...doesn't do the book justice AT ALL. The book is much more powerful, complex, and cynical. The things they glossed over in the movie (like making the drunk a sympathetic character) totally removed any of the subversive edge of Carson McCullers' writing. Big disappointment for people like me who hope to see great literature translate well to the big screen. I must admit, Alan Arkin did a commendable job with a relatively poor script.
shareThe classic book vs. film argument.
Listen, first things first........books and movies are inherently different.
In a movie, you have two hours to tell a story. In a novel, two hours might only get you through a few chapters. The way you tell a story is also different in a movie - obviously it is more visual. So invariably, novels have the advantage of being more detail-oriented.
Also, I feel like when you read a novel first, and you see the story in your head, and you read the story one way........it can ruin a film.
I prefer to judge each on their own merits - afterall, they are separate works of art.
That's very well put.
I've seen the film but I haven't read the book and I may skip the book now because I don't want to spoil my admiration for the film which means a lot to me. Thats an endorsement of both previous posts in a way, the film is a work of art in my view but I know what gawestgate means.
You will not regret reading the book--so many nuances--great book.
share
The same can be said of John Huston's adaptation of Flannery O'Connor's "Wise Blood" -which shares much in common with this film. [EDIT: Both the marvelous book and the affecting film.]
That said, I also endorse Miss20's succinct take on the many differences between books and movies: different media, different languages to convey their messages. Keeping the visual & aural dimensions of film faithful to written texts (or vice versa, for that matter) is often beside the point.
Great book and great film - the casting and performances were spot on. No film can cover everything in a great novel.
share