Looking through our Penguin Modern Classics catalogue, I was moved by our mention in the blurb that the wonderful Arpino novel has been turned into not one but two films. I'm moved not because it's nice to dwell upon another creative medium, but because it seems criminally insane that we should want anyone to have to think about this. Which, effectively, is pretty much the same as this.
Over the past eighteen months or so, we've had The Road, Scott Pilgrim, Shutter Island (discussion for a later date: the worst book 'twists' in publishing history), The Chronicles of Narnia, Let Me In (itself a pretty ropey version of a great earlier adaptation), Tamara Drewe and Winter's Bone, as well as the very loose adaption of a fourth-century BC Aristophanes play, Get Him to the Greek.
This year we'll be enjoying/not going anywhere near Never Let Me Go, 127 Hours, Brighton Rock, Water for Elephants, We Need to Talk About Kevin, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, Moneyball, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy... Wow. At this rate I might not have to read a single book for the whole of 2011.
Well, then: what are (IYHO) the very best and worst book adaptations? Perhaps the film is miles better than the book? Surprised to be delighted by the adaptation? Mine - although I'll almost certainly change my mind when reminded by other suggestions - would have to be this (excuse me - I have something in my eye) and THIS (warning: may cause brain scarring).
Sam the Copywriter
.............................................................................
Remember that by posting a comment you are agreeing to the website Terms of Use. If you consider any content on this site to be inappropriate, please report it to Penguin Books by emailing reportabuse@penguin.co.uk
..............................................................................
I'm a sucker for the film adapataion of "To Kill a Mockingbird".
Posted by: Mitch | January 14, 2011 at 06:45 PM
Much as I love Philip K. Dick, Blade Runner > Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
(But then Blade Runner beats just about anything else ever brought forth unto this crummy world.)
Posted by: Alan | January 16, 2011 at 07:38 PM
My personal favorites tend to be the other way around - something that started as a screenplay and was followed by a book. Michael Blake was intending to write Dances With Wolves as a screenplay before Kevin Costner told him to write the novel (a brilliant work of fiction). Or, in a completely different vein, there's William Goldman's Princess Bride - a cult classic followed by a side-splittingly hilarious novel. Maybe it's because writers who start with film in mind so often see the novel as a chance to do something more with a story, while novelists who begin with the page often write like they'd rather be watching a movie.
Posted by: Molly | January 17, 2011 at 02:43 AM
Of popular fiction, I found the Swedish film versions of Stieg Larsson's Millenium trilogy better than the books with the possible exception of the first, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The following two were over-written and too full of the genre's love for the backstory of every minor character.
Posted by: DOT | January 18, 2011 at 03:50 PM
The film adaptations of Helen Fielding's BRIDGET JONES'S DIARY and Tom Perrotta's ELECTION are vastly better than the books. I found the books a bit boring, repetitive and thin on the ground, while they shone on the screen.
Usually, of course, the book is far better so it's easy to think of disappointing adaptations: REVOLUTIONARY ROAD and THE HUMAN STAIN for two.
I find it much harder to think of a film I liked as much as the book ... I thought the Potter films were fair adaptations and I loved THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND (both the book and the film).
Posted by: Emily | January 28, 2011 at 12:38 PM