The Weekly LitWit Challenge 4.9: Book vs. Movie
First let’s dispose of some long-delayed business.
The winner of LitWit Challenge 4.8: No More Food is tricycledriver. Congratulations! You can pick up your prize any day starting Friday March 4 at the Customer Service counter, National Bookstore in Power Plant Mall, Rockwell, Makati. Tel. 8974562.
Our apologies to the winners of the 127 Hours movie poster giveaway: We were supposed to mail you the posters but we don’t want to fold them. Instead of mailing you the posters we will deliver them to National Bookstore, Power Plant so you can pick them up any day starting Friday 4 March. Sorry again for the delay.
Now for the new contest.
* * * * *
Filmmakers have been adapting literary works for the screen since the invention of movies. The results vary widely. Many critics contend that the book is better than the movie, though they concede that Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather 1 and 2 are superior to the novel by Mario Puzo. Many books are deemed unfilmable, such as The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien, which was adapted into a 13-hour (longer if you watch the extended versions as we do every year) trilogy by Peter Jackson. The Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling were all made into very lucrative movies, and then they realized there was only one book left so they made it into two movies. (We’re not sure the Twilight series qualify as literature or film.)
Spike Jonze took the task of adaptation to another dimension with his meta-fictional adaptation of Susan Orlean’s nonfiction book The Orchid Thief, aptly titled Adaptation. Much as we love The Great Gatsby, the only thing we remember of the film version starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow are the outfits (and we’re kind of dreading the 3D movie by Baz Luhrman–brilliant or idiotic, it could go either way).
Recently Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro was adapted for film by Mark Romanek. (I have not read the book or seen the movie but I already know the spoiler, thanks to an idiotic literary critic who revealed it in a review. Grrrrrr.) The film opens in Metro Manila theatres tomorrow. This week eight readers will each win a copy of Never Let Me Go plus the official movie poster (below, cat not included).
Your assignment is to write an essay of 1,000 words or less comparing a work of literature with its film adaptation. As there are way too many film adaptations to choose from, we are limiting the field to 15 book-movie pairs. Pick a pair.
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? by Philip K. Dick vs. Blade Runner by Ridley Scott
Atonement by Ian McEwan vs. Atonement by Joe Wright
Brokeback Mountain by E. Annie Proulx vs. Brokeback Mountain by Ang Lee
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov vs. Lolita by Stanley Kubrick
The Leopard by Giuseppe Tomassi di Lampedusa vs. The Leopard (Il Gattopardo) by Luchino Visconti
High Fidelity by Nick Hornby vs. High Fidelity by Stephen Frears
Contempt by Alberto Moravia vs. Contempt (Le Mepris) by Jean-Luc Godard
The Talented Mr. Ripley by Patricia Highsmith vs. The Talented Mr. Ripley by Anthony Minghella OR Purple Noon (Plein Soleil) by Rene Clement
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad vs. Apocalypse Now by Francis Ford Coppola
Clive Owen stars in Alfonso Cuaron’s heartbreakingly good film of Children of Men by P.D. James.
Dune by Frank Herbert vs. Dune by David Lynch
The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean vs. Adaptation by Spike Jonze
The Little Drummer Girl by John LeCarre vs. The Little Drummer Girl by John Schlesinger
The End of the Affair by Graham Greene vs. The End of the Affair by Neil Jordan
Q&A by Vikas Swarup vs. Slumdog Millionaire by Danny Boyle
Children of Men by P.D. James vs. Children of Men by Alfonso Cuaron
Post your entries in Comments. We will accept entries until noon on Sunday, 6 March 2011.
Kyle MacLachlan feels the Reverend Mother’s gom jabbar in David Lynch’s Dune, which is possibly even stranger than Frank Herbert’s Dune.
Thanks to our friends at 20th Century Fox for the official Never Let Me Go movie posters. Never Let Me Go opens March 2.
The Weekly LitWit Challenge is brought to you by our friends at National Bookstore. Click on their ad on the upper left hand corner to find out how to win one of the 50 iPads they’re giving away.
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
March 1st, 2011 at 19:57
Congratulations to tricycledriver!
I have never read any of these titles, so I suppose I’m out. Madame, natawagan ko na yung Air21 kanina and ni-update ko na yung details with them. I’ll let you know once I have received the copy.
Muahness from Pasig Citehh!
March 1st, 2011 at 20:19
nyahaha..sa anggulong ito, mukha talagang kasama si mat sa poster. 2d na pusa. nagblend tuloy siya dun sa poster. never let mat go.
March 1st, 2011 at 22:59
I have been looking forward to watching Never Let Me Go, even more than the Oscar-nominated films. The elegiac tone of the novel stayed with me days after I put down the book. I didn’t expect to develop such a strong attachment to the characters by novel’s end. Expecting the movie to evoke the same mood that Ishiguro’s words created, I suspect I am setting myself up for disappointment if the film falls just short of that.
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:30
JZ and #3 avignon — I have not read the book, but the film of Never Let Me Go was sufficiently impactful for me that I could not sleep afterwards (I saw it on an evening Singapore to Manila flight). I thought that it was excellent, with outstanding performances from Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield in particular.
Of course, the book might even be better — after all, it won the Booker Prize that year, did it not?
March 2nd, 2011 at 11:54
No it didn’t.
March 2nd, 2011 at 14:27
Oh, it was only shortlisted?
March 2nd, 2011 at 18:50
The Sea by John Banville won that year. I forced myself to read it after finishing Never Let Me Go.
March 4th, 2011 at 02:50
#7 angus25: The Sea reads like poetry, doesn’t it? Those words! They reminded me of the Spelling Bee– “assegais”, “velutinous”, “strangury.” Kailangan katabi mo ang thesaurus. There’s actually one online reviewer who created a glossary of words from The Sea. I only have a hazy memory of the story, but I distinctly remember pausing every now and then to admire the imagery, which was mesmerizing. I was in awe of the writer’s mastery of language, but I can’t recall if it resonated with me on a deeper level.
March 4th, 2011 at 10:16
The same captivating premise. Two very different stories. Read Children of Men by P.D. James. Then watch the movie by Alfonso Cuaron. You’ll see what I mean.
March 5th, 2011 at 02:11
I’ve only read and watched Atonement but that was too long ago… Can I do Perfume by Patrick Suskind instead?
March 6th, 2011 at 11:49
If there’s one book that speaks to me personally, it has to be “High Fidelity” by Nick Hornby. A Mastroianni Day gone awry – the story follows Rob, a compulsive lister, as he unravels the complexities of commitment, the bliss of underachieving, and the enigma of the women’s psyche. Aside from the big words like ‘relationship and commitment’, the book celebrates, which I totally dig, the greatest musical geniuses of all time and their incendiary works. Then…ala High Fidelity, I present you: My Top Four Reasons Why I Prefer the Movie than the Book (in random order):
1. Soundtrack. Yes, you can read all the musical trivia, side notes, footnotes, references at a whim in the book, but you know, you can’t hear them right there and then. I’m a music fan but in Rob’s Top Five Singles of All Time, I only know ‘Let’s Get It On’ by Marvin Gaye and ‘The House That Jack Built” by Aretha Franklin. You have to download the others to be able to, well, understand what the protagonist is talking about. In the movie, the soundtrack is a character. You will feel for Rob as the song sneaks in the background. The song “I Believe (When I Fall In Love It Will Be Forever)” by Stevie Wonder, in my opinion, was the perfect song to wrap up the journey of Rob. It fitted so well in the film.
2. Jack Black. I’m a big fan of his works. And here in the film, his appearance is an event worth watching. He was able to create a character that is a total dick but with something else. In the film, when he found out that Rob was going to produce the skater boys’ music, he felt defeated. Betrayed even. This was crucial for me because in here you find a music-elitist-dickhead who, apparently, has a genuine human emotion than Barry in the book who was just a total a**hole. Which leads me to number 3:
3. Script. The script was able to create characters that are actually human. The scene with Jack Black in no. 2, as far as I know, was not part of the book. I thought that made a difference to the Barry in the novel. Also, Rob in the book is too self-indulgent. His musings in relationship, life, and music are briefer in the film, and it gave much impact to the character.
4. Direction. Being faithful to the original story is a must for all the scriptwriters and directors, but creating an indelible mark to the film (as if making it your own) is a challenge. Stephen Frears was able to give us the same story with his fingers dipped on it. Breaking the fourth wall and letting Rob speak directly to the camera is a tack that is ingenious. Its interactive nature has made it not just a reel, but also real experience. It was that effective.
So there you have it. This is my first time to answer in Ms. Z’s LitWit Challenge so please be nice to me. Now, I have a question for you guys. In the book/film Rob has this rhetorical shit to ask us:
“What came first: the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?”
So what came first, the music or the misery?
March 6th, 2011 at 11:59
Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita is a fine example of how readers can sympathize with a “monstrous” character with “abnormal tastes.” However, I have my doubts about Stanley Kubrick’s 1962 movie adaptation of this metafictive novel.
The novel began with a fictional foreword, detailing the events after Lolita’s narrative and explaining the circumstances of its publication. Then we are granted Humbert’s memories of his European life, in which he tries to explore the reason behind his fascination with “nymphets.” The movie, on the other hand, began with the end; Humbert (James Mason) shoots Clare Quilty (Peter Sellers) to death in the latter’s mansion. Despite beginning rather differently, both the novel and the movie openings led to Humbert meeting Dolores Haze in her mother’s home in Ramsdale.
The titular character, Lolita, was never addressed by this name by any other character except Humbert. It was his personal pet name for her; a name he christened her with in his mind that highlighted her nymphet nature—symbolic of the obsession he had for her. In the movie, Dolores is Lolita to everyone, thus taking away the original intention and meaning of that nickname. The movie Lolita (Sue Lyon), too, was very different from Lolita of the novel. For one, she was clearly older (probably to satisfy then conservative movie censors) and therefore the attraction that Humbert had for a prepubescent girl in the novel was given a more acceptable spin with the movie Lolita being an attractive teenager. The movie, however, succeeded in giving Lolita’s feelings less attention as the book did and instead focused on the abnormal obsession that Humbert has developed for her.
There was also a comedic touch to the movie that I was not very sure about, but this probably stemmed from my being infatuated with Nabokov’s beautiful prose. The opening scene was funny with Clare Quilty’s jittery mannerisms that contrasted with Humbert’s quiet tension. Charlotte Haze was also portrayed in this manner—a whining parody of a woman who fell in love with the “charms” of her European lodger. In the novel, I felt this pity for both Humbert and Charlotte; for his poetic yet distorted view of the world and obvious disdain for non-nymphet women around him and for her rather shallow attraction to this handsome man with an accent.
The movie’s narration came at convenient times instead of guiding the story throughout like it did in the novel, therefore completely omitting Humbert’s mental deterioration in the second part. I also did not like the very obvious details placed throughout the movie that attempted to clue in the viewers to what was going on through Humbert’s mind (e.g. Lolita’s picture at the bedside table, a poster of Clare Quilty to establish his acquaintance with the Hazes, etc).
I think I would have enjoyed Stanley Kubrick’s Lolita if I have not read the book. After all, such a beautiful novel by Nabokov set me up for terribly high expectations, even if the author himself wrote the screenplay. The 1997 adaptation with Jeremy Irons as Humbert promised to be more faithful with Nabokov, and I think I would enjoy that more.
March 7th, 2011 at 22:25
# 8 avignon
I read The Sea because I could not believe Never Let Me Go did not win. I had to find out why.
It’s no big wonder why The Sea won. You are right, there are a lot of words that I never encountered before, but the writing doesn’t sound awkward or thesaurus-y. All the words are placed perfectly. This is a true “lyrical” work.
I didn’t focus so much on the plot because each sentence is delightful. It’s fun reading it aloud slowly. Nakakaasar lang, ang galing-galing niya!
March 11th, 2011 at 11:39
#4 Akyat-Bahay Gangster: You know how it is when you are reading a novel and the scenes play out like a film in your mind– well, in my mind, Hailsham was more antiseptic, cast in a blue-grey palette. The cinematography employed by director Romanek gives it a slightly decayed, washed-out brown and beige look– which I realize now is more effective in conveying longing and melancholy. The children look like they’re all wearing hand-me-downs, which makes sense considering the purpose of their existence. Carey Mulligan should have been nominated for a Best Actress Oscar for the Cathy H. role. She has that expression, the one where she purses her lips and her face seems lopsided with sadness and resignation, that makes her look 25 going on 55. Quietly devastating performance.
#13 angus. I agree. John Banville’s sentences are like Impressionist paintings. Parang gusto mong i-frame.