Words And Pictures - Which Do You Prefer? (The film of the book)

Name: karenuk

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	The film of the book
Date:	16/10/01 (168 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: see opinion

Disadvantages: see opinion

I love reading and I love watching films, but it’s not often I do both for the same piece of work. I will begin with a few brief examples of comparisons, then concentrate on a case study.

Thinking back, there have been a few times I have read a book, then watched the film or vice versa.

I studied Shakespeare’s Hamlet at A-level and went on a residential Hamlet weekend, which was excellent. Besides various academic exercises with the text, we also watched several (I think it was three) versions of the film, from the early black and white one to more recent. All were really impressive, but also quite different. It is interesting how the same piece of writing can be interpreted in such a variety of ways.

I know I loved both the book and the film of John Grisham’s The Pelican Brief. Although Grisham’s work is often legally based, I followed the book easily enough and found it exciting and intriguing. The film was just as good, with the expert visual effects just enhancing the drama.

Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice is one of my favourite books and yes, the TV adaptation was wonderful too – but it was given plenty of hours and a big budget to help it along.

Flowers In The Attic by Virginia Andrews is a very disturbing, but excellent book to read, the sort that has you on the edge of your seat and hurrying onto the next page. The film was good, but the book was better.

***********
Now onto my main focus of this opinion, comparing the book Inconceivable by Ben Elton with the film version, Maybe Baby (2000).

***********

After having read the book Inconceivable by Ben Elton, myself and my fiancé decided to rent the video of the film of the book (Still with me?), Maybe Baby. We had both enjoyed reading it and looked forward to seeing the movie version. Of course, with hindsight, we realised we should have seen the film before reading
the book – so a warning to anyone out there, get it round the right way!

The movie was made last year and stars Joely Richardson as Lucy with Hugh Laurie as her husband, Sam Bell. As in the book, the main focus of the story is about their infertility and the lengths they go to, in their quest for having a baby together.

Having read Ben Elton’s book and known it was partly autobiographical, I had read the novel with Ben Elton as Sam. However, it was easy enough to change my allegiances and accept Hugh Laurie, who was very convincing and endearing, as ever. He has a very expressive face and although in no way drop dead gorgeous, he is pleasing to watch, with a warmth about him that makes him extremely likeable.

Hugh Laurie also seems to have made that giant step to being accepted by American audiences, hence turning up as the token Brit in several big films – 101 Dalmatians and Stuart Little, for instance.

Joely Richardson is perfect as Lucy. I hadn’t visualised her as well in the book, so had few preconceptions about what she looked like. Joely was ideal - pretty and fresh-faced without the over the top beauty which often restricts an actress’ credibility.

The cast as a whole is very good, with the only let down being James Purefoy as Carl Phipps, the handsome actor who fancies Lucy. He was completely different to how I had imagined in the book and I don’t think his character came across as well on the screen as it did in the book.

But several of the cast are outstanding, especially amongst those with smaller roles. Deserving a special mention are two actors I had not seen before - Matthew MacFadyen who is spot-on as BBC bigwig, Nigel and Tom Hollander as eccentric Scottish director Ewan Proclaimer.

Excelling in small but memorable cameo appearances are Dawn French and Rowan Atkinson. Dawn plays a loud, brash Aussie nurse, who is more than happy to discuss sperm sa
mples, while Rowan steals the scenes he is in with his omnipresent sharp wit as Mr. James, the fertility specialist.

The story is a good one, an interesting topic and gives the actors plenty of scope to show a wide range of emotions – one minute you’ll be laughing, the next you’ll get a lump in your throat.

It is also the sort of film that will question your morals – What would you do if you were married, but approached by a hunky celeb who seemed to offer more than your boring spouse? Would you read your partner’s diary? Would you publicise your heartbreak and distress, if it could further your career?

So, as you can tell, the film has its good bits, but overall, I found it disappointing. The story was condensed so much that it seemed to whizz along far too fast, without pausing for breath. There were the inevitable omissions and complete changes in scenes – but these would only seem annoying for those that had read the book first.

There were also fewer laughs, with much of the dialogue from the book left out altogether and some of it not working so well on screen. The book is really a laugh-out-loud experience, whereas the movie produced fewer titters and guffaws all round.

It is a British film and a gentle romantic comedy, as are many of my favourite films – Notting Hill, Billy Elliott, The Full Monty – but somehow, it doesn’t seem to work as well, it falls short somehow, it turns up at the door but without the right package.

It’ll be interesting to see what people thought to it as a stand-alone film, not having read the book, maybe they enjoyed it more. I would certainly recommend it, it’s worth seeing, but is inferior to the novel.

***********

Of course, the problems we have in comparing the written word and the acted visual interpretation are plentiful. Our imagination is a unique and individual thing R
11; each reader of a book will have an idea of what each character looks like, how they speak, the way they move.

The team who produce the film version will have their own ideas. You might have cast Julia Roberts as the lead in a period drama, only to find that once again Helena Bonham-Carter is dragged into a corset for the cinema-going public. The reality of such decisions is influenced by a whole host of criteria – usually cost orientated.

Many of you will know I’m a big Dr. Who fan, but I’m sure we can all recall a shaky set or an unconvincing monster from the TV series. Well, let me tell you – the new BBC Novels of Dr. Who have an unlimited budget, featuring realistic other worlds, fantastical creatures and not a piece of cardboard in sight. Impressive, eh?

Sometimes it works, you enjoy the novel, you love the film – but often it doesn’t. If you plan to do both, I suggest watching the film first and enjoying it for what it is. If you then read the book, hopefully it will fill in any gaps and the characters will spring off the page, already painted for you.

Doing it the other way round is usually a bad idea. The film often seems a poor imitation of a wonderful book. Maybe Baby – as above – is a perfect example of this.

Summary: