MovieChat Forums > The Swimmer (1968) Discussion > Film compared to original Cheever story

Film compared to original Cheever story

posted 16 years ago by mackjay2
21 replies | jump to latest

I just read the Cheever story, and was amazed at how much more developed the film is. The original story is truly a 'short' story you can read in 20 minutes. Most scenes pass in a few words or sentences. Ned spends very little time with any of these neighbors. Entire scenes were invented for the film. The babysitter character does not appear in the story at all. Much of this surprised me. I think both the film and the story are excellent, but this may be the rare case where the film improves on the story, by developing Ned's character a bit more and by fleshing out the other people in the story.
To anyone who admires this film, I highly recommend reading Cheever's story.

[–] LizzyForDummies 16 years ago

I agree. I read the story for my English class. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I watched the trailer and it seems it as some differences from the short story.

[–] MJ_Quint 15 years ago

Indeed, the rare case where the film is better than its source material, I was also surprised at the 'shortness' of Cheever's short story.

The other example that comes to mind, of a film being better than the book based on , is the bridges of madison county.

[–] rodneypwelch 15 years ago

You guys are confusing economy for slackness and underdevelopment.

The great power of Cheever's work is that it told a very big story in a very few pages. It's a complex story, but it's told with the kind of beautiful simplicity that comes from totally knowing your craft, from having the kind of highly disciplined focus that a short story demands. A lesser talent may well have used more words, maybe even written a novel.

Perry's film is interesting, but he had to fill out two hours, which means he had to be considerably more expansive, to invent scenes that were unnecessary in the story. The tail wagged the dog.

The story is a masterpiece. The film is not bad, but it's marginal at best.

[–] scottsteaux63-735-780576 13 years ago

While I agree that the Cheever story is devastating in its impact precisely because of Cheever's economical approach, I wouldn't call the film marginal. Burt Lancaster is pitch-perfect in the lead, and even with the additional material written to flesh out the story, Cheever's odyssey-in-reverse remains pretty much intact.

Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] the sphynx 8 years ago

The best example, by far, of a movie being better than the book is The Godfather.

[–] bhoover247 8 years ago

Another example of the movie being better than the book is Wuthering Heights the 1939 version with Laurence Olivier.

[–] pirslifeme03 15 years ago

yeah, we just read this story in my english class and watched the movie. they are sooooooooooooooo different! i still prefer the story to the film, partially because neddy isnt a *pedophile* in the story, but neither one tells you why he went away, or the circumstances behind him not finding anyone at home. does anyone know why? something about money maybe?

whisper words of wisdom, let it be.

[–] mackjay2 15 years ago

After seeing the film again, after reading the story I agree with you. The film does not improve, it adds a lot, and most of it is unnecessary. We certainly DON'T need the babysitter flirtation scene which really looks like filler in the movie and is not in the story at all. Cheever was a writer of understatement. Readers are left to interpret or flll in what they think, while the movie spells out too much. I still like the film for many reasons, but it has its flaws.

[–] nunquam 15 years ago

There's nothing in the movie that says he's pedophile.

[–] freakyfelix 15 years ago

The short story is pretty good, but in this case I prefer the movie.

The movie has to adapt it and fill it out, obviously, or you'd just have a short film.

[–] helenelisechat 15 years ago

The film by a mile, which is rare for me.

He's taking the knife out of the Cheese!
Do you think he wants some cheese?

[–] Siriry 14 years ago

Not exactly a pedophile but kind of creepy how he tries to make it with the former babysitter because as a child she had a crush on him.

Siri

Don't Make Me Have to Release the Flying Monkeys!

[–] kathy_hopkins 14 years ago

In case anyone is interested the original story is available online at:

http://shortstoryclassics.50megs.com/cheeverswimmer.html

As someone mentioned elsewhere it is indeed very short and can be read in under half an hour.

Not sure if it elucidates much though. It is an intriguing and surreal tale.

I must say I've found the comments on the various threads on this board very interesting and thought provoking and even though I just saw this film today for the first time, I'm looking forward to seeing it again soon, in the light of what I've read about it here and elsewhere today. Thanks all.

Caterina

[–] fwroots 14 years ago

I first saw the film many years ago and it left a lasting impression on me as a child; I just remember finding it fascinating and beautiful to look at. Having bought a copy and seen it again a few months ago I could still see why I loved it so.

It has almost haunted my consciousness all those years and it is still a totally engrossing and yet disturbing film at the same time.

I suppose as a child I simply didn't understand the changes in Lancasters character and situation through the film and the sad ending; but as an adult it still seems deeply affecting and I have just ordered the book to see how it compares.

"Made it Ma - Top of the world"

[–] queen_of_anarchy 13 years ago

I ran into this film in the 80s when I was in my 20s & they used to show interesting films at midday on Australian telly - they don't even show them now at prime time! I instantly fell in love with this film and the ambiguity that was retained in the ending. I still love the film today BUT... the short story is SO much better: richer & absorbing. Cheever shifts from light & simple to dark & complex in the blink of an eye - it is a wonder of economic writing that is up there with Poe. For those too lazy to read the story, listen to a fantastic reading here : http://www.newyorker.com/online/2011/02/14/110214on_audio_enright

Enjoy....

[–] Virgil_Hawkins 12 years ago

Wow. I disagree so much, especially about the film improving on the story. That's like trying to improve a sushi recipe by adding a well done stake. This movie appears to go over well with many people so it must be good in it's own right; but the additions actually take away from the poetry of the short story. Why people make films out of short stories is beyond me.

We are eagles of one nest, The nest is in our soul

[–] Clothes-Off 10 years ago

Why people make films out of short stories is beyond me.

Um, maybe because some pretty awesome films have been made from short fiction?

But a few examples:

The Shawshank Redemption
Witness For The Prosecution
Million Dollar Baby
Broke back Mountain
Total Recall
Being Julia
Yentl
Breakfast at Tiffany's
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

"Well, for once the rich white man is in control!" C. M. Burns

[–] MacacoBanditi 8 years ago

The story is a minimalistic masterpiece and, in my opinion, one of the best things ever written in the English language. What *is* said is actually as important as what is *not* said. You read it in 20 minutes, but you think about it for a lifetime.

Some important details were omitted in the film, whereas some of the additions are welcome improvements. All in all, I would say they break even.

[–] guy_in_west_houston 8 years ago

Cheever's story has both Ned and Lucinda at Westerhazy's pool. Ned doesn't just suddenly appear as in the movie. Having Lucinda there at the beginning is more effective in creating the horrifying time lapse of Ned's journey.