MovieChat Forums > Billy Budd (1962) Discussion > The movie is so much better than the boo...

The movie is so much better than the book!

posted 15 years ago by yyss6688
11 replies | jump to latest

I just finished reading "Billy Budd" and wathching the movie. I have to say that "Billy Budd" the novel is the worst classic I've read in a long time! The storyline is thin, the characters are flat, and the language is very difficult to read -- maybe just dated, but I don't think it's the only reason; it seems to me the sentence structure is awkward and the word choice is odd.

The movie, however, did a fabulous job to mend these problems. The story is more complicated, and the characters are developed more fully. I really appreciate this adaptation!

[–] Conspirator_Slash 15 years ago

It's a rare movie - true to the book, but it still adds to the (really simple) storyline.

And I liked the additions. Just... Ustinov, really, why couldn't you get another actor for Vere? I mean, he did a fine job, but he isn't the elegant, aristocratic captain Melville writes of. He's not dreamy. Thinking of that era's actors, I'd most likely pick Max von Sydow or Gregory Peck.

And the Dansker - wonderful! In the book he's just a wannabe Teiresias with his misty prophecies, here he's like Matthews in Hornblower - that good ol' seadog you must love.

And Robert Ryan is so chillingly evil and yet human. I liked him since I saw The Wild Bunch, but I never knew he can steal the show like this.

If you liked the story, try the opera version - it also handles the book quite freely, and the music is just wonderful.

Starry Vere, God bless you!

[–] allenrogerj 14 years ago

"Ustinov, really, why couldn't you get another actor for Vere?"
Money.
The film was made on a small budget and the backers insisted Ustinov acted as well as directed.

[–] sampafelipe 14 years ago

i agree Ustinov can be quite hammy at times, but i was impressed by him here. several of his line deliveries were perfect with his facial expressions. indeed, robert ryan rocked!

[–] jackboot 14 years ago

Melvyn Douglas was wonderful as Dansker. He really got that Scandinavian accent down cold!

I thought that Peter Ustinov was PERFECT as Capt. Vere. Definitely not Gregory Peck. I thought Ustinov WAS Captain Vere.

Robert Ryan really stuck out (not in a good way) for his accent. He's one of my all-time favorite actors, but I don't think that he was the best choice for Claggart.

Benjamin Britten's music is an acquired taste I have not fully acquired! I have sung some of his choral music and it's not my favorite. I've never seen the opera, but I've never really felt motivated to see it because it's a Britten piece and also is angled to play up a homosexuality angle in the story, which, is all well and good, but not something I go for, generally.

[–] rondine 14 years ago

I would actually agree with you. While movie adaptations usually suck compared to the book- this is that rare occasion where it's actually BETTER! The scene on deck with Claggart which isn't in the book is fantastic. It shows a human side to the evil of Claggart- it makes him actually more frightening in a way, because it shows that we ALL have both sides.

I think Ustinov did a masterful job writing, directing, acting in this. God Bless Starry Ustinov! :)

[–] ThomasMuf 14 years ago

"I just finished reading "Billy Budd" and wathching the movie. I have to say that "Billy Budd" the novel is the worst classic I've read in a long time! The storyline is thin, the characters are flat, and the language is very difficult to read -- maybe just dated, but I don't think it's the only reason; it seems to me the sentence structure is awkward and the word choice is odd."

It's called literature. It's not for everybody.

Melville's style is rife with complex metaphors, archaic language and countless allusions to the Bible, Shakespeare, etc - It's a tough, but rewarding read.

[–] jackboot 14 years ago

Billy Budd was an unfinished work and not close to completion. It's been completed by Melville scholars. I have not read it. How does it measure up to other Melville?

[–] kamalkicks 11 years ago

Well, I disagree with the entire premise of this post--this is only loosely related to the novel, and one poster above puts his finger on one of the main problems--Ustinov as Vere. Vere is a martinet: a by-the-book career officer, worried about the recent mutinies that shook the British naval establishment to it's foundations (an aspect prominent in the novel but not in the film), and determined at all cost that such a thing wouldn't happen on his watch. Ustinov is not that kind of officer, and his torment at Billy's hanging is totally unlike the character in the novel.

It may be a very good film, but I prefer the book.

[–] critic-2 10 years ago

Yes, it was completed. You must be thinking of some other work.

[–] jackboot 10 years ago

It was unfinished at Melville's death.

One version was published in 1924, but the supposed definitive edition of the story, completed by Melville scholars, was not published until 1962.

You must be thinking of some other work?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]