Agreed, the movie is very different from the book. But you should check out what Neil had to say about it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/8376077/Neil-M cCormick-on-Killing-Bono.html
Film is a very different medium to the written word. Internal voices become dialogue, metaphor becomes action, and with each rewrite it became more detached from my life as I remembered it ...
We all fictionalise ourselves in the process of creating a story out of the raw materials of our life ... So, in a sense, I created a version of myself to suit my book, emphasising the comical tales of plucky failure ... Now, someone has created an alternative version, that threatens to become more widely accepted as the truth. Film embeds itself visually in your mind, taking on the quality of memory. To me, the film is a kind of riff on the themes of my book, my life in a parallel universe, where I still don’t get to be a rock star, but I do get the best lines.
I agree with Neil. A book like his could never make a straight translation to film, so I'm glad they didn't try (the director stresses that point). Like "Amadeus" which was very different from the original play, a film can still be respected by its own merits even if it does butcher the original source.
If you want to talk about a real butchering of a beautiful book, how about "Frankenstein". As a result of the 1931 movie, the creature is universally regarded as a murderously constipated nimwit who randomly kills anyone who crosses his path. But in the book, the creature was intelligent, well-spoken (yes, he talks!), philosophical, emotional and more human than any other character. Shame that the filmmakers threw away the whole point of the book.
reply
share