Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and The Rum Diary, and for me, neither film version measured up. And don’t get me started on Elmore Leonard novels. The movie versions have paled and didn’t pay homage to his brilliant writing. Having said that, there were scenes in Get Shorty with Dennis Farina playing Ray Bones that still get me laughing. 

I feel the same way about George V Higgins’ The Friends of Eddy Coyle and Cogan’s Trade (Killing Them Softly). I much preferred the novels over the films.

There are exceptions. In spite of Tolkein’s rich and detailed fictional universe, I enjoyed watching the Lord of the Rings movies more than I liked reading the novels.

Adaptations of Stephen King’s stories have run hot and cold over the years. I enjoyed the film versions of The Shining, The Green Mile, Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, Dolores Claiborne and Carrie as much as the books. One that didn’t work for me was the adaptation of Maximum Overdrive, which King directed himself and later called a learning experience. I think what he learned was that he was better suited to writing than directing.

It’s hard to imagine that any of Cormac McCarthy’s stories could be better up on the screen. Having said that, I think the Coen brothers did a great job with No Country for Old Men. And I liked The Counselor which McCarthy wrote as a screenplay, and was directed by Ridley Scott. The Road on the other hand was an incredibly tense and well-paced post-apocalyptic novel that conjured all kinds of bleak and dark images — the movie version paled by comparison.

There have been films that I liked as much as I liked reading the original novels. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, The Silence of the Lambs, The Help, True Grit, To Kill a Mockingbird, Deliverance and Forrest Gump to name a few. And the same goes for Mike Herron's Slough House novel series versus the Slow Horses TV series. They're both great.

As for books that defy adaptation, the story of Catcher in the Rye comes to mind. Not that it couldn’t be filmed, but JD Salinger did everything he could to block it from being turned into a film. The reclusive author was solicited by the elite of the film industry over decades. And he gave many reasons for turning them all down, calling The Catcher in the Rye "a novelistic novel … one that is essentially unactable." As it stands, The Catcher in the Rye will enter public domain in 2046, ninety-five years after it was first published. So for those of us wanting to see the film version, we’ll just have to wait a little longer.