MovieChat Forums > Serial (1980) Discussion > anyone read the book?

anyone read the book?


...or, as has been noted, a serialized (hence the name?) newspaper piece? It's been a while (about 25 years), but as I recall, (SPOILER) the Harvey charactor in the book never rebels. He gives in and lives contentedly ever after. I think if being faithful to the novel was crucial, this movie would have been perfect for Robert Altman. Then, maybe he wouldn't have been wasting his time with "Health", which also targeted California sensibilities in the late 70's, but was more interested in perpetuating stupid stereotypes of the Eisenhower/Stevenson presidential contests.

Maybe it's just as well Altman didn't get his hands on this movie. It would have been a sharper satire, but not nearly as gut-butsing funny. This movie is like the perfect TV sitcom (that's not an insult)...it has the same punch-line cadense as a sitcom, but the lines are perfect and the delivery just as good. It makes you wonder why Martin Mull didn't become the Eliot Gould of his generation, or at least the George Seagal.

reply

Like with any film that was adapted from a book, if you are a fan of this film, you'll certainly like the book.

The book is a collection of 52 weekly, serialized newspaper articles by Cyra McFadden that ran over the course of a year, and thus, the book's title is "The Serial: A Year in the Life of Marin County." I too have thought about if somebody else had made the film, and I've wondered if they would stick to the "weekly serial" concept (which the film completely disregards; it's hard to tell how much time really passes).

Although both the book and film are satire, the book has a much different vibe...it's darker. It also does a much better job of illustrating 1970s narcissism, since much of the book is about what characters are thinking, even when they are speaking to each other!

The book also has a greater focus on the competition and struggle to keep climbing the social/class ladder--if even in the smallest increments--particularly through its constant references to consumption (in the film, the only brand names mentioned are "Volvo" and "Cuisinart," as where in the book, every piece of furniture, clothing, and even food items are identified by brand names, and there's always a conflict of whether or not any of it is still in style, at least in the microscopic view of these Marinites).

Still, as much as I adore the book, it can't capture the sights and sounds of Tony sitting in the unfinished hot tub with his Afro and overalls, saying--after having his joint refused--"That's cool, I respect your space." Hilarious.

reply

I read the book years ago and enjoyed it but loved the film much more; this is one of my favorite films and it's a real shame it's not on DVD - at least it was released on VHS.

As I recall - correct me if I remember incorrectly - the book didn't include the weekend motorcycle gang led by Christopher Lee's character - one of my favorite parts of the film.

reply

I've always thought that the movie at least was a comment on how the narcissism and hedonism of the 70's was driving the the country to conservatism

When you look at Harvey and Sam's characters, neither buy any of the craziness or the politics of those around them and show open contempt for it. My guess is if a sequel would have been made Harvey would have been a hardcore Reagan supporter.


Also I am not trying to start a political flame war here, I'm just tossing it out for discussion

reply

I still own the book, it's in a box somewhere. I haven't read it in ages, and I don't remember major differences such as Skull being in it or not. But I'm glad that I have it. I think the movie is better though, changes or not, because I can never quite imagine things as well as Martin Mull actually DOES them.

reply