As a big fan of the novel, I found this adpatation to be completely awful. Not having Lewis Benedikt in the film was a huge no-no. The whole premise of the story was ignored. Almost everything was changed or switched around. Seeing this was depressing. Given the right people, this could be made into a wonderful film or miniseries. The one good choice for this movie was having Astaire play Ricky.
shareIt really was a rotten adaptation--you just can't cram all the intricacies of Straub's book into a two-hour film. I keep hoping for a miniseries; I believe that format could work beautifully for "Ghost Story".
shareBooks and movies are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MEDIUMS. Was the book good? Yes, as far aa long, over-stuffed novels go. Was the movie good on it's own terms? Yes, it accomplished what it needed to, and just because the story was reconstructed for the film doesn't make it bad. Things have to be structured, mainly the narrative, the characters, (or number of characters), has to be evened out, and backstories are really only implied, especially with so much going on. Novels can go venture off into a hundred different directions, while movies have a certain blueprint they have to follow, whether you like it or not. So if you're going judge the film, don't judge it by the book it's based on if you can't be objective about it. Otherwise stick to books.
shareI beg your pardon, kendoll, but I'll judge the film any way I please. Let me tell you what was wrong with the film: it missed the point of the book entirely. While a lot of the book's content obviously had to be sacrificed, the thrust of Peter Straub's story should not have been an expendable element. Eva/Alma wasn't a ghost--she was an elemental spirit, and there's absolutely no reason that couldn't have been the case in the film. There are long stretches of silence in "Ghost Story" that could easily, and usefully, have been filled with dialogue that furthered the story--straight from Straub's text, if necessary, which is a practice that Lawrence Cohen observed at a number of other points in the film. A good indication that Cohen simply didn't know what he was doing--or didn't care--is the fact that lines from Straub's book were inserted at random, and inappropriately, in the script. Ricky Hawthorne (Fred Astaire) calls Don Wanderley (Craig Wasson) a "scamp", which is insufferably ridiculous since Don is anything but an "impish and playful young person". The line comes directly from Straub, but in the book Ricky is talking to an eighteen-year-old boy. This is just bad, lazy work on Cohen's part, and it's evident throughout the film. If we're going to throw out the criterion that a film be judged according to the book from which it's derived, then Cohen shouldn't have relied so heavily on dialogue straight from Straub's book while destroying its central concept.
As for judging the film on its own terms: it was a mediocre, pedestrian, utterly unfrightening spook story that could have been written by anyone. It was awkwardly paced. The ending made no sense. Gregory Bate reinterpreted--again, unnecessarily--as just some guy who pops up at odd moments to say nutty things isn't scary. (Incidentally, Vincent Canby and Gahan Wilson thought the film stank, too. They were right.)
The first rule of book to screen adaptations: SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY, SIMPLIFY
The more complicated it is, the longer the movie is. I have no problem with the movie because I consider it a completely seperate story from the book. It has great music, great atmosphere, and a creepy, less-is-more story. I'm not going to waste my time hating a movie like that because it's not the book.
I'm not telling you to dislike the film, or that you shouldn't have an opinion. There are films and music I enjoy that are flatout cheesy, but I recognize them as cheese rather than great--or even good--art. And let me point out (again) that my problem is not with a general simplification of the story when it's transferred from the printed page to celluloid, but with butchering the very foundation of the story. What if Tod Browning's "Dracula" had been about a guy who just went to parties being a bore and draining people's spiritual/emotional energy, instead of being about an undead creature who kills his victims by sucking their blood? Would it matter that Browning hadn't been faithful to the crux of Bram Stoker's book?
shareThe book is very good, but in terms of narrative, characters, and their development, there's just far too much going on. Had they stuck to the original characters of Eva/Alma specifically, it would've been all over place. Straub and Stephen King both tend to get overly graphic in their stories, which is fine for the page, but on screen, the film would've had no structure. And considering that it's called GHOST STORY, and most people don't know what the hell a skinwalker or shape-shifter are, the best way to approach Alma/Eva was to make her a ghost out for vengence. I disagree with you and don't believe the foundation of the story was butchered, because I find the film to be just as eerie, and ominous, and fascinating as the book, just in a different way. I don't believe they should've done it the way YOU wish they had, because then they wouldn't have made the film as mysterious and open-ended as they did...a film that I happen to love. And Roger Ebert agrees with me. Maybe one day they will make a 6 hour mini-series that's closer to the book -- the one you've been waiting for all your life, which I would enjoy being a fan of the book, characters, and original film, and hopefully it WON'T BE the bland, boring, pointless, lame, styleless disaster that was "The Shining" remake, considering that the 1980 version was a masterpiece, and Kubrick cut out everything that needed to be cut out.
And now I'm done with this pointless discussion.
"And now I'm done with this pointless discussion." How adult!
It isn't a question of whether you agree or disagree with me. It isn't my *opinion* that the foundation of the story was mangled--it's a demonstrable fact, and you just admitted it. Turning Eva/Alma into a ghost was not only a tired plot device, but it made the members of the Chowder Society extraordinarily unsympathetic--which, presumably, was not what the filmmakers were going for.
Obviously the change was a significant one, but I don't believe it made the characters unsympathetic. The young men had no idea what Eva really was. When they killed her and sunk her body in the lake, they did so believing that they had killed a human being. It's only dumb luck, if you could call it that, that they find out much later that she was evil and inhuman all along. In a way it lets them off of the hook when they find out, but the fact remains that they did not know it when they made the decision to bury her and keep silent. Morally, their decision was the same as in the film.
-There is no such word as "alot."
True, the men in the book believed they had killed a human being--but they discover that this wasn't the case, and the reader understands that the members of the Chowder Society had been manipulated all along. The revelation comes late in the book, but it's there, and it's an important one. The glaring distinction between the novel and the film is that, in the novel, Eva/Alma/Anna is the villain. In the film, Ricky and Sears and Ned and Dr. Jaffrey are the villains. This goes back to the filmmakers removing the "mainspring" (as Straub called it) from the book and substituting something else.
shareThat's only true to a certain extent, though. One can argue that Eva had deliberately taunted them until one of them lashed out, after which she pretended to be dead, but their decision to conceal the crime, believing they had killed a human being, was emtirely their own. She merely took advantage of it after the fact.
I'm perfectly aware that this film isn't all it could have been, even ignoring the novel, but it's the film that scared me the most as a kid, and thus I admit to being slightly obsessed with it for reasons entirely separate from issues of its quality.
-There is no such word as "alot."
"...but their decision to conceal the crime, believing they had killed a human being, was entirely their own."
That's right, yes--in the novel, the members of the Chowder Society are flawed heroes, unquestionably. But they're still the heroes. Eva intended harm from the beginning and would have inflicted it if she hadn't been the victim of a temporary glitch, and Straub emphasizes this. She was a fundamentally evil being. In the film she's just a young woman--not evil, not ill-intentioned--and the viewer sympathizes with her rather than with the rich, spoiled twerps responsible for her death! The same event occurs in both the book and the film, but it means something vastly different in each.
"...it's the film that scared me most as a kid, and thus I admit to being slightly obsessed with it for reasons entirely separate from issues of its quality."
Not only do I understand this, but I relate to it. There are quite a few flawed horror films for which I still have a soft spot because I originally saw them when I was a kid. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the whole genre is basically flawed. Anybody can make a horror film, but it's hard to make a good one.
Chiming in here, just because I read the book years ago, loved it - found it to be a thoughtful ghost story, with strong character development and a nice eerie atmosphere. I was looking forward to the movie, and saw it in the theatre when it was released. I was very disappointed, and not becuase it strayed from the book here or there or because it was simplified. I understand that is necessary when adapting a novel to screenplay. I was disappointed because the movie was not very good regardless of source material. I found it boring, stiff, and not atmospheric in the least.
Now it's been some time since I viewed the movie, so I may give it another shot,then again maybe not.
I just watched it for the first time since... since I originally saw it when it came out.
Back then, I was not entirely clear about some things... such as who/what the lunatic man and child were meant to be... why the kid could speak with Alma/Eva's voice. I also had the feeling, back then, that Alma was possessed by Eva... rather than actually being her.
The memorable thing about the movie are the performances of Krige and the elder members of the Chowder Club. Really, I think if it weren't for them this thing would have been largely ignored.
Obviously I haven't read the book... but from what I've read here I think the movie does a somewhat clunky job of changing the story and leaves a few gaping holes. The original story still lingers... and that makes it confusing.
For sure, one thing I sensed then and now is that Eva, in her original appearance, was not some innocent girl... there was definitely, in the movie, a sense of her being older, wiser, more dangerous than any of the foolish young men. Not a supernatural creature, but I wondered if she (in the book) might have been a witch, or somehow linked to the 'occult' organization the escaped lunatics were mentioned as having been involved with.
In a way, I think that is because Krige's portrayal of the character... and the script's depiction of her... are far to 'big' for the smaller story the filmmakers tried to get by with.
Yeah, but Straub got a hefty price for the rights to his slag pile. Another of the great unedited books. All of that started with King. Terrible writing got gobs of cash, but now, somehow, King's writing has gotten much better. Somebody learned a lesson.
Sacred cows make delicious hamburgers.
I guess I'm one of the few who saw the movie first...then read the book. The movie for me, was scary and hauntingly performed by the actors. Reading the book was a HUGE disappointment! Got bored with all the convoluted explanations, shape shifting, etc. Guarantee if the movie followed the book exactly, it might have been one of the greatest disaster of horror films of all time. It would have been 3 hours or longer and would eventually bore an audience to death! Very seldom does a true rendition of a book transcribes as well as one hopes involving the film medium.
shareThey were both worthless. "The Shining" the same way undercooked, overdone, bloated and boring.
The sense itself was I.
"Was the movie good on it's own terms? Yes, it accomplished what it needed to ..."
Mission accomplished! (never read the book either)
I understand books and movies arent the same, which is why they should of completely retitled this movie and called it something else lol...the book is absolutely amazing and subtely horrifying...this movie does a great disservice to the book...
shareThis is one of those movies that I really, really, really wanted to like, but it just falls so flat. It is a boring mess of a movie. It's terrible considering the cast that it has.
share