One of this morning's questions on "That's My Answer" was "What book have
you read the most times? How many times have you read it?" I suppose there are
books from my childhood that I read countless times (the Black Stallion series, for
example), but in my adulthood, there are so many books and so little time to re-read them,
that only one leaps to mind: "Marjorie Morningstar." I think I read
that book in high school and it was my "go to" book to read whenever I needed
comfort food of books for many years. My copy became so dilapidated that Marta once
borrowed it and, as a surprise, had it rebound and gave it to me for Christmas. Like
me, Marta is an avid reader -- much more voracious than I -- and she understands the
relationship between a reader and her beloved book!
"L'empress," one of the regulars on "That's My
Answer" (and commenter on my blog posts) posted a reply to my answer of
"Marjorie Morningstar," which said I'll bet one reason you liked it was
because it was better than the movie.
Well, no...that's not the reason I liked it. I had read it
several times before the movie came out and I remember being excited to see the book
brought to the big screen. Natalie Wood seemed the perfect choice for Marjorie and
while Gene Kelly might not have been my first choice to play Noel, her lover, I liked him
as an actor, so I had high hopes for the movie.
But the movie was terrible. It was one of those
"it seemed like a good idea at the time" movies that changed the entire point of
the story by casting handsome young Martin Milner as Marjorie's friend Wally Wronkin, with
whom, at the end of the movie, she realizes she has been in love. But it was
wrong...wrong...wrong. Marjorie would never have ended up with Wally (and,
in fact, she married an attorney sometime after the point where the movie ends). I
wanted to throw things at the screen when I saw I saw Marjorie look in the bus driver's mirror and see Wally in the back of the bus and smile in that knowing way. They had
completely ruined my favorite book.
But how many times does Hollywood get it right anyway. How many
wonderful books have been ruined or trivialized or completely misunderstood by getting the
Hollywood treatment. Barbra Streisand is a person I admire. She is a multi
talented actress who has also had much success with producing and/or directing big
blockbuster movies, but there are two for which I cannot forgive her. You all know
that I hate what she did to A Star Is Born, but even more, perhaps, I hated what
she did to A Prince of Tides, another of my favorite books.
Prince of Tides is a coming of age story in which the hero,
Tom Wingo, is meeting with his sister's psychiatrist in order to help the psychiatrist
make sense of the sister's childhood, following the sister's suicide attempt. The
book is a series of long flashbacks to the Wingo children's growing up in South Carolina.
It is filled with memorable escapades, including pivotal one involving a white
tiger, which was conveniently just dropped from the movie entirely. Streisand made
the psychiatrist (the role she played) the center of the story and the flashbacks just
little vignettes that assumed less importance than her growing relationship with Tom (not
a part of the book either). I was so angry with that movie.
We recently saw The Help on our last "family movie
night" when Jeri was in town. I had loved the book and so I liked the movie.
Jeri and Walt were less enthusiastic about it and when I stopped to think about it, the
reason I liked the movie is that I knew the back story of a lot of the action in the
movie, and they did not. I knew, for example, why toilets appeared all over Ms
Hilly's front lawn. It was a funny scene in the movie, but difficult to place in
context. There were a lot of things like that that I realized later you appreciated
and enjoyed if you knew the story, and which wouldn't really have the same importance to
you if you did not.
One of my favorite David Gerrold books is "The Martian
Child," a loosely fictionalized account of his adopting of his son. Right off
the bat I was angry with the movie for wimping out. Gerrold is gay and the issue of
a gay man adopting a child was significant in the book. In the movie the character
of "David" is a widower. The movie was otherwise not all that bad though,
knowing David personally, Walt and I both guffawed at the magnificent home that fictional
David lives in and the finale was just cheesy and not up to the level of the book.
I still don't know how Hollywood managed to take a book as gripping
as "The DaVinci Code" and make it into such a boring movie. Or maybe I
just couldn't get past Tom Hanks' hair. I'm sure there are a lot of classics that I
have forgotten, or that I never read the book, so I can't really speak to how they were
transformed to the silver screen....I'll bet a lot of you can.
I realize it's not possible to include every incident that is in a
book in a movie, but it would be nice to at least stay faithful to the book. Gone
with the Wind is one of those movies that I feel did credit to the book. Yes,
there were things that were omitted, but basically I think that the movie itself does not
disappoint people who love the book.
Likewise, Like Water for Elephants, while taking liberties
with the story, ended up being pretty faithful to the book, in the circus parts of the
story, though you missed the back and forth of the old man and what is going on in his
life today, which was a big part of the book.
I've seen several movie versions of "Little Women" and each
one seems to stay pretty faithful to the original book, as do the many screen versions I
have seen of "Of Mice and Men."
So it can be done. It is possible to take a beloved
book and put it on screen without having book lovers tearing their hair out about the
liberties taken with a familiar plot. It's just a shame that when a big blockbuster
book makes it onto the screen, so often it is a disappointment. I would never see a
movie of a book I wanted to read without reading the book first. And if I happen to
see the movie first, I might skip reading the book, for fear of being angry with the
movie.
1 comment:
I like Tom Hanks, but I hope I never see "The DaVinci Code" with him as the star. From the moment I started to read the book, I was picturing Hugh Laurie -- who wasn't even that famous when I started.
Post a Comment