Booking Through Thursday: Film to Paper?

This week's Booking Through Thursday topic is about movies made from books: Even though it’s usually a mistake (grin) … do movies made out of books make you want to read the original?

To start with, I should say that, ideally, I prefer to read the book first, and then see the film. But since conditions are very rarely ideal, I do usually end up seeing the film adaptations before I read the book (or, even more frequently, instead of reading the book).

Sometimes seeing the movie first will do just the opposite – convince me that the book really isn't something I want to spend any time on. I suppose that's unfair – most film adaptations leave much or most of the original book far behind. But the movies do sometimes have that effect.

This is an interesting question for me because I've been thinking a lot about books-into-movies this week, since seeing the DVD of Roman Polanski's latest film, The Ghost Writer. It's really a great work that didn't get enough attention because of the unfortunate personal drama that was swirling around Polanski at the time he was making it. It's an adaptation of Robert Harris' political thriller, The Ghost, and Polanski worked closely with Harris on the screenplay. And after seeing the film and a short documentary about the making of the film, now I really want to read the novel. (Polanski's film The Ninth Gate, an adaptation of Arturo Pérez-Reverte's novel The Club Dumas had that same effect – for which I'll be forever grateful.)

So I guess my answer to the question would be: sometimes but not always. Which seems to be my answer to most of these BTT questions. Well, decisiveness is so over-rated, don't you think?

And what about you? Do movies ever influence your reading? (Please feel free to leave me a link to your BTT post in a comment here.)

At the Movies

Sherlock Holmes
USA/UK, 2009

MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material.

Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Written by: Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham, and Simon Kinberg (screenplay); Lionel Wigram (story)
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong

Synopsis:

Sherlock Holmes (played by Robert Downey, Jr.), along with his trusted ally Dr. John Watson (Jude Law), investigates a string of brutal ritualistic murders in this 2009 effort from British director Guy Ritchie. When Holmes and Watson arrive upon the scene just in time to prevent the aristocratic villain, Lord Blackwood, from doing away with his latest victim, the evil lord warns them that death has no power over him. And, seemingly, he's right about that: After Dr. Watson witnesses Blackwood's hanging and pronounces him dead, Blackwood reappears in London and continues on his murderous path. Scotland Yard is flummoxed, but Holmes is back on the case. And as they search London for Blackwood in order to put a stop to his evil shenanigans, Holmes and Watson are involved in a world of dark arts and dangers more deadly and surprising than any they've faced before.

My Thoughts:

Boring movie, really; nothing but special effects – and extremely annoying special effects, at that. The characters of Holmes and Watson were completely unrecognizable, but since the film was aimed at an audience that obviously had never read the Conan Doyle stories, I guess that really doesn't matter. I suppose the fact that the movie was based on a comic book version of the Holmes tales (by Lionel Wigram) should be a good indication of what to expect. I know I'm fighting the entire trend of the 21st Century here, but I really long for the days when movies had real sets, real locations, and real actors.

And about those real actors – Robert Downey was as watchable as ever, but even his performance couldn't save this one. And Jude Law seemed to have abandoned Dr. Watson in favor of a sort of stiff-upper-lip portrayal of Wilde's Dorian Gray. I'm afraid the rest of the cast wasn't very memorable, but then they had all those special effects planted firmly between them and the audience.

We watched this one on DVD, so maybe the experience of seeing it on the big screen might have improved my opinion. But I doubt it.

Nutshell Review: The best thing about this movie was the poster.

Booking Through Thursday: Movie Potential

This week's BTT topic:

What book do you think should be made into a movie? And do you have any suggestions for the producers?
Or, What book do you think should NEVER be made into a movie?

I almost gave this one a miss this week; it took me quite a while to think of anything to say. I like movies, but it's been a lot of years since I kept very close tabs on the current movie scene. So I suppose some of the books I've read might have had movie versions made that I don't know about.

I don't generally think about movies when I'm reading a book. In fact, if it's a book I like, I'd really rather they didn't make a movie of it. It's always a disappointment. I guess I'd say I think they should NEVER make a movie of any of my favorite books. However, it was Martin Scorsese's film of The Age of Innocence that nudged me into finally reading Edith Wharton's great novel. So I guess film and literature can mix successfully – as long as the director is a genius.

I have read a couple of books within recent memory that I thought would probably make great movies. One was the book I just finished – Douglas Preston's action-adventure-techno-religious-SciFi thriller Blasphemy. Yes, it's really hard to categorize and it would make a terrific action film. I'm sure Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise or Tommy Lee Jones or somebody has already bought the screen rights.

And I believe one of the books I read last year, Brunonia Barry's The Lace Reader would translate to film very nicely. There are some wonderful roles for actresses there, especially "mature" actresses. Frances Sternhagen or Marian Seldes would be perfect for the role of Aunt Eva. And I actually thought of Anjelica Huston as the mother the whole time I was reading the book, although I'm sure the part is probably earmarked for Meryl Streep. Well, they both seem to have a talent for playing strong-but-slightly-nutty mom roles, don't they?

Monday's Movie: The Horror and the Heist

Over at A Novel Menagerie, Sher is hosting Monday's Movie, in which she invites everyone to "write about any movies, television or big screen, that you’ve seen over the past week."

This is my first time participating, and as I only have a couple of movies to mention (we don't go out to movies much anymore, and I'm trying to keep myself focused on reading instead of staring at the TV screen), I'm going to combine them in one post.



Acacia
Korea, 2003
Written and Directed by Ki-hyeong Park
MPAA Rating: R for violence and language

Synopsis from SundanceChannel.com:
"Korean filmmaker Ki-Hyung Park (Whispering Corridors) serves up an unsettling tale of muted dread about a childless couple's attempts to forge a family. Despite her mother's disapproval, Mi-sook (Hye-jin Shim) and her husband (Jin-geun Kim) adopt Jin-seong (Oh-bin Mun), a quiet, artistic six-year-old boy. Soon Jin-seong evinces an obsessive attraction to a dying acacia tree in the backyard, which he associates with his birth mother. Yet even more unsettling events are in store when Mi-sook unexpectedly becomes pregnant."

My Thoughts:
Strange and definitely "unsettling" film with two adorably spooky kids who looked a little too much like the wraiths in The Grudge for my taste. Pretty good psychological suspense drama with a supernatural touch. One of those films that make the viewer work a little to figure things out. Kept me guessing about what was actually going on, and it delivered surprises right up to the end. Gorgeous cinematography and nice spare settings; even though the film was in color, it almost comes across as black-and-white so that the violent splashes of red in the final scenes are all the more shocking. If you're contemplating adoption, you'll probably want to stay away from this one.

This film kept me watching all the way through, even with its unpleasant subject matter and some pretty graphic violence (including, it should be noted, one rape scene), so in accordance with Sher's rating system, I'd give it two bags of popcorn, out of five.

The Thomas Crown Affair
USA, 1999
Directed by John McTiernan
Screenplay by Leslie Dixon and Kurt Wimmer
MPAA Rating: R for some sexuality and language

My Thoughts:
Part of my ongoing attempt to watch some of the movies I missed during the 1990s. This is a remake of director Norman Jewison's 1968 classic starring Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway, with Pierce Brosnan and Rene Russo in the lead roles. The original Thomas Crown was one of the greatest "heist" films of all time, and arguably Steve McQueen's best on-screen work. Playing against type as the urbane, well-educated and fabulously wealthy Crown, McQueen brought the role to life in a performance that's a thrill to watch, even forty years later. Brosnan, although he's a fine actor and an appealing screen presence, never really sizzles here. And where Dunaway was beautiful, brainy, alluring and classy, Russo is abrasive, unkempt and just downright trashy at times. As my husband said, if you haven't seen the original version, this newer film would be a perfectly acceptable entertainment. But if you haven't seen the original, you're missing a great movie experience.

I'm not quite sure why directors want to try to tinker with film classics; it seems a shame to waste all that money and talent. I wasn't as charmed by this one as the hubby was. I thought the best things in it were Faye Dunaway (doing a cameo as Crown's rather unorthodox psychiatrist) and the reuse of the original's signature song "Windmills of Your Mind." So I'd give it a single bag of popcorn, out of a possible five.

Booking Through Thursday: Books vs Movies

This week's BTT topic:
Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’s the difference between a book and a movie?

Well, of course, not all books or all films tell stories. But we all know that, so I won't elaborate.

This question was hard for me to answer because I really felt that comparing books and movies would be a little like comparing apples and aardvarks. They just seem like completely different life forms.

So I had to do a little considering. And after thinking about it for a while, I'm pretty sure that basically what I want from both books and movies is to be entertained and/or amused. Or, failing that, at least mentally engaged for a period of time. It's also nice if they affect me emotionally and ultimately leave me with a fresh perspective or way of thinking about the world, but that's asking a lot and doesn't happen very often.

As a "bookish" person, my first impulse was to say I much prefer books to movies, and feel they have greater potential for emotional and intellectual impact. But to be honest, a good film can affect me just as strongly as a good book can. So while I think of them as very different entities, I guess I'd have to say that what I expect from them is not really so dissimilar after all.