Wrapping up Lit Flicks with The Hustler

For my final book/movie combo to complete the Lit Flicks Challenge, I decided to do a double revisit of The Hustler.

The story revolves around Fast Eddie Felson, a pool hustler who travels to Chicago to challenge the great Minnesota Fats. He loses spectacularly, picks up a girl, gains character, and comes back for a rematch.

Many things in the movie (characters, plot, dialogue, themes) are lifted straight from the book. One major difference is a much darker finish for one of the characters in the movie. While this doesn't change much about how things end up, it does change the way the characters get there.

This is a case where seeing the movie for the first time made me check out the book to try and get a better handle on the story. This time around I re-read the book first and then re-watched the movie. What I found is that the film and novel have become intertwined for me. I can't read the book without picturing the actors as the characters, and I can't watch the movie without phrases from the book coming to mind.

Some things I like better about the book: the attention given to the themes. For example, the idea of hustling happening in many areas of life is shown in more detail. Also explored a bit more in depth are ideas about winning and losing, not just in pool, but in life. Are some people just born losers? How far can talent take you? Can a loser turn into a winner by silencing his excuses for losing? While these are still major themes in the movie, I like the way they are examined (and concluded) in the book a bit better.

Some things I like better about the movie: watching the performances by four amazing actors. Paul Newman and George C. Scott are both so strong, I can't decide who to watch in their scenes together. Piper Laurie plays her part heartbreakingly well. And Jackie Gleason perfectly embodies Minnesota Fats. (I understand in real life he shot a pretty good game of pool, himself.)

Both book and movie are a bit gritty, although the language is coarser in the book. They both also portray pool in an almost reverential light, at least from the players' perspectives. While you might imagine it would be easier to follow the game on screen seeing it for yourself, the descriptions in the book make things clear and keep it interesting.

I'm back and forth on picking which version I like better, so I guess I'd have to say both are good, although the movie is more of a must-see classic than the book is a must-read classic. So I'd say try the movie first, and if you want more, check out the book.

Final thoughts on Lit Flicks:

In addition to The Hustler, for this challenge I read and watched The Grapes of Wrath, Jane Eyre, The Secret Garden & The Black Stallion. Only in one case did I have a real preference for the book. For the most part I enjoyed both incarnations of the story (with an occasional edge given to the movie). This happens to fit my original idea that books and movies don't have to be at odds. Let's enjoy both for the unique strengths they offer in storytelling.

While this challenge is over, I'm sure I will continue to check out movie adaptations of the books I enjoy, and I'm sure that movie credits telling me a great film was based on a book will send me looking for it. Book vs. Movie? No! Book AND movie for me!

If you are interested in more book-to-movie reviews, check out the Bookworms Carnival on literature and film.

Books vs. Movies: The Secret Garden & The Black Stallion

Here's a little something you might not know about me: when in doubt about what to read, I turn to children's books. Even if I've never read them before, I find them somehow comforting, a return to a simpler time, a safe haven from novels determined to be shocking.

So when I was recently having trouble with the books on my original Lit Flicks list (due to fading interest and/or the failure of my usually good inter-library loan system) I turned to children's classics instead. Here are my thoughts on two books I read as well as their movie adaptations.

The Secret Garden

I think I read this when I was younger as it was all vaguely familiar... little Mary Lennox is orphaned, goes to live with her uncle, discovers a mystery in the house and the power of a secret garden.

For the most part I found the story delightful. It was great to see the change in Mary. Positive, unselfish thinking is good, being out amidst natural beauty is good. The only thing I didn't like was the mumbo-jumbo at the end about "Magic" to explain things. (Also, is it just me or do the three kids in the book seem to be a love-triangle in the making?) (Yes, I know one is Mary's cousin.)

The first adaptation I tried to watch was the 1993 movie, thinking that the subject would have to be better in an updated version instead of an older, black and white version. But I really (and perhaps slightly irrationally) didn't like it. I didn't like right away that they changed how Mary was orphaned. The whole movie seemed rather dark for such a sweet story. Yes, I know that the book deals with some heavy subjects, but it didn't feel weighed down like the movie did. I watched it half-heartedly and distractedly and got even more mad at it at the end when they took the magic bit I didn't like in the book and made a bigger deal about it with a chanting scene. Blech.

It almost made me not give The Secret Garden from 1949 a try, but I'm so happy I did! While this version also takes a few liberties, (like the robin becoming a raven) overall I was so much happier with it. Margaret O'Brien stars as Mary. Although I thought her a bit too old (and too pretty) for the role, she played it with her usual intensity and charm and won me over. Little Dean Stockwell is also in this version, and man, what a cute kid he was. (At one point he talks about how he will live forever, and I couldn't help but think, of course you will, you Cylon, you!)

What I think the 1949 version really gets right is the tone of the story. For example, Mary is still contrary, but somehow her seriousness is shown as being rather ridiculous, making her more endearing. The touches of humor in the story really work against the heavier themes, and that bit of light and dark feels very true to the book. And, appropriately enough in a story called The Secret Garden, there are a few secrets to the movie that had me ready to cheer! (I don't want to reveal anything here because I'd like everyone to have the same joyful surprise that I had.)

So, book or movie? Both, as long as you watch the 1949 version. (It doesn't seem to be available on DVD yet, but you may be able to find the video or catch it on TCM.)

The Black Stallion

Here's a case where I had seen the movie before reading the book. While the basic story is the same (boy and horse get shipwrecked, become friends on an island, get rescued and enter a major race) I was surprised by how many things were changed for the movie. (What! There was never a mini horse statue? Or talk about the horse with fire in his eyes and smoke coming out of his nose?)

Some bigger changes: in the book, Alec is alone on the ship as opposed to traveling with his father as in the movie. This makes for some more emotional moments in the film. Also, Alec is significantly older in the book. While I think a younger Alec works better for his helplessness in the island scenes, I did like an older Alec for being more in control over what to do about racing his horse when he got back home.

While the book is fine as a classic children's adventure novel, The Black Stallion is a great example of a story that translates really well into a movie. Seeing as opposed to imagining is much more powerful when it comes to the frightening scenes of the ship sinking, or the beautiful moments between the boy and his horse on the island, or the exciting moments of the race at the end. Re-watching the story after reading the book, I loved even more the visuals of the horse, particularly during the dialogue-free scenes on the island. The little exotic musical cues as reminders of the horse's origin were neat, and the main actors (Kelly Reno, Teri Garr, and Mickey Rooney) were all great, too.

If you only get into one version of this story, make it the movie.

Now, I have one more book and movie adaptation to go before the end of the month to complete the Lit Flicks challenge. Can I do it? I'm sure gonna try!

Book vs. Movie: Jane Eyre

Jane Eyre was already next on my Lit Flicks Challenge list, but when I happened to be the October giveaway winner and The Bluestocking Society kindly sent me the book (thanks, Jessica!) I wanted to get to it right away.

Before reading or seeing Jane Eyre, I did have some idea of the general plot: Jane is a governess who comes to work in a creepy house for a brooding man with a big secret. (It's a good thing I knew the secret, too, since my copy of the book included an introduction by Joyce Carol Oates that revealed all the major plot details and many of the twisty bits. Seriously, there should have been a spoiler warning with it -- surely there are some people reading the book for the first time with no idea what it's about who would like to enjoy a few surprises.)

Since I did know how the story would go, I was afraid that reading through the book would be tedious, but I actually enjoyed it very much. The way it's written (as a first-person account of Jane telling the reader her story) felt very intimate and interesting. The only time it didn't work for me was when the big secret is revealed; during this time things seemed a bit rushed and Jane's reactions didn't come until later. All I can assume is that she was struck and in shock, but coming to know the characters I think more would have been said and thought during this critical time.

If you don't like Jane, you will probably not enjoy the novel, but I really liked Jane. I liked her strong will and character. I also liked Mr. Rochester, despite his dubious past and the way he deceived Jane. Maybe I like him because Jane does, or because they do seem like a well-matched pair of intellectual equals. You can analyze a lot more about the various themes of the novel, like what it says about religion, morality, duty, forgiveness, and marriage, but I was happy enough to read through the rest because I really liked Jane and Rochester, and I wanted to see their love story play out.

The movie version I chose to watch was the 1944 adaptation, mostly because it stars Orson Welles, and I really like him. He is great as Rochester; he can carry off the speeches and he has the right amount of darkness and intensity to him. I was also delighted to see Agnes Moorehead, a young Elizabeth Taylor, the little girl from A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (Peggy Ann Garner) and child actress Margaret O'Brien, adorable as Adele. I wasn't particularly impressed with Joan Fontaine as Jane, though. (She also starred in Rebecca, based on the Daphne du Maurier novel which seems at least partially inspired by Jane Eyre.) Fontaine's Jane is much too meek and is really overpowered by Welles' Rochester. This removes what I enjoyed most about the novel, the match of equal minds that defines the relationship. In the novel, Jane is independent and holds her own against Rochester; in the movie I couldn't imagine what he saw in her, really.

I know it's always hard to show inner thoughts and feelings of characters in a movie, but I really missed how the book explains what's going on in Jane's head. Another thing that annoyed me about the movie: at the beginning, a book is shown onscreen and a voice-over reads what is written on the page. But the passage is way different from the book's opening. At other times during the movie, this same technique is used again. The voice-over alone would have been fine, but the suggestion that what is read is from the novel was really irritating. While I do understand the need to change and condense things when making a book into a movie, if you aren't remaining faithful to the book, don't show me text in a book as though you are staying completely true to the story. (Rant over.)

So, when it comes right down to it, does the book or the movie prevail? While the 1944 movie is beautifully shot and appropriately dark and atmospheric, it is also perhaps more melodramatic than even the crazy twists of novel would allow. The acting is mostly good, and it is fine as a movie, but overall I preferred the story in novel form. However, there are a lot of other Jane Eyre adaptations, and perhaps some do more justice to book. (I am intrigued by the version with George C. Scott because to me he really fits the description of Rochester: not exactly handsome, yet intense and strangely magnetic. If anyone's seen this version, or another adaptation, let me know what you thought.)

Oh, and while we're on the subject of Jane Eyre, I'd like to recommend Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair. It's the first of his funny Thursday Next series, which features a literary detective in an alternate reality where characters from books are quite real and traveling into the world of a book is physically possible. This story deals with Jane Eyre's kidnapping and the changing of the famous novel's plot. I want to re-read this now that I've finally read Jane Eyre.

So, that's two down for Lit Flicks, three more to go. I think I might deviate from my original list and choose something different for my next pick... stay tuned!

Book vs. Movie: The Grapes of Wrath

First up on my Lit Flicks Challenge list (and my first rental from Classicflix) is The Grapes of Wrath.

This is one of those classics I can't believe I missed for so long, both in book and movie form. I had seen clips from the movie somewhere, and what I had stuck in my head was the close-up of Henry Fonda's earnest face making his "I'll be there" speech. My impression going in: this story has a Message. And so it does.

The focus is on the Joads, a family forced away from their farmland home, journeying to California to become migrant workers. While the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression are pretty heavy subjects, I was still surprised by just how raw the novel is. It's an unsanitized look at these people with all their flaws and problems. And as gritty as it is, I believe that it could have been worse, given the hardships that are hinted at which the Joads manage to avoid.

In the book, in addition to the chapters that follow the Joad family's journey, there are also shorter chapters that take a less personal, larger view of the problems of the times. Some of these were very powerful and worked quite well. I especially liked the chapters on the used car dealership and the roadside diner. As I progressed through the book, however, I began to feel that this device was wearing thin, and that Steinbeck had run out of things to talk about in these bigger-picture chapters.

Overall, it's a well-written novel about a serious subject. And it did get me wrapped up in it so that I was really feeling for these characters. I particularly liked Ma, even from her first appearance in the book. In her introduction, we are told that "her hazel eyes seemed to have experienced all possible tragedy and to have mounted pain and suffering like steps into a high calm and a superhuman understanding." The story gives her a lot more steps to climb. I preferred book Ma to movie Ma, but I liked Tom Joad in both versions very much.

Before seeing the movie, I was worried about Henry Fonda's performance, especially his ability to speak in the country dialect of the book. Maybe it's because the clearest picture I have of Fonda is as the very intelligent, articulate character in 12 Angry Men. But he handles the role of Tom Joad brilliantly, never seeming above it while still bringing out a certain sincerity with dignity that is important to the character. Fonda's performance is wonderfully restrained yet powerful, beautiful against the often over-the-top, make-your-eyes-as-wide-as-possible-for-effect acting going on in this movie. With the exception of the bit where he sings, I found Henry Fonda's performance riveting, and for that alone I would recommend watching the movie.

Would I recommend the book? Yes, although with some hesitation. The novel is really depressing. As I progressed through the book, I found myself anticipating with dread the next tragedy that would befall the family. The book has an interesting theme about sin versus holiness that is nowhere near as prominent in the movie. Both stories show that people do better helping each other, although the book drives the point home harder. Sure, we've all got to eat, but only looking out for your own is selfish and doesn't work for the greater good, we get it. The movie, while still serious, has some lighter moments to it, like Grandpa explaining what he'd like to do in California and the family's reaction to Tom's homecoming. The movie also has a much different ending.

The book's ending is a bit of a shocker; I won't spoil it here in case you haven't read it yet, although I will say that it made me feel that a certain thing was set up in the book only for the ending, which felt somewhat cheap to me. The ending does fit in with the rest of the novel and provides some hope for the future, but the whole thing is still pretty bleak. Which I suppose is the point -- the issues faced by these people could not be easily fixed. The movie's ending is more hopeful and uplifting, although it didn't ring as true to me. Also, in both versions of the story, I was disappointed that Tom's part is finished up before the end.

So, what's the final verdict, book or movie? Both. The story in either form is an interesting look at a difficult time in history. The book definitely has more meat to it and a bigger agenda; the movie is a bit more entertaining while still illuminating the subject. While I don't think I'll be coming back to either book or movie soon, I'm still glad I checked out both versions of this classic American story.

Book vs. Movie: Is the book always better?

This cool Threadless t-shirt (Movies: Ruining the Book since 1920) displays a definite point of view on the issue. But can it really be said that the book is always better than the movie adaptation?

In trying to understand why people generally seem to prefer the book to the movie version of a story, I came up with this theory: Perhaps we just like best what we knew first. Which, in most cases, is the book. Here's how it goes: you read a book, love it, find out it's been made into a movie, see the movie, and end up disappointed. Of course in reading the book first, you couldn't help but form ideas about how the characters looked. You loved all the little details that didn't make it into the limited time of the movie. And so you come out of the theater or close the dvd box feeling strongly that the book was so much better than the movie.

The problem with my theory is that it should work in reverse; if you saw the movie first, you should prefer it over the book. But this just doesn't happen nearly so often. Sure, seeing the movie first leaves a lasting impression of how the characters look. But it's usually fine to imagine them that way when you go ahead and read the book. Also, the details in the book usually end up enriching the story you already know, so you can still come away saying that the book is better than the movie.

Can the movie ever be better than the book? One thing against this is that books that are popular get made into movies, which creates high expectations. (Let's face it, if the book is terrible to start with, it probably won't get made into a movie.)

But in some cases, I actually do like the movie better than the book. One examples of this for me is Gone With the Wind. The book and movie are both long, but I am much more likely to re-watch the movie than to re-read the book. Some of the things that got left out from the book (like things involving the KKK and Scarlet's additional children) are not really missed in the movie. The costumes and sets actually enhance the story to me, showing the grandeur of the old South and the devastation caused by the war.

Another example of a movie that I would pick over the book is The Hunt for Red October. I could watch that movie endlessly and probably recite most of the dialogue off the top of my head if you asked me to. I have tried to read the book several times and have just never gotten through it. The extra detail in the book feels tedious as opposed to interesting. Plus, reading the book doesn't give me the pleasure of seeing Alec Baldwin and Sean Connery.

Another case in which I always seem to prefer the movie is when the story is based on actual events. Almost every time I see a movie about someone's life or some spectacular event and it moves me to read more about it, I wind up disappointed. The events, people, drama, excitement, etc. have all been changed for the big screen. Let's face it, life isn't like the movies. Things are left unresolved, things happen that don't make sense in some grander scheme or plot. Real life is better to live; enhanced life is better in the movies.

But I'd like to present a middle ground. Sure, the book is often better than the movie in certain ways. But movies are unique, and can do things that books can never do, which can make them better. Why can't books and movies be friends? Instead of always having to pick a side, let's make it ok to like both the book AND the movie.

On the same subject of books and movies, I found this cool Lit Flicks Challenge from The Bluestocking Society. The idea is simple: read 5 books that have been made into movies and watch at least 2 of the movie adaptations. I wish I would have found this sooner, since I just read and watched The Thin Man (the first time for each) in an attempt to catch up on classics I somehow missed. Fortunately, I've just started another book along those same lines, so I'll make it my first pick.

1. The Grapes of Wrath

There are so many other book/movie combos I've already enjoyed, but I wanted to try some that I hadn't seen or read yet. I came up with:

2. Jane Eyre
3. Matchstick Men

Two more to go, and I think I will go for books where I have already seen the movie and enjoyed it:

4. Awakenings
5. Build My Gallows High (the basis for the great noir film Out of the Past)

So, that's my list for now, since for this challenge I can change my mind and my books if I need to. If anyone is looking for help on a list of their own for the challenge, let me recommend the following, where both book and movie versions are good: The Princess Bride, Much Ado About Nothing, To Kill a Mockingbird, and A Tree Grows in Brooklyn.