Category Archives: Book vs Movie


I saw "Revolutionary Road" – movie version – tonight. Here's my take on book vs. movie.

RR First, I wonder if I was crippled by having JUST read the book. I felt as if I were watching a play, one whose script I knew by heart. This made the movie seem more like a performance than a believable world that pulled me in. The movie is pretty faithful to the book. There are some plot points in the book that don't make it into the movie, and a few details are changed in the movie. Some of these changes make sense - of course the book had to be streamlined to turn it into a two-hour movie. Some of the changes make less sense, but I don't want to get into them here for fear of spoiling the movie for those who haven't seen it.

Like the book, the movie is not uplifting. And like the book, some of the fights between April and Frank Wheeler are not convincing or well-explored. Why is she so angry at him at the end? Does she honestly believe that she doesn't love him? Have all of her prior kindnesses toward him been purely calculated to get her where she wants to go? The movie is even more spare than the book, and offers less explanation for why April is who she is.

I will say this for the movie – visually, I got a better sense of why April and Frank's world was so inflexible and suffocating than I did reading the novel. I know I wrote in my review that I didn't think Revolutionary Road the novel was necessarily successful as a statement about the 50s. The movie, however, changed my mind a bit. April's unhappiness – her restlessness – made a lot more sense after seeing the movie and understanding how she lived.

All in all, I didn't love either the movie or the book. But I definitely found reading the book to be more satisfying and ultimately more enjoyable than watching the movie. So… Advantage: Book.

Book vs. Movie: ATONEMENT

AtonementI saw "Atonement" tonight, which is the movie version of Ian McEwan’s wonderful book of the same name. I was kind of dreading seeing it, for two reasons: 1) it’s a sad story; and 2) I feared that the book couldn’t do the movie justice.

Well, the movie is as sad as the book, but the good news is that the movie is excellent and quite faithful to the book.  While a two hour movie could never adequately capture McEwan’s tremendous prose, nor his painstaking descriptions of wartime Britain, it makes a valiant effort to capture the various worlds that the book creates.  The movie of course hits on the book’s predominant themes of artistic license, the true meaning of atonement, and the definition of "truth," and, I predict, will be as memorable as the book was.

I won’t give away too much, for those who haven’t read the book and plan to see the movie. I will just say that Atonement fans shouldn’t be disappointed.

I’d love to hear from others who’ve read and seen Atonement – what do you think?

Book vs Movie: EVENING

MinotExciting news this summer: one of my all-time favorite books, Evening, is being released as a movie in late June.

Evening, by Susan Minot, is one woman’s look back on her life from her dwindling dying days. As Ann Lord passes in and out of consciousness, visitors and keepsakes trigger memories of different points in her life — and her various romances.  Sometimes her memories are clear; sometimes they rush back in fragments and blurs. It is a beautiful, sad novel, full of wistfulness and passion. I absolutely loved it.

The movie comes out on June 29 and stars Claire Danes, Meryl Streep, Toni Collette, Glenn Close, Natasha Richardson, and Vanesssa Redgrave.  I can’t wait to see it and will definitely report back after I do. I hope I am not disappointed.

Book vs Movie: THE NAMESAKE

NamesakeI saw “The Namesake” tonight, which is based on Jumpa Lahiri’s book The Namesake. Great book, very good movie.

For those of you who haven’t read it, it’s about an Indian couple who have an arranged marriage and move to the U.S., where they have two children and settle outside New York City.  Their children grow up torn between their parents’ traditional Indian lifestyles and their wholly American sensibilities. The book is a poignant story about the push and pull of generations, tradition, and the need to forge one’s own identity.

So which is better? The book, of course, has the benefit of detail and eloquence. The movie, however, is faithful to the book, retaining the most important plot points and some of the details that made the book so memorable. (Though as I sit here now, flipping through the book, I am discovering a lot of little insights and plot developments that the movie, by necessity, left out). So while the book is perhaps more nuanced and certainly fuller than the movie, the movie admirably captures the bittersweet themes of the book.  Given the challenges of cramming 291 pages into 117 minutes, the adapted screenplay did about as good a job as it could have. Advantage: Tie.

Even if you haven’t read the book, go see the movie. Definitely the best I have seen this year, with the possible exception of “The Queen.”

Anyone care to weigh in on the merits of Book vs. Movie, “Namesake” edition?


It’s one of my favorite times of year again – Oscar season – and I am in the throes of my annual push to see as many nominated movies and performances as I can before the awards are handed out. (If you don’t already know – Oscar Sunday is on February 25th).  I just saw two movies whose screenplays were adapted from books that I’ve read within the last few years: Notes on a Scandal, adapted from What Was She Thinking?, by Zoe Heller, and Little Children, adapted from the book of the same name by Tom Perrotta.  After the movies, I naturally I started reflecting on how faithfully the movies reflected the books, and which I liked better.

ScandalNotes on a Scandal is the story of Sheba, a teacher at a high school in London who has an affair with one of her students. Both the movie and the book are told through the perspective of an older, single, bitter teacher at the same school who befriends the pretty, 30-something Sheba and manipulates her into becoming her friend and confidante.  The older teacher is played masterfully by Judi Dench, and Sheba by Cate Blanchett, both of whom have been nominated for Oscars.  It’s a good movie – well-edited, suspenseful, and expertly written. There was nothing in the movie that was inconsistent with my memory of the book, and I felt that the adaptation worked hard to maintain the tone of an emotional thriller – like the book – as opposed to simply telling a salacious tale. I do think that if you’ve read the book beforehand, you’re at a bit of a disadvantage because you know in advance how much to trust the narrator and what her motives are, but that didn’t detract from my enjoyment of the movie.  Note: The adapted screenplay for Notes on a Scandal has been nominated for an Oscar. Advantage: Tie. Both are worth it.

Children_1 Little Children explores the unsatisfying lives of several suburban parents whose lives intersect one hot summer in a New Jersey (?) community.  Kate Winslet plays a young mother married to an older, emotionally remote husband with a daughter she views more as a burden than a joy.  She meets a stay-at home dad at the playground, flirts with him to annoy the catty moms she’s been hanging out with, and before long the two are having a full-fledged affair.  The movie’s about adults behaving badly and running from responsibility, while also touching on the mommy wars and the flawed utopia of the suburbs. I blogged many months ago about Tom Perrotta and his book Little Children, which is pretty closely followed by the screenplay.  There are a few plot elements that were changed from the book to the movie – notably, the ending – but for the most part, the screenplay adaptation is faithful. (This is not surprising, given that it was adapted by Perrotta himself). However, the book and movie are pretty different. While Perrotta’s subject in Little Children was serious, he gave it the lightly comic touch that characterize his other novels – wry and observant, but hardly tragic.  The movie, on the other hand, was almost like a fable – a tale of Everymen complete with a moral at the end.  It was much more heavyhanded than the novel – not surprising given the director (Todd Field, who also directed In the Bedroom – hardly a light story). Whatever humor could be found in the book – and there was a fair amount of it – was stripped away in the movie.  I also found the acting a bit stilted, and the movie was too long.  The book, on the other hand, was thoroughly enjoyable and a good read, even if you didn’t find any of the characters likable. Advantage: book.

Little Children has also been nominated for an Oscar for adapted screenplay, so this should be an interesting year for this category (one of my two favorites of the night, the other being original screenplay).  The other contenders are Borat, Children of Men, and The Departed. I haven’t started my official Oscar research this year, but I will predict that the award goes either to Borat or The Departed.

“Little Children” at Toronto Film Fest

Today, Entertainment Weekly‘s PopWatch blog offers this review of "Little Children," the movie based on Tom Perrotta’s book (and discussed by this blog here), which was recently screened at the Toronto Film Festival:

Little Children, Todd Field’s long awaited follow-up to In the Bedroom: The tale of parents growing increasingly more childlike the longer they hang around the kiddie pool, the movie guides us into very dark corners of the American suburban mythos (that schematic and well-trod Stepford nightmare-scape largely designed by phobic urbanites) and then guides us right back out again. It’s a tourist-package safari into the hungrier recesses of the human heart, and you’re back in time for dinner, easy-peasy. And a little facile-pacile too. But then, perhaps you’re the type who can accept Kate Winslet as “the ugly girl” in an adulterous love triangle. That’s tough to swallow, even if we’re talking about a knowingly skewed perspective filtered through Patrick Wilson’s incurably vapid “prom king,” a Mr. Mom with a gorgeous working wife (Jennifer Connelly, pictured) who casually emasculates him. Winslet, who’s supposed to be a mousy feminist fireplug-turned-housewife, is really ripe desire in the (amply displayed) flesh, and her voluptuous energy overwhelms the film. That’s not her fault: This film is dying to be overwhelmed by something, since it’s not quite sure what it’s saying. Sure is pretty though: The shots sway in a dreamy fever, Kubrick’s Lolita with a post-American Beauty coat of paint.