Book to Film: The Thirty-Nine Steps

Book to Film:

The Thirty-Nine Steps

         The Thirty-Nine steps is the slim 1915 novel by John Buchan about a man on the run for a crime he didn't commit, hiding from the law and a secret organization of spies. You can easily read that and mistake it for a summary of over half of Alfred Hitchcock's filmography. It's not hard to see the famed film maker being drawn to this. Its' basically a novel version of a Hitchcock movie before Hitchcock was making movies. His version isn't the only version though, and while there have been others, I will only be focusing on the aforementioned film and one other - the 1978 version directed by Don Sharp. It's a tale of exciting action and twists and turns, with charismatic characters and mysteries in need of unravelling, chiefly among them being: what are the thirty nine steps?

The Book

         In the book, the answer to the question is simply the number of steps outside the main headquarters of the organization that has been pursuing the main protagonist. That main protagonist is Richard Hannay, a man just returning home from a long stay in Africa, who is miraculously swept up into a big conspiracy. He is framed for the murder of man in his flat and has to go on the run across Scotland to escape the police chasing him, as well as a secret organization that the man in the flat told him about before he was assassinated. Its a very fun book, but that's about it. The character has interesting, episodic adventures before solving the final mystery in a sort of anti-climax. It's definitely worth reading, but it simply isn't on the level of other great books I've read this year, like To Kill a Mockingbird or All Quiet on the Western Front. It can't even be considered among books I didn't really enjoy, like Dracula or Wuthering Heights just because those did do more things and were at least sort of impressive.

The 1935 Film

         The 39 Steps in the Hitchcock film actually refers to the organization instead of some stairs outside a guy's house. This also isn't the only thing different from the book in the movie. The two share pretty much the basic summary and then the film wildly deviates from the original text. There is an added love interest and the ending is completely changed, along with mostly all of the story before it. It is though, better than the book, having essentially the same spirit, only adding gorgeous photography and a fun central performance from Robert Donat. There's also much more substance here overall and a much more interesting finale involving a man who can remember millions of facts (most of them useless) and simply can not help answering any question he is asked, especially ones that completely throw light on to the super secret organization he is trying to protect.

The 1978 Film

         The 39 Steps in this version are the ones that are inside of the giant clock tower Big Ben in London. This leads to probably the best finale of these three stories, involving Hannay hanging from the hands of the clock. Hannay in this version is played by Robert Powell, giving my favorite performance from the two movies. In this version there is also an added love interest and much of the plot is changed, but it bears possibly more resemblance to the book, but only slightly. It is again also very well shot, giving off a sort of Hammer feel at times, especially the scenes in London. It's not quite as good as the 1935 movie, but it's just as fun as that one.

Conclusion

          In the end, I think the Hitchcock film is the definitive Thirty-Nine Steps. All three are enjoyable, but this version has the best combination of story, visuals, and characters to make it the classic it is viewed as. The best Hannay is Powell, as well as the best climax being in that film, and the book was a fun and breezy read but the Hitchcock film is the best story.

The Book - 7/10

The 1935 Film - 9/10

The 1978 Film - 7.5/10

Book to Film: Dracula

Book to Film:

Dracula

       Dracula is one of the most well known and influential characters in all of literature. In fact, he is so well known he is probably the most recognizable literary ever, arguably more so than say Robin Hood, or Sherlock Holmes. He was the titular character of the original, and some say definitive vampire tale, and without him we wouldn't have any stories of blood sucking creatures of the night, from Buffy the Vampire Slayer to Twilight. He has appeared in hundreds of films, and has been used and interpreted to the point of parody. He has become so buried in countless adaptations and retellings that he has become somewhat a joke. Where the character has fallen the idea has prevailed: one of a ageless undying creature that feeds off the blood of the innocent in the night. 

       After reading Bram Stoker's Dracula, I watched six adaptations of adaptations of the story. They are F.W. Murnau's 1922 silent classic Nosferatu, the 1931 Dracula starring Bela Lugosi (with added score), Hammer Horrors 1958 Horror of Dracula, both 1979 versions, being a remake of the original Nosferatu directed by Werner Herzog and a new adaptation starring Frank Langela, and finally Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stokers Dracula from 1992. In this essay I will exam these versions of the story and find the best of different aspects of the book, as well as what each added to the Dracula mythology. 

   Faithfulness to the Book

         

       The version that most faithfully follows the book is probably the 1992 film Bram Stokers Dracula. Its the only version with pretty much every character intact, doing what they did in the novel. There are a few changes, like the entire opening explaining the vampires origins, and the relationship between Mina and Dracula is completely overblown. Overall though the plot is the most similar to the novel. After that the silent film, the Bella Lugosi version, and Herzog's are sort of accurate, changing mostly characters and endings, aside from the Nosferatu's which change location and add more plague. The Langela and Hammer versions change the book so much it seems like they heard the story second hand, decided to add, take away, and change whatever they wanted, and were given a list of character names that doesn't explain there relationships at all. 

   The Vampire

       There are six actors in these films that all managed to create their own unique takes on the character. Every version has its own thing about it that was either great or added to the characters identity as it went through its many film adaptations. Bela Lugosi's Dracula is probably the most popular. Its the performance that made the character famous outside of literature, but it seems a little stilted today (can't really blame Lugosi, English wasn't his first language). There is still much to admire about him though, he has great moments, like his "children of the night" line that would be used in all adaptations going forward, and he definitely looks the part. The later performance most reminiscent of Bela's is Frank Langela, playing a more sexed up and suckier Lugosi (no pun intended).

     The most like the Dracula in the book is probably Mac Schreck's Count Orlock. He earns this spot purely for being nothing but a monster, as he was in the book. If its not him it might be Christopher Lee's portrayal, as in that one, Dracula is seen to be a pure evil, not like the romantic figure he is often shown as. Another thing these two have in common is that they are probably the most frightening. Schreck just looks extremely creepy, being closest to what an actual vampire would look like, save maybe Klaus Kinski. Lee at first doesn't seem like he will be all that scary, he does have a presence and authority about him, but he is also calm and relaxed. Then there is a point where he loses it and his eyes go all blood shot, and you cant help but be slightly terrified. He's the one you least want to piss off. Where the others are scary (or not scary) in a slow, creeping way like a spider, Lee goes vicious like a wolf.

       Klaus Kinski is probably the most interesting take on the character. Instead of going the romantic suave route, or the completely evil monster, he plays this weird scary looking outcast, who seems to be genuinely looking for some sort of connection. The problem for him being instead of being a handsome brooding Langela, he's a bat-like, freakish Max Schreck. It's an interesting move, making him be out looking for love and also be the monster. At the sight of blood he acts like a drug addict who can't resist the temptation. He's like the Nosferatu in the silent film, only with slight shades of humanity underneath the pale, alien exterior. As for the actual performance, it usually works, but every now and again he comes off as sometimes hilariously whiney, like his swatting away of Renfield, or his rather pathetic reaction to Mina warding him off with a cross. Along with Schreck he's definitely the most vampire looking Dracula, and the most animal like.

       All of these are takes on a character that can be interpreted many different ways, but I feel every variation comes together to form what I imagine should be the definitive count: Gary Oldman in Bram Stokers Dracula. Now this isn't necessarily my favorite performance, or the best, but it is the one that brings all traits of everything that came before it into a single whole. He has the monster like look of Schreck matched with unwanted outcast of society Kinski brought in the scenes at the castle. He has the ferociousness of Lee in his battle scenes at the beginning, he has the suave nature of Lugosi, and the sexuality Langela brought to the roll. He also does bring his own brand of terror to his performance as in scenes where he becomes the Wolfman somehow, or when he's threatening Harker as an old man protecting family pride.

   Supporting Characters

       There are a few supporting characters of any real consequence: Dr. Van Helsing, Mina Murray, Jonathan Harker, John Seward, Lucy Westenra, and Renfield. In the book there are also the likes of Quincy Morris and Arthur Holmwood, but in most of the films they either don't even appear or are minor inconsequential elements of the story. Jonathan Harker is the first character we meet in the novel and most of the films. He is Mina's fiance and travels to castle Dracula to sell the count housing in London. There isn't necessarily a stand out Harker among the films (except for Dwight Frye who sort of plays him at the beginning, but he will be talked more of), but the best out of these rather unnoticeable performances is probably John Van Eyssen for being very just ok. Dr. Seward is usually a bit more interesting, but not all that much. The best of these is probably Richard E. Grant, playing bumbling, clumsy Richard E. Grant well.

       One of the most confusing parts of the movies are keeping Mina and Lucy straight. For some odd reason the writers love to switch there names around. Usually if this hasn't happened then there characters have been combined. The performances that stand out best among them is the two from Bram Stoker's Dracula. Both Winona Ryder and Sadie Frost carve out distinct characters and give reasonably memorable performances. Isabelle Adjani is also pretty good as Lucy (but really Mina) in the Nosferatu remake.

      The second most iconic character in the story after Dracula is his arch-nemesis of sorts, Dr. Abraham Van Helsing. There are many different takes on this character throughout the film, from the old and wise Anthony Hopkins in the Coppola film, to the old and senile Walter Ladengast in the Herzog film. Over all of these my favorite though is Peter Cushing in the hammer horror version. He has a presence and performance style thats captivating. There is also the nostalgic factor which might have somewhat played in. If there is a third iconic character it would probably be Renfield, played on different wavelengths of crazy in nearly all the films. The best of these, as mentioned before, is Dwight Frye in the 1931 movie. He is truly unsettling after he's been driven into madness and worship of count Dracula. He probably gives the best performance in that version.

   Mood and Imagery

       When it comes to mood and imagery, surprisingly, every one of the films has something unique to the table. Firstly, there is Nosferatu, deemed one of the silent eras masterpieces. The image of Max Schreck looking down into the hold of a ship sticks with you, as does all the creepy shadow play. It gives of more of a quiet dread, or it tries to, often not quite due to unintentional humor. Next is the Bela Lugosi version, which is probably the most surprising here. It hold a very atmospheric mood throughout the entire film, and has some very impressive imagery. The massive interiors of the castle and the high level of detail definitely make an impression. The Horror of Dracula also has a unique sort of visual style that can only truly be described as Hammer. The mood in the version isn't as strong or atmospheric, but there are plenty of moments to give little jolts of terror, most all of which delivered by Christopher Lee. Next is the Langela version which is a failure in my mind. It all feels very fake and overly theatrical, and none of it really worked for me. The Herzog film has the most interesting blend of feeling and images. From the scenes of Harker going up the mountain to the rat infested plague scenes there is an erie, otherworldly feeling to the film. A feeling of discovering something cold and evil in the unknown of distant mountains. The plague party scene in the courtyard of the town is a highlight. Finally there is the Coppola version, which is arguably the best when it comes down to these things. It has a very doom-ridden feeling, with impressive visuals, like the battle in the beginning, or the chase through the mountains.

   Verdict and Ranking

       There is no doubt that Dracula is a classic tale that created the vampire mythos, spawning all sorts of other narratives and ideas. When it comes down to the actual book I don't really think it should be given the classic status. Its legacy much outweighs the original novel, which is pretty much dull to be honest (although I'm sure it downright terrified the more innocent Victorian readers of the times). Its films are almost collectively better than the book, some of which are just nearly great.

The Book: 6/10

The Films:

- Bram Stokers Dracula: 8.5/10
- Nosferatu the Vampyre: 8/10
- Dracula (1931): 8/10
- The Horror of Dracula: 7/10
- Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror: 6/10
- Dracula (1979): 4/10

Book to Film: All Quiet on the Western Front

Book to Film:

All Quiet on the Western Front

All Quiet on the Western Front is the World War One novel by Erich Maria Remarque, as well as the best picture winner directed by Lewis Milestone. Both are considered masterpieces of their own mediums. One of them is. The other had potential, but simply fell flat because of one major problem - a problem that will be discussed in this essay, but will not be the focus, simply because the rest is too good to be ruined. The book is one of the best I’ve read all year, and while the film isn’t quite great, its understandable that it won the oscar back in 1930.

    The Book

In the book, young Paul Baumer enlists to fight for the German cause in the trenches of the first World War. Over the course of three years he learns about the horrors of war and the devastation of loss of everything from innocence to life. He makes friends and allies and learns about camaraderie as well, but in the end death is the overarching theme, as all of them in the end die.

The book version of All Quiet is better for a number of reasons, the main one being the writing style. Remarque is greatly descriptive, and easily creates a mood and tone for the story with doom-filled, dreary, and daring images. He is a poetic writer, making things lyrical and beautiful as well as dark and disturbing. It’s a heavily melancholy book that has much to say about war and the people that fight it. Its about young men fighting wars that they don't care about based on the hatred of older men, mostly leaders who have not and will not ever see a war on the frontlines, like this young generation will. Remarque himself fought in the war, and it shows in his knowledge and clear description of it. Reading the book you can tell it was written by a man who has been through hell, and came out with more than cuts and bruises.

    The Film

The film version is also very good in its way. It tells the same story, in a similar way, but it doesn’t come near reaching the heights of the book. There are many things to admire here. Most of the cast does a nice job, with Louis Wolheim as Kat being the best of them, and giving a pretty great performance. It’s shot brilliantly, and is probably the second best looking WWI film (beaten by Kubrick’s Paths of Glory). There are a few truly great scenes that transcend the film itself in quality, like the surprisingly visceral and shocking battle scene, and the powerfully quiet ending. In fact the film is mostly great scenes scattered throughout a pretty good movie containing a few bad scenes. There are the scenes that are handled very well, like Paul returning on leave and visiting his old school were more young men are being told to enlist, and there are the scenes handled not so well, like Paul at the bedside of his dying friend.

All in all there is only one true problem with this movie: Lew Ayer’s performance as Paul. Lew Ayer doesn’t actually give a bad performance in this film, he just gives an absolutely terrible one. He is so bad he almost single handedly keeps this film from being truly great. His delivery is awful, with most scenes he’s prominent in being either cringeworthy, or just funny, from time to time even hilarious. One scene where he is being brought back to his old bed after spending time in the death room (a room in the hospital next to the morgue where they send the soldiers that they are sure are going to die) yelling and shouting things along the lines of “I did it! I said I would be back!” while he is wheeled up to his friend who has literally just found out he only has one leg. He manages to ruin gut-punch scenes from the book by overacting and being ridiculous.

   The Verdict

The film is good, being brought up by great scenes and brought down by an abysmal performance. The book is great, period. It’s haunting and mesmerizing and lasts in your mind a while after finishing. It is called the best war book ever written and believably so.

• The Book: 10/10
• The Film: 8/10

Book to Film: Wuthering Heights

Book to Film:

Wuthering Heights

        Wuthering Heights is the 1847 romantic novel by Emily Bronte, as well as the title of the 1939 film directed by William Wyler and the 1992 film directed by Peter Kosminsky. The book is considered a literary masterpiece and the original film was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture. Is it worthy of this high praise? Does it deserve to be remembered and revered down throughout the years? No, not really. In fact I have to admit I don't know why this book is so loved by so many. Its overly dramatic, implausible, misguided, and almost every character is either heartless, childish, annoying, nearly unintelligible (actually difficult to read some of the servants' dialogue), or flat out stupid. We have a bunch of these characters thrust on to us and care about what happens to them despite most of them being terrible people who manipulate and lie to get what they want, and more often then not, what they don't really want to make everything more dramatic.

        This is not to say these are boring or uninteresting characters. I wont even say all of them are entirely unlikeable. Characters like Nelly and Lockwood are generally decent people, but no one escapes without flaws. These are well written characters though, even if they mostly end up being ones I couldn't like. This is how I am going to structure my essay. Going through each major character in the book and looking at how they are portrayed on screen in both film adaptations.

   Heathcliff

        Heathcliff is an orphan who was found on the streets of Liverpool and brought to Wuthering Heights by kindly old man Earnshaw. Heathcliff grows up with Hindley and Catherine and grows to love the girl. He later buys Wuthering Heights for himself. Cathy later marries Edgar Linton even though she still loves Heathcliff, and then soon after has a kid and dies, sparking Heathcliff's lifelong revenge plot on everyone involved. He marries Edgar's sister Isabella to get back at Cathy (marrying people is how you bestowed vengeance back then) and has a child with her. Later he forces his son Linton and Catherine and Edgar's daughter Cathy Jr. to marry so he can eventually become in possession of Wuthering Heights. Throughout the story he is a wild, ruthless man who abuses the people around him, hating everyone but his dead love Catehrine, who he is separated from until his own death. 

    In the original film, Heathcliff, played by Laurence Olivier, is portrayed as a much more sympathetic character than he is in the novel. He is more man than monster, where in the book he is definitely a despicable human being. Although it is hard to tell how his character fully develops, as the film cuts off at the halfway point (a decision that angers me). If it were to show his later deception he would not have got off as well as he does. In the 1992 film the portrayal is much closer to the character in the book. Heathcliff, played by Ralph Fiennes, is shown to be the evil, conniving brute from the book. A good scene to contrast the two is one featuring him and Isabella after they have married. In the original film Isabella seems to be neglected, in the other film she has a cut lip and is frequently being manhandled by Fiennes.

   Catherine Sr.

        Catherine the first was by far the most insufferable character in the book. She is whiny and cruel and makes every choice on impulse, resulting in her destroying her own life and ruining her true love. In a lot of ways she really is Heathcliff's soul mate, she's just not as good at the plotting. Despite her love for Heathcliff she decided to marry Edgar for the money and security, having no foresight into how this would make Heathcliff feel or her feel in the long run. She dies in childbirth with her only daughter Catherine Jr. 

        Cathy is also spared the most in the transition from screen to film. Her wildness and whininess is greatly toned down for the movie adaptations. The performance closer to the book is from Merle Oberman. She portrays her as pretty crazy, but still not reaching the excruciating heights of the character in the book. Juliette Binoches performance is considerably quieter compared to the other and the person in the book. In fact, out of the two , it is probably the better performance, just not as faithful.

   Edgar

        Edgar is one of the more likable characters in the book. He marries Catherine, and is therefore forever hated by Heathcliff. He was shown to be a good father, husband, and overall man in context of the times. After what happened happened between the Lintons and Heathcliff, he just stayed away from the situation instead of antagonizing Heathcliff further, winning him bonus points. Both performances from David Niven and Simon Shepherd are good but not particularly notable. The former is a more interesting performance, but both work for their respective stories.

   Isabella

        Isabella is basically the stereotypical 19th century waif-like, fawning female character. She is Edgar's sister, who marries Heathcliff, has Linton Earnshaw, then goes off somewhere to die. This is the continuing trend of the story: once a character can no longer serve the plot they go off somewhere, contract a fatal disease, and die. Isabella is played by Geraldine Fitzgerald in the 1939 film, and by Sophie Ward in the 1992 version. There were good performances in both, but better in the latter, with the actress being given more to do with her relationship with Heathcliff.

   Hindley

        Hindley is Catherine's brother and the father of Hareton. From a young age he bullied Heathcliff, and continued to do so after his father died and he became the master of the house, his rival still just a servant. Later after Hareton is born he becomes a drunk and eventually has to sell his property to Heathcliff because of financial debt. He dies later from chronic lack of necessity to the story. Both portrayals of Hindley serve the story well, and both are equally pretty forgettable from Hugh Williams and Jeremy Northam. 

   Catherine Jr.

        Cathy is much like her mother in character, just slightly more tolerable. She is the daughter of Cathy and Edgar Linton. She later falls in love with Linton Heathcliff (more sort of likes in the movie) and is then forced to marry him by Heathcliff. After Linton and Heathcliff die she begins a relationship with Hareton, Heathcliff's other son who can't manage to read his own name. For some reason she keeps falling in love with her cousins. She is one of few characters to survive to the end of the book. Cathy is portrayed by Juliette Binoche (also playing her mother in the same 1992 film) but does not appear in the 1932 film because of the entire half of the book being cut out of that version. Binoche does a good job of playing a similar character but keeping her different enough to be able to stand on her own. She is also played more truthfully to the original character in the book, finding a better balance than the actress did with Catherine Sr.

   Hareton

        Hareton is Heathcliffs illiterate adopted son of Hindley and his wife. He is treated like a servant just as Heathcliff was, fulfilling part of his crazy revenge thing he needs to happen. He was never taught to read or write but begins trying to develop those skills after he begins his relationship with Cathy. Hareton is played by Jason Riddington who isn't given much aside from a few scenes with Catherine. He's is a much easier character to watch and hear as opposed to read convoluted dialects.

   Linton

        Linton, coming in closely behind Catherine Sr., is the second most annoying, infuriating character in Wuthering Heights. He is a feeble little brat who sometimes literally cries to get his way. He is the son of Isabella and Heathcliff, is used by his father to obtain Thrushcross Grange (home of the Lintons), and afterwards dies. His fathers response to this can be essentially summed up with "meh." He is portrayed by Jonathan Firth in the film and manages to salvage some scraps of dignity from the character, which the character itself truly does not deserve.

   Lockwood

        Lockwood is the weary traveler who takes refuge at Wuthering Heights and ends up becoming fascinated by the tale, which is pretty much entirely told in flashback. He is essentially us in the story. He isn't a character of much consequence, but still a good way to start and end the story. In the 1939 film he is portrayed by Miles Mander as a bumbling, but likable, old man. In the 1992 version he is played as a less bumbling, less old, but more likable guy by Paul Geoffrey. 

   Ellen

        Ellen is my favorite character from Wuthering Heights simply because she's the one who seems to have everyone's best interest at heart and is trying to do the right thing. She is the maid/nanny for Catherines one and two. She was their surrogate mother and always advised them to do the right thing, which they rarely did. She never worked for personal motives, only ever trying to keep everyone happy. She was the through line over the course of the whole book. She also liked to gossip, as she proved by telling everyone's life stories to Lockwood over the course of 200 some pages, never leaving out a single detail, exactly how it happened. What patience Lockwood must have had.

        Ellen is given a more significant role in the first film. In that version she narrates the story as she did in the book, as opposed to it being mostly told in purely flashback or someone dressed up as Emily Bronte for the second film. The performance by Flora Robson in the first film is also better than Janet McTeers in the latter. Flora got the character more and was able to do more with it. Janet was good too, just not as much material given and not as good an understanding of the character.

   The Moors

        The Moors are possibly the most distinctive character in the book. If there is one thing the book does not fail at it's tone and atmosphere. The entire story has a Gothic despair about it that makes the book bearable enough to get through. You seem to always feel the presence of the wide open fields, and its easy to see Wuthering Heights atop a hill on a rainy or snowy day. The 1939 film does alright, but where the 1992 version really excels is in its imagery of the Moors. Its a very well shot film, at least when its outside looking at a tree on a rocky vista or the beautiful old castle-like building used for Wuthering Heights.

   Conclusion

        In the end, I did not enjoy Wuthering Heights. As for all its well written imagery and admittedly well written characters, those characters still were hard to bear for most of the book. I'm not sure which version to say was the best because they all had their problems. I think I would have to say the first film in the end, despite the lack of second half of the story. Something about the performances brought it together better than the other film, and maybe shortening it did help the story in the end.

- The Novel: 4.5/10

- The 1939 Film: 7/10

- The 1992 Film: 4/10

Book to Film: Life Itself

Book to Film

Life Itself

          Roger Ebert was the most renowned and famous movie critic to live. He was a man who loved the movies, so it's only natural that he would have a movie made about him - more specifically a movie adapted from a memoir he wrote, Life Itself. The odd thing is it's not a book, or a film about the movies. It's a film and a book about life itself, as the title explains. The original memoir by Ebert is a book about experiences, feelings, and a life lived fully. It doesn't really go into too much detail about movies themselves, and when it does it's not very long portions of the book. Ebert is much more interested in talking about who he is and who he's met and all the things he's done, hasn't done, will never do, and will always do. It explores all aspects of his life, good, bad, or ugly. Its a very honest book, which is a much more rewarding read than one that catalogs favorite movies and things of that sort. 

     Adapting a memoir into a documentary is, as far as I know, a pretty original idea. The film is directed by Steve James. The film was shot during the last months of Ebert's life, coincidentally finishing with his death. The film isn't as much an adaptation of a memoir as it is a look into someone else's life - basically a documentary. If it had actors and a script it could be adaptation, but its not, so it can't truly be called that. This is actually what makes this sort of a fascinating thing to look at. It's looking at he same source from an outside perspective. It's the difference between someone telling you what it was like watching a film and what it was like acting in it. This isn't the kind of book that can get lost in translation because it's not being translated. Your looking at the same thing, once from view of the man in question, the other from those who knew and loved him. 

     In the book Roger talks a lot about different people in his life, from his family, to his work colleagues, to famous directors who made impressions on him. Its describes them through conversations  he's had or experiences. It's nice to see some of those people talk about him in the movie. One thing that doesn't come across as well is more of Roger's life experiences. The movie may say that Ebert liked to take long walks in London, but Roger describes every step of it. He can remember his life with such clarity and it's always fascinating. Other people remembering his life can't quite compare.

      The big difference between the two is the overall theme. The book is about celebrating life, while the movie is about remembering a man's life. The former is more relatable and connects to all of us, while the second is about recognizing greatness and appreciating a great man. The book is also a little clearer, while the documentary is occasionally muddled, yet always heartfelt. In the end it's inevitable that the book is better than the movie. The book is just much more personal. Not that the movie isn't, its just impossible to get the same insight. The detail is not on he same level, and as I said before the difference in perspective is a major factor. It's good to hear everything everyone had to say about Roger, but it's better hearing what he had to say about life. 

      Ebert was an honest man when it came to life. He always said what he really felt about something and that legacy has carried on past his death. If you go on his website you will see that the review for Life Itself is given three and a half stars. Its not a perfect film, and it was given the right scoring. Another website would have given the movie about the creator of the website a four star review. Instead its given the review it should have, the honest one. It's what Ebert would have done. 

The Book: 10/10

The Film: 8/10

Book to Film: Slaughterhouse-Five

Book to Film
Slaughterhouse-Five

Slaughterhouse-Five, written by Kurt Vonnegut, directed by George Roy Hill, is a very unusual kind of story. It is simultaneously science fiction and an autobiography. It is about mass slaughter and warfare and it is sometimes hilarious. It’s as funny as it is startling. It’s as true as it is insane. It’s the kind of book that leaves images that are hard to get out of your head, not half of them pleasant. It’s the kind of movie that is from a book that’s so nonlinear and erratic that it can’t possibly be made into a cohesive and understandable film, but still manages to come across clear on screen. It’s the story of how Billy Pilgrim became unstuck in time.

To be more clear on that, its the story of the life of Billy Pilgrim, a World War II vet and involuntary time traveller. It’s about his experiences from birth to death, ranging from his time in Dresden, a doomed German city, to his trip to alien world Tralfamadore, home of the Tralfamadorians, and all of it out of order. Billy goes through his entire life from place to place and time to time without any control. One minute he’s in a mental hospital recovering from traumas the next he's experiencing these traumas over again in the war. It looks at Billy’s life and life in general as less of a whole with meaning and purpose and more as a series of moments strung together, some happy, some sad. The Tralfamadorians tell us that this is the best way to look at life, as just things that happened, are happening, and will inevitably happen. The idea is that nothing really matters. For example, it says that the aliens know exactly how the universe will end, but do nothing to stop it, and don’t really seem to care much. Billy’s life is just things that happened, and this book and this film are about those things.

When I said that this was autobiographical, I meant it is somewhat autobiographical. The first chapter is entirely autobiographical, taking place from the authors point of view and telling us what about Billy’s story was borrowed from his own experiences. Obviously all the time travelling stuff is fiction, or at least I hope so. When I said this was a funny kind of story, I meant in a twisted kind of way. It is clear that the humor in the story translates more fully on screen than it does on page, or on audio as I experienced it. Listening to it on audio I realize may have affected my perception of the book, as it is being read in another person’s voice, not my own in my head. That being said, Ethan Hawke’s reading of the book was a memorable one. I can’t type Billy Pilgrim without hearing that voice in the back of my head. Some aspects of the humour in the book were emphasized by his reading, like his matter of fact way of explaining how aliens abducted Billy and took him to their home planet. Other scenes that were funny in the movie came out as more demented in the book, like a scene where Billy’s father throws him in at the deep end.

In regard to how faithful the adaptation was, I will say that it follows the story, but not word for word, as is mostly expected. It’s about as faithful as it is required to be. Not much was left out and what was was either too graphic or simply unnecessary, due mostly to time constraints. The one thing from the movie that I really missed was the character of Kilgore Trout, a science fiction writer. Although, it is still only a minor part in the grand scheme of things.

What’s important is that the essence of what made the book the book transferred well into the movie. It’s full of arresting imagery, black humor, and chaos. I think that’s what Slaughterhouse-Five is ultimately about - the chaos of life, and the random events and coincidences and ironies of it. There is no larger meaning or truth in the world of Billy Pilgrim and the Tralfamadorians. The way the universe ends according to the aliens, is that a Tralfamadorian accidentally hits the wrong button while testing out a new rocket of some sort, or maybe it was a new kind of device, it doesn't really matter which. The entire universe just blinks out of existence. There was no great battle or war. Just a simple mistake, so it goes.

Slaughterhouse-Five is like nothing I’ve ever read before. It was also a very good book, and a very good film. It is not something I can recommend to everyone, but I can say that it is great. When it comes down to it I would choose the book over the film, just because it is more full, although they are both impressive pieces of work.

- The Book: 10/10

- The Film: 9/10

Book To Film: Being There

Book To Film

Being There

Being There is both a fascinating book and a fascinating film in sometimes completely different ways, which is not an easy thing to accomplish. It manages to tell the same story but get across two different messages at the same time. This is especially impressive considering that the book and the screenplay are both written by the same person, Jerzy Kosinski. The film centers around Chance (very blatant symbolism here). He is a man whose entire life consists of watching television and tending to his garden. He lives in a house with a wealthy, dying old man and a maid. When the old man dies he is forced to move out and experience the world on his own. This doesn't last too long as he is soon injured and taken in by another wealthy, dying old man and his wife. Through a series of incredible misunderstandings he is soon on the path to presidency. In this essay I will be comparing and contrasting both novel and film versions of Kosinski's story.

  The Book

This is the easiest novel I’ve read for this series so far. I was actually somewhat amazed by how much I could read of it in short periods of time. It’s a very short and humorous book, but also one that is able to pack a lot of meaning in its limited length. It’s also a very remarkable book in its characterization of Chance, or the lack therefore of. Chance doesn't seem much of a character himself because that’s not his purpose. He is a “blank page” as the book says. The other characters see him and listen to him talk about his garden and project their own meanings and desires onto him. EE, the dying old mans wife, needs someone to fulfill her romantic needs and makes a lover of sorts out of him. The dying old man himself listens to Chance talk about his garden and assumes he’s metaphorically talking about business. The book says a lot about how people will make up their own reasoning out of nothing to make themselves feel more comfortable. Almost every character in the book gets some kind of meaning out of Chance’s behavior and words, despite them really meaning nothing more than a description of a garden.

The book is also about the dangers of television. Chance in the book isn’t a person. He has grown up with nothing to do but watch television and as a result he has no personality whatsoever. He doesn't have any recognizable human emotions, not even curiosity about anything. He hasn’t even been to certain parts of his own home just because he has the TV and the garden to occupy him. This is a metaphor for the state America is in. We are too engrossed in our electronics and TVs to care about much else, or at least it’s saying this is where we will end up if we arent careful, just like Chance. In fact, this entire book is like a metaphor in and of itself. It has a lot of themes functioning and many different levels. There’s the opinion that this is about where we can end up if we aren’t careful with things like television, and also the opinion that it’s about how people try and drag meaning out of things to satisfy themselves. It’s also about how we put people in power who have no idea what they are doing, and about how all something has to do is sound nice for people to latch on to it, much like the way politics work in the U.S.A among other places. There are still even more things you can take out of this book, almost like people take whatever meaning they want out of Chance. Who knows, maybe the book is really only about a guy working in a garden and watching TV.

  The Film

The film directed by Hal Ashby is a pretty faithful adaptation in the sense of what actually happens. There are a few minor changes in scenes and characters, but there’s also one pretty major one. Chance is depicted with a lot more character than he is in the book. There are scenes where he cries over the old man's death (the second one) and states that he actually loves EE. This completely contrasts with the emotionless characterless Chance from the book. The is especially odd considering that the writer of the book is also the writer of the screenplay for the film. This decision didn't sit with me well up until the very end, which will be discussed in the next paragraph.

The film seems to follow a lot of the same themes from the book, that is until the end (spoiler alert). Chance is Jesus. That may seem pretty insane and far too big a jump, but it’s done in the film in such a way that it works. In the last shot, Chance walks out onto the water like Christ himself to examine a fallen branch. This completely changes the meaning of the entire story. What does this mean for the country if Chance is elected president? Will he save America? Will he be crucified in a manner of speaking? These are all questions I was left with after the film, and ones we must come up with our own answers to.

  The Verdict

Being There is a book and a film that can be endlessly dissected and discussed. Its hard to choose which I like better because they are both so great and both so different. On sheer entertainment value I think I would go for the film version, but the book version is by no means to be missed.

- The Book: 10/10

- The Film: 10/10

Book to Film: Persepolis

Book to Film:

Persepolis

     Before I begin my analysis of the book and film adaptation of Marjane Satrapis graphic novel Persepolis, let it be known that going into the film, I did not realize that it covered both the original book and its sequel. This means that I can really only analyze the first part of the movie because I have not read the book that is attached to the second half. Having known this before starting the movie I would have done things differently, alas it is too late to go back.

            Persepolis is a French film based on an autobiographical graphic novel written by an Iranian woman named Marjane Satrapi. Persepolis (book one) tells the story of Marjane’s childhood during the Islamic revolution and what it’s like to be a child growing up in a place where your life is in almost constant peril. The movie tells the same story, only it also takes from the second book about her young adulthood in Europe and her return to Iran. Of course, I will only be talking about the first part of the movie, as I have not read the second book, as it says above.

    The Book

            Persepolis is a rare kind of book. It is both a comic and an autobiography. It uses images to tell its story but it also has a lot of very political dialogue. It is not something you see everyday. It’s an interesting concept and it just about works in its context. That being said the most interesting thing about Persepolis is its perspective. Instead of getting your usual American point of view on Iranian culture you see the story through the eyes of a woman who has lived it, and therefore it is more real and true. It is also a coming of age tale. It’s all about Marjane finding out who she is in a world of black and white ideals and conflicting views. The book is a great many things, but above all it is a great read.

   The Film

            The film version of Persepolis is a fairly accurate adaptation of the original text. This is not surprising as the author of the book directs the film, along with another person named Vincent Paronnaud. It only leaves out a few minor details, characters, and events that are unimportant in the scheme of things. The story, spirit, and art of the film translate very well onto the big screen, or at least the part I read. As far as animation goes this is top quality. This can also be applied to foreign film as well.

   The Verdict

            Persepolis the book and Persepolis the film are both very well done and very important. It’s hard to say which is better in this instance because of the similarity between the two. Although, if I had to choose one, I would go with the film version.

-       The Book: 8/10

-       The Film: 9/10

Book to Film: To Kill a Mockingbird

Book to Film

To Kill a Mockingbird

            To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is one of the most renowned and critically acclaimed American books ever written. Robert Mulligan’s To Kill a Mockingbird is another critically acclaimed, Academy Award winning film. They are both great examples of American-made art and deserving of these high honors. They are about innocence, childhood, bias, and what is right and what is wrong. In this essay, as always, I will be analyzing the book and film, finding comparisons and contrasts between the two, and giving my opinion on both the literary and cinematic versions of the story.

   THE BOOK

            To Kill a Mockingbird is without a doubt one of the best books I’ve ever read. It is one of those that is hard to put down when you’ve started and you almost miss once you’ve finished. The story is about a young girl named Scout growing up in a small southern town and the challenges she faces in her world. It is also about her father’s own struggles with his adult world. The story is from Scouts perspective, but is able to give multiple points of view on topics, and we the readers learn about southern life in the 30s just as she learns. Over a few years we see Scout grow and learn more about the real world as opposed to her childhood one of innocence. As she begins to gain a conscience and understanding of things we begin to learn the same things from her. It’s a book with a lot to say and many messages to share.

            Like I said, while it does take Scouts perspective throughout the book it is also just as much about her father Atticus. Atticus is a lawyer defending a black man called Tom Robinson against charges of raping a white woman. This is the south in the 1930s. It is a case he knows he cannot win, but he still tries. Atticus has a lot of pressure put on him because of the severity of the case, and is threatened, spit on, and called fowl names. It becomes clear that Tom did not rape the woman, but he is still convicted because of the town’s racial bias against black people. Despite what the norm is at the time, Atticus stands up for his personal views of right and wrong. This rubs off on Scout and helps influence her own sense of morality.

   THE MOVIE

            The film adaptation is also incredibly strong and powerful. One thing it faults itself on is literal adaptation. The book covers so much and takes so much time that it is impossible to show all of it on screen. It is able to hit on everything that is necessary for the story to make sense, but leaves out a lot of important moments, so many in fact that it was a little shocking. Even entire characters like Aunt Alexandra are completely done away with. It is an extremely abridged version of Harper Lees original novel. One thing it does manage to do is capture the feel of the book. The scenes that aren’t excluded look and feel almost exactly how I imagined them in the book. It has the spirit and nostalgia of childhood. In soul it is probably the best adaptation so far. In a literal sense it is probably the worst.

            The thing that makes this a great film, direction, score, and cinematography aside, is easily the performances. Every single performance is believable, and some of them are actually astounding. I don’t think I’ve seen a group of more believable child actors in my life. They all play their parts perfectly and are identical to the characters in the book. That being said, Gregory Peck is easily the best thing about the movie. His performance as Atticus Finch won him best actor at the Oscars, beating out the likes of Peter O’Toole in the equally amazing Lawrence of Arabia (best picture winner that year). He plays Atticus exactly how he is in the novel, a man trying to do the right thing against all odds. What makes the book so great is also found in the film, even if it is missing a lot of plot.

   THE VERDICT

            These are both great forms of a great story, but it is still easy to decide which is better overall. The film is great but the book is simply a masterpiece. It is perfect in almost every way. From character to story to setting to style it is an unparalleled work of fiction that is at the very least matched to the best books I’ve read, possibly even claiming the top spot. The film is just ever so slightly flawed, but it is still a worthy adaptation of the novel. It is just incapable of reaching the novels heights. It comes as close as it can though.

   CONCLUSION

            Both are fantastic works of art. The book is still slightly better than the film, just because the book is a more in depth and frankly perfect version of a great tale.

- The Book: 10/10

- The Movie: 9.75/10

Book to Film: 12 Years a Slave

Book To Film:
12 Years a Slave

             

             The book and film adaptation of 12 Years a Slave contrast largely from time to time, but they are able to hold the same spirit in both forms. Both are impressive and immersive pieces of art, and both are pretty outstanding. In this essay, in a continuing series from last month, I will be examining both the original book written by Solomon Northup and the movie adaptation directed by Steve McQueen. In doing so I will give my opinion on both and talk about the differences between the two.

   The Book

            As far as autobiographies from the 1800s go (or at least those that I’ve actually read) this is a pretty great one. It’s a tragic book, and it’s often hard to read about Solomon’s harrowing experiences with slavery and at the same time is oddly compelling and fascinating to read. It is also a very important book because it depicts slavery first hand. The most surprising thing about Solomon’s writing is how he describes the lighter side of slavery as well as the dark. He talks about his first master William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch in the film) and Samuel Bass, the man who helped him regain his freedom (Brad Pitt in the film) with great respect and admiration. That being said, the prominent dark side of slavery is very vivid and brutal. This is personified by the likes of Theophilus Freeman (Paul Giamatti), John Tibeats (Paul Dano) and most notably Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) as a brutal slave master. It is shocking that people this uncaring and violent ever existed, and I suppose still exist today. Not many books I’ve are as heartbreaking and true as this one. It is without a doubt an important book, and even more so a great one.

   The Film

            If the book is the definitive written work on slavery, then the adaptation is the definitive film about slavery. It may not be as fun as Tarantino’s Django Unchained, but is a more serious, more important, and an all around better movie, which is a major feet when comparing something to Tarantino. The book can be hard to read at times, but the film is a much harder thing to watch. The violence in the film is visceral and graphic, and definitely not for the week of heart or stomach. Going into the movie having read the book, I knew about the violence that was going to be shown. Even then it takes you by surprise. Amazingly it also manages to be a beautiful movie. It makes an interesting and effective contrast. The film is led by Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon, and he really is the backbone of the movie. He should probably win best actor at the Oscars this year. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this totally sweeps the awards ceremony. It is a pretty fantastic film

   The Transition

            The film is as good an adaptation as your ever going to get, but it’s not always the most faithful one. While the movie definitely captures the soul of the book, it sometimes jumbles its facts. There are more than a few minor changes, like lines of dialogue given to different characters, but there are also a few major changes. For example, there is a whole section where there is a second encounter with Tibeats after he nearly hangs him. In this scene Solomon and Tibeats fight again, with Tibeats nearly killing him with an axe. Solomon ends up running away through the swamps until he reaches William Fords plantation again for refuge. This is entirely absent from the movie. The characterization of Edwin Epps also contrasted with what I pictured in the book. This is by no means a complaint though as I thought Fassbender played his part to perfection, just not what I had imagined. In the end, when it comes down to the spirit of the book the film matches it perfectly.

   Conclusion

            For me, this is one of those times that the film exceeds the book. They were both great, but the film just reached levels that the book couldn’t in the end.

-       The Novel: 10/10 – Compellingly written and timelessly potent.

-       The Film: 10/10 – Beautiful and brutal with a great ensemble and perfect filmmaking.