11 great films from less than great books
The book is always better than the film, isn’t it? We have come up with examples where the opposite is true. When does the adaptation outclass the original?
As ever, there are a few provisos. 1. We didn’t include autobiographies, because there are a good few boring biographies that have made decent films (so no Raging Bull). 2. We didn’t include short stories- so no Shawshank Redemption or Total Recall/We Can Remember It For You Wholesale- because they weren’t full books. 3. Finally, there are a lot of really bad books, that made slightly better films (a lot of Stephen King/Michael Crichton in there), and really great books that were really great on screen (LA Confidential, Blade Runner, Fight Club, Apocalypse Now, Rum Punch). They were out as well. Simple rule is… film = good, book = not good.
The Godfather (Francis Ford Coppola - 1972) based on the book by Mario Puzo (1969)
Puzo’s Godfather was the bones on which Coppola fleshed out his masterpiece. Puzo’s book covers the same themes as the film - family, destiny and the American Way - but only scratches the surface. Coppola’s version added colour, and made each individual character standout. This may be one occasion when the relative shallowness of the book was beneficial to the film.
Psycho (Alfred Hitchcock - 1960) based on the book by Robert Bloch (1959)
Robert Bloch’s pulp thriller was loosely based on the account of Ed Gein’s murders in Wisconsin, two years before the book was published. Hitchcock bought the rights to the book for just $9,000 and intended to use it to reclaim his title as the King of Suspense. As amazing as it seems now, his previous work, Vertigo, had been critically panned and failed at the box office, while other film makers - Roger Corman, Robert Siodmak, William Castle - had success with films in the same genre. Bloch’s book was entertaining but trashy, while Hitchcock’s film redefined at least three different genres, and took the technical capabilities of films to new levels (even the soundtrack and the credits are revolutionary). At the time of the films’ release, Hitchcock was so keen to keep the film’s ending secret that he was alleged to have bought all copies of Bloch’s book he could find.
Jurassic Park (Steven Speilberg - 1993) based on the book by Michael Crichton (1990)
As with Carrie, Crichton’s Jurassic Park wasn’t “bad”, it just wasn’t very good. Speilberg condensed it, and improved the characterisation and pacing considerably.
The French Connection (William Friedkin - 1971) based on the book by Robin Moore (1969)
Moore’s factual account of the French Connection drug trafficing features some interesting anecdotes, but is ultimately a fairly dry account by standards of other crime writers. Friedkin’s star was in the ascendency, and his dramaticised version of events were far more entertaining. The film also includes one of the most exciting car chases in cinema. The book doesn’t.
The Chase in The French Connection
Shoot the Pianist (Francois Truffaut - 1960) based on the book “Down There” by David Goodis (1956)
Truffaut’s Shoot the Pianist is just one of his many masterpieces, and as good an example of French New Wave as you are likely to find. It is surprising to learn that the film is actually based on an American Noir (rather than French Noir!) book by David Goodis. Several of Goodis’ works are well worth reading- especially Dark Passage- but this isn’t one of them.
Carrie (Brian De Palma - 1976) based on the book by Stephen King (1974)
It might be a little harsh to put Stephen King’s fourth novel on this list, as it isn’t a bad book. It isn’t an especially good book either, and King has certainly written better. Brian De Palma took quite a few liberties with characters and storyline when he remade the book for the screen, most notably in his far improved ending, which would not have been possible to achieve in print. The end result is a much more tense, and far more slick result.
Jaws (Steven Speilberg - 1975) based on the book by Peter Benchley (1974)
Speilberg invented the summer blockbuster with Jaws, although it was based on a considerably less famous book. Benchley’s book had to be re-written by publishers on submission, and even Speilberg would claim that the characters were so dislikeable that he wanted the shark to win. Speilberg’s version was frought with problems- not least the mechanical shark that he wanted to use. Eventually he hit upon the solution that would make the film such a success- it’s not what you see that scares you, it’s what you can’t see… The film made almost half a billion dollars worldwide, and was the blueprint for every summer release from then on.
Dr Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick - 1964) based on “Red Alert” by Peter George (1958)
Red Alert was a paranoid thriller which warned of the ease of nuclear holocaust with a stony coldness. When Kubrick remade the book for the screen, he decided to make it as an absurd black comedy. The real genius of this was that he actually succeeded in making the Anti-Nuclear message even more powerful than it had been on the page.
Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton - 1964) based on the book by Ian Fleming (1959)
This might seem like sacrilege, but the Ian Fleming book of Goldfinger isn’t very good. Casino Royale, now that is a good Bond book, but Goldfinger seems to be responsible for all the “Austin Powers” bits in Flemings’ work. Lesbian gangs? Check. Lesbian circus performers? Check. Amazonian lesbian acrobats? Check. The film leaves out all of the parts that would push it into parody, and it is still the Best Bond. Bond’s scenes with Pussy Galore are still ridiculous, but they are fun.
Big Fish (Tim Burton - 2003) based on the book by Daniel Wallace (1999)
Again, this might be unfair, as Daniel Wallace’s book isn’t bad. It isn’t anywhere near as good as the film version by Tim Burton. Burton managed to mix his trademark love of the strange with a genuinely affectionate story about family. While the book was about detective work, and finding out who Edward Bloom’s father really was through the tall tales he told, the film took far more joy in each of the stories it told.
Starship Troopers (Paul Verhoeven - 1997) based on the book by Robert Heinlein (1959)
Heinlein’s book was heavily criticised for its glamourisation of war, its pro-military stance and even the possibility that it was sympathetic to fascism. Paul Verhoeven used all of these criticisms as the basis of his version when he created it in 1997 as an attack on human “Manifest Destiny”. Verhoeven’s version of Earth is obviously fascist, and the film makes a point of overtly “glamouring” the military, but with the same form of self mocking, tongue in cheek that he managed in Total Recall and Robocop. Rather than being a book about how war was necessary, it became a critique of any form of sabre rattling.
So, what have we learned from this? The lesson is that if you want to make a great film out of a bad book, you will need to hire the services of one of the finest directors ever. Or Paul Verhoeven.
Anything we have missed? Let us know…
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Starship Troopers? Starship Troopers? Apart from the fact that it stars has Dina Meyer, who is always great eye-candy, a film with almost nothing to recommend it.
If you want a great parody of Heinlein’s book then run, don’t walk, to your nearest bookstore and buy a copy of “Bill the Galactic Hero” by Harry Harrison (of Stainless Steel Rat fame).
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I don’t really read any books, so can’t comment so much on that aspect.
But I don’t like Big Fish.
And Shoot the Pianist is great.
Although I assumed from watching the interviews with Truffaut that he’d based it on a good story. Maybe not. Or maybe the french translation was much better than the original.
Dunno.
Didn’t find Anne and Muriel to be his finest piece.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:40 am
I’d have to agree with Matty J, in my mind, Big Fish is pushing it for ‘good film’. However, Starship Troopers is an excellent film, and I suspect that the ironic aspects are not obvious to all.
I would add American Psycho (IMDB) to this list. I thought that Mary Harron (IMDB) did a superb job with balancing the extreme violence with the banal, and presented what I think Bret Easton Ellis was trying to do better than he did himself.
His book was shocking and new, but just not great.
The one problem I have with the film is that people who haven’t read the book invariably end on a disappointment; that the whole thing was evidently taking place only in Patrick Bateman’s head. My interpretation of the film (and book) is that we’re left not knowing whether he really butchered people, and that society just sweeps these things under the carpet, or whether it was his fertile (and twisted) imagination. Chloë Sevigny (IMDB) deserves a special mention for her part, which while relatively minor was essential for some of the key scenes of the film, and played to perfection.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:11 am
Sorry, Thomas, you are wrong: American Psycho is like LA Confidential - great film but GREAT book too. No doubt about it.
I thought Big Fish was great! Perhaps it is because my dad is a teller of tall tales… I could totally get the characters…
July 26th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
i m very surprised that THE GREEN MILE is not there