Posted on August 11, 2007 in Books, Movies
Once upon a time, I use to read a lot more books a year than I do now, and honestly do not think that I can complete all my reading challenges for 2007 because my life will start getting hectic again beginning next month. Though, what Nymeth says is right, it’s not the end of the world if I don’t complete them. So here are choices for the Book to Movie challenges which I couldn’t resist because this is the sort of thing that I do often enough that I even keep track of it seen in the previous post.
The challenge is to select three books that were made into movies. It runs from September 1 to December 1. I plan on doing book and movie comparisons for at least two of the below.
1. Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier. I’ve already seen the film, but I’ve been meaning to read this for awhile. Also being read for the Something About Me Challenge. – Completed
2. Little Children by Tom Perrotta. – Completed
3. Running with Scissors: A Memoir by Augusten Burroughs. – Completed
Alternates:
Not because I’ll have free time, but in the case I don’t manage a copy of one of the above, and I like alternates.
Minority Report by Philip K. Dick.
Mary Poppins by P. L. Travers.
Anne of Green Gables by L. M. Montogomery.
Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas.
Friday Night Lights by Buzz Bissinger. Most unlikely, but I love the TV show and have yet to read the book or see the film.
Posted on August 9, 2007 in Books, Movies
This book reminded me a bit of To Kill a Mockingbird in its setting and main characters. Both books takes place in the south. While the core themes of it differ, both are essentially stories about growing up. Katherine Paterson seems to capture childhood so well. When Jess and Leslie create and explore Terabithia, I remember my own childhood of imagining other worlds, fantastic creatures and adventures. They even refer to Narnia. I remember reading that series, and trying desperately to find a wardrobe. I’m sure I hid in a wardrobe once, but alas, not gateways. The only thing that bothered me about this book is that I predicted the ending early on, and initially found it a bit contrite. I do not blame the book because if I had read it when I was 10, I probably would not have found it contrived since now I’m marred by years of books, movies and television. It’s hard for me to review very well written books, especially children’s ones such as this because it just comes down to the writer’s ability to write prose and experiences that capture readers. Paterson allowed me to be nostalgic, and I only wish I had read this when I was younger because I know I would have loved it and understood it even more than I do now.
The movie was adapted by Disney this year. Overall, I think they did a decent job. It could have been a lot worse, and while they changed some things such as the time setting of the book (present day instead of the 1970s in the book) and other little details, I found they kept the important things and tried to accentuate certain details the book was subtle yet important on (Jess’s father and their relationship). I do not think the movie is a replacement is for the very well written book about growing up and the values of imagination and friendship. I liked the movie well enough, and considering what I’ve heard of other films in this demographic, it probably is good as a stand alone film and more worth kids’ (and adults too) time.
Posted on July 30, 2007 in Books, Movies
84, Charing Cross Road (1970) is the documented real life twenty year correspondence between New York write Helene Hanff and London bookseller Frank Doel. It’s been some time since I’ve read the book, but I watched the film today so it brings me memories about the lovely epistolary memoirs. I think anyone who truly loves books should read it because Ms Hanff expresses so many views of why we love prose, poetry (like her, I’m a Donne and Blake girl), and beautifully bound books. The letters are a testament to the relationships that are born and thrive under mutual, ardent bibliophilia. It’s quite a short book, and quite satisfying in my opinion since I love letters almost as much as I love books.
The movie was made in 1986 and stars Anne Bancroft as Helene, Anthony Hopkins as Frank, and features Judi Dench as Nora Doel. Bancroft did well here, and it was refreshing seeing Hopkins and Dench so young. I think it’s a fine adaptation that not long expresses the relationships from the book and more, but it features all the good things that come out of a period piece drama. There are so many nice moments of detail about the time including the rationing in post-war Britain and the student protests of the 1960s. A nice companion to the book with lovely historical visual detail.
Posted on July 12, 2007 in Books
1. In your opinion, what is the best translation of a book to a movie?
2. The worst?
3. Had you read the book before seeing the movie, and did that make a difference? (Personally, all other things being equal, I usually prefer whichever I was introduced to first.) – BTT
Well, a couple of my favourite movies are the 2003 Peter Pan and The Princess Bride. Both with books I adore and films that one can see over and over again. I think a lot of book to movie translations are decent. The Hours is another well done film adaptation.
I probably do know some bad adaptations because I watch a lot of movies and read a lot of books. I purposefully seek it out some times. Most of the time, the adaptations just turn out as simply as boring movies because the translation has been hard to capture.
In general, I tend to read the book before the movie. I try to any way. I read Trainspotting before seeing the movie, and it made the difference I think because it made more sens. I remember how other people watching it didn’t seem to understand it (it’s trippy), but having read the book, it was less disorientating. I usually prefer the book to the movie because there are some things films don’t capture me the same way. There are some adaptations that I love just as much as the book.
Speaking of which, I should post that list of adaptations I have seen so far.
Posted on June 28, 2007 in Movies
This is at least the fifth adaptation of Jane Eyre that I have seen. In 2005, I saw almost every major JE adaptation including the BBC version with Samantha Morton and Ciarin Hinds, the 1940s Orson Welles version, the 1983 TV version with Timothy Dalton, and the Franco Zeffirelli version with William Hurt. The only other notable JE adaptations I have not seen are the 1973 TV version and the 1970 film version. Clearly, I love the book. Before watching this Masterpiece Theatre version, one of my favourite versions was the 1983 Timothy Dalton TV version. Yes, he is too conventionally handsome to be Mr Rochester, and the production values were practically nil, but my goodness was he good in it. He made it for me. I’m delighted to say that I love this Masterpiece version even more because it had good acting, better production values, and I found the adapted screenplay had just the right length. They cut just enough, and added the details to Jane and Mr Rochester’s relationship that I often felt lacking in other adaptations. I only remembered after that Toby Stephens was the Bond villain in Die Another Day, and he was Duke Orisno in Twelfth Night. I also completely forgot that his mother is Dame Maggie Smith. There are only fifty actors in Britain, and they tend to be related and star in Doctor Who or Harry Potter movies. I found it hard to remember TS’s roles because he was very much the part. He and Ruth Wilson had great chemistry, and it was romantic enough that I didn’t roll my eyes (though, I don’t think I would for this story). Wilson could be too pretty to be called plain, and she bears a striking resemblance to a friend of mine especially with her hair down. All in all, a very good adaptation, but I’ve come to expect good things from Masterpiece Theatre.
Posted on June 7, 2007 in Movies
Based on the book of the same name by German writer Patrick Süskind, several directors including Stanely Kubrick and Martin Scorcesse pronounced the film unadaptable. I haven’t read the book, and as I often do when I happen to watch the movie before the book, I wish I did. Not that it would make things less odd, but it would leave me feeling less disjointed afterwards. I know that if I had not read Trainspotting, the movie would have been more confusing. This story takes place in 18th century France, and it’s shot very well. I think the directing, design, and cinematography are the best things about the film along with the casting. I wanted to see the movie based on the ensemble cast including Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman, two of my favourites. Rachel Hurd-Wood who played Wendy in 2003’s Peter Pan was also in it with well done dye job on her red hair which I don’t think is her natural hair colour. The protagonist is played by British actor Ben Whishaw whose cheekbones could glass for all I know. The story is unique though, and the protagonist is an antihero rather than a clear cut out character to sympathise with. The book is apparently classified as Magical Realism which explains a lot. The ending is weird and offbeat, and the whole film is different than most stories or films. I think the film can be accused of being pedantic and absurd by others. I don’t know if I would recommend the film, but I don’t hate it. Then again, I rarely truly dislike a book or a film. I think there are positive aspects to almost everything. In this film’s case, the visuals, the casting, and the style of shooting. I may seek out the book, but not soon.
—
On a related note, I have kept a list of every book to movie adaptation I have read and then seen or vice versa. I’ll post the list in the near future. Now, I need to get started on Watership Down.
Posted on May 8, 2007 in Books, Movies
I’ve had this book for awhile, but I was about averse to starting it thinking it was long. Partly because I read Emma last November, and it took me awhile since it was November and Emma is the longest of the Austen books. My copy of NA just looked long, and it did not take me long to read. I liked it even though Cathy was a bit silly in the middle with her over reactive imagination. She is naive, but not so irritating as other characters named Catherine (hello, Wuthering Heights). Mr Tilney amused me with the teasing. Now, NA is Austen’s satire and mocking of gothic novels which makes the novel a bit meta in the nice way. I don’t think NA is nearly as enjoyable or satisfying as Persuasion or Pride and Prejudice (my favourites), but it’s light, quick, and moved adequately enough.
This ITV Jane Austen season adaptation is my second from the season. I previously saw Persuasion which I enjoyed for all its cheesy ending. A lot of people find this to have been the best of the three adaptations, and I can see why because it was fun and witty. Andrew Davies adapted it, and he really is one of the best at adapting scripts having done the 1995 P&P, Wives and Daughters (two of my favourite period dramas) and the upcoming Sense and Sensibility. He seems to have a lot of fun with NA because it was very charming with added fantasy scenes. I also thought the casting was good on this; I enjoyed the ITV Persuasion for a similar reason. I really liked JJ Feild as Mr Tilney; he doesn’t look conventionally handsome in pictures, but he lends himself well to the character. I remember watching a young Felicity Jones in The Worst Witch and Weirdsister College. I found her amiable and sweet in this, and both had nice chemistry too. So, I’m two for two now for the JA season. I’ll have to watch Mansfield Park now to see if I like that too, but I haven’t and don’t plan on reading MP for awhile. Though, I’m already predisposed to Billie Piper. I’ll have an excuse to see JJ Feild again in The Ruby in the Smoke (by Philip Pullman), also starring Piper, which I plan to read and watch sometime in the near future.
Posted on March 16, 2007 in Books, Food, Movies
The disappearing bees thing has been worrying me for a bit. I love honey, and I love bees. They are quite incredible creatures and honey is liquid gold. I found a podcast from earthfiles.com (episode 10) discussing it. Did you know that 1/3 of human food supply is directly affected by bees with another 30% indirectly. It would be enough for this to signal some environmental hazard and doom. Where have all the bees gone?
I must read that copy of Robbing the Bees: A Biography of Honey–The Sweet Liquid Gold that Seduced the World by Holley Bishop that I have in the house. I’ve had since before the bees did a Houdini and when I read The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd.
On a more positive note, I just got Casino Royale since my Dad is a Bond fan. I may not watch it this weekend, but it reminds me that Daniel Craig is playing Lord Asriel in His Dark Materials: The Golden Compass. I don’t go to movies in theatres often, but I am definitely going to see this on the opening weekend in November. The books are some of my favourites; I’ve been tracking the movies since well before they started production in 06 on Bridges to the Stars. Philip Pullman recently wrote a piece at the Sunday Times about the film. He seems very excited which makes me a fan doubly excited. He speaks of the fact that Nicole Kidman was his original pick for Mrs. Coulter, and it’s great that they got her because she is perfect casting. Overall, signs are pointing for a favourable adaptation.
Images from Yahoo! Movies:
