2015: Top Ten Films I Saw for the First Time

2015: Top Ten Films I Saw for the First Time

       After a years long absence, I have decided to come back to my "book to film" blog and start practicing my writing again. What better way to return than to post about the ten best films I saw this year that I had never seen before. This is meant to be the first in more regular posts, hopefully being a weekly update on the films I saw in each given week going forward indefinitely. So here you go, for the two, maybe three people that will probably read this.

10. Crumb

    Year: 1994

    Director: Terry Zwigoff

       With a depth and understanding that most documentaries can only dream of, Terry Zwigoff explores the life and mind of cartoonist Robert Crumb: a man with deeply haunted psychological depths. This portrait of an idiosyncratic artist whose work depicted the underbelly of American society with wit and truth. It is possibly one of the greatest documentaries, and certainly a very insightful and fascinating character study.
  

9. On the Waterfront

     Year: 1954
     Director: Elia Kazan

       And thus, acting was forever changed by Marlon Brando, as directed by Elia Kazan. This is a film remarkable for its impressive and revolutionary performance, but it should not be allowed to have that overshadow the rest of the film itself, which is also beautiful and a masterpiece in it’s own right. A rousing, sorrowful, and hopeful tale of union and doing the right thing, even in the face of great adversary.
  

8. Persona

      Year: 1966
       Director: Ingmar Bergman

       Acting is the art performance. An actress must take something from inside and project it into their mind and onto their body to convey and provoke certain emotions. That is also the job of the director, only instead of using their voice and body they use the camera. In Persona, both these tools are broken and reshaped into something cinema had not seen before. The result is a brilliant, haunting masterpiece.

   

7. Don't Look Now

      Year: 1973

       Director: Nicolas Roeg

   
       Love and death in Venice never was so dark and intriguing, albeit going off an honestly limited knowledge of that very specific topic. None the less Don’t Look Now is a masterclass in suspense and features some of the best editing ever to grace the screen, with great direction, score, and performances from Sutherland and Christie. One of the greatest horror films of all time. Deeply mysterious and deadly evocative
   

6. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives

     Year: 2010

      Director: Apichatpong Weerasethakul

      Boonmee is haunted by ghosts of former lives, as the film itself is haunted by the ghosts of Weerasethakul’s previous meditations on life and nature. It’s a beautiful, rich, dark, and magical experience, which is easily the directors best effort. Like the echoes of past lives it stays with you long after it’s over, residing in you like the spirits that watch over Uncle Boonmee in his final days in this world.

5. Picnic at Hanging Rock

       Year: 1975

       Director: Peter Weir

       Deep in the heart of hanging rock there are impenetrable mysteries; mysteries of unknown pleasures and dangers and understandings not yet discovered by the young women who get lost there. It’s a film of elusiveness and mysticism, with an always out of reach/out of sight truth just beyond the next corner and crag of the rock and of the movie. It’s beautiful and haunting and unknowable.

4. Raging Bull

      Year: 1980

      Director: Martin Scorsese

       In Rocky, you’re in the audience, cheering for the hero, believing in him. In Raging Bull, you’re in the ring, and you feel the hits, and each one hurts with searing pain. This film is an amazing achievement in direction, cinematography, acting, and it’s one of the most visceral, painful films I’ve seen. When Balboa wins, you feel release of emotion. When LaMotta wins, you feel relief from the pain.

3. The Big City

      Year: 1963

      Director: Satyajit Ray

       Going in, I didn’t expect how reverberating and powerful this film would be. In Ray’s gentle touch there is so much beauty and emotion that can be expressed, in ways that isn’t captured when the emotions are overblown and fake. Its also very brave and progressive in its depiction of a house wife leaving home and working to support her family in India. An amazing performance from Madhabi Mukherjee.

2. Nashville

      Year: 1975

      Director: Robert Altman

      I don’t even like country music, but something about this film, which is very much steeped in country and the surrounding culture, had me almost immediately and kept me transfixed and awe inspired right up until the final, beautiful, climactic performance. This is one of those movies you see where you don’t necessarily know why it had such a big impact on you, but you immediately recognize as a masterpiece.

1. Fanny and Alexander

      Year: 1982

      Director: Ingmar Bergman

       There are few films that attempt to bring such huge scope and depth to the screen, and fewer that pull it off as masterfully as this. It was originally intended to be Bergman’s final film, and if it ended up being so I can’t think of a better way to end a career. The film captures all of life, birth to death, and a possible afterlife. It knows how to see the world through the eyes of the very young and the very old.

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