Close to the book?....

[AE35Unit]

Originally Posted by Overread

I just remembered one of my all time favourite cartoon filmes - and its very faithful to the book (as I found out much later) The picwick (SP?) cartoon version of Treasure Island. Old animation (colour) and dated but faithful and well made

I've read that one but not seen the cartoon version. Ever read his Kidnapped OR?

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

I think there will always be remakes of successful adaptations of high profile classics.

Good point. I hadn't considered it strictly from that angle. Thinking about it, I have to admit I was surprised to find that Spielberg had actually done a remake of the George Pal WOTW rather than a new look at the Wells story. Hmm. Now I'm wondering why somebody HASN'T done another Billy Budd.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by clovis-man

Re Frankenstein:



It was done in 1973 by Universal Studios. It featured David McCallum as the good Doctor and Michael Sarrazin as the creature in a great piece of casting. He is beautiful at first and only becomes ugly as the story progresses. Worth seeing.

DVD Empire - Item - Frankenstein: The True Story / DVD-Video

I'm a bit dubious about that last assertion. It has its moments, and James Mason's performance is rather good, but that's about all I recall being worthwhile in this one. Incidentally, McCallum played Henry Clerval, not Victor Frankenstein. As for it being at all faithful to the novel -- there are some minor parts where it is, but that's about the extent of it....

[Overread]

Originally Posted by AE35Unit

I've read that one but not seen the cartoon version. Ever read his Kidnapped OR?

nope - my reading of older works is badly lacking - I am catching up though, but these new authors will insist on writing new books (and bookshops don't like stocking old stuff - if they do its hidden with the Shakespeare!

[AE35Unit]

Well IIRC its nowhere near as good as Treasure Island,a bit boring.

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

I'm a bit dubious about that last assertion. It has its moments, and James Mason's performance is rather good, but that's about all I recall being worthwhile in this one. Incidentally, McCallum played Henry Clerval, not Victor Frankenstein. As for it being at all faithful to the novel -- there are some minor parts where it is, but that's about the extent of it....

Oops. You're right. McCallum played the "other" doctor and Leonard Whiting was the real McCoy. But McCallum's character was the nastier, of course. It's been a long time since I've seen this. I think I was pleasantly surprised to see a "creature" which didn't look like Boris Karloff.

I do remember liking it back then, perhaps because it broke some Hollywood stereotypes. But that was 35 years ago. There's been a fair amount of re-telling since then. I'm not sure if any of them are completely faithful to the book. Was Branagh's version all that good?

[j. d. worthington]

Branagh's version was, in some ways, remarkably faithful... until about half an hour before the end of the film. (The exception remained in having the creature not nearly so articulate as Mary Shelley presented him -- I'm still waiting for that to happen!) At that point, it went off into a thoroughly different direction. The problem is, the film is beautiful and the performances are excellent (in the main)... but it felt cold and lifeless to me. Dracula, on the other hand, despite some serious flaws, was very much alive and in some ways more faithful to Stoker's novel in essence and feel as a result....

[Marcus15]

The Stand by Stephen King was damned close to the book although several characters were condensed down into a couple. Having read the book beforehand it didn't bother me.
All of the salient points and scenes were there.

[clovis-man]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

Dracula, on the other hand, despite some serious flaws, was very much alive and in some ways more faithful to Stoker's novel in essence and feel as a result....

I assume you refer to Coppola's film. I liked it too for a variety of reasons. However, I did object to his reducing Dracula to a love-sick puppy. In other ways, he did follow the book (Hard to believe it's more than a hundred years old) well. Even down to the part with the Bowie knife. But he also couldn't resist adding a touch of Nosferatu in having Dracula levered up from his coffin.

[Allegra]

An interesting example is Spielberg’s Munich and the book it’s based -Vengeance by George Jonas. The film faithfully followed the events and many detailed account in the book, but set a quite different stand. It’s a good film if you don’t compare it with the book. If you do, the whole film has an equivocal element through out. No one can put it better than the superbly eloquent George Jonas himself in his article The Spielberg massacre - George Jonas | The Spielberg massacre:

"Moral posturing," I say finally, "allows you to have it both ways. In Tinseltown terms, after the gunslinger blows everyone away, he has a proper crisis of conscience."

Spielberg's "Munich" follows the letter of my book closely enough. The spirit is almost the opposite. Vengeance holds there is a difference between terrorism and counterterrorism; "Munich" suggests there isn't. The book has no trouble telling an act of war from a war crime; the film finds it difficult. Spielberg's movie worries about the moral trap of resisting terror; my book worries about the moral trap of not resisting it.

Well, Spielberg is a product of Hollywood therefore his way of handling this sensitive subject is understandable, but what I don’t get is a very bad touch near the end of the film – Avner the Mossad assassin team leader’s fierce love making scence with his wife acompanied by grusome flashbacks of Israeli athletes being slaughtered. That, feels SO wrong. George Jonas wasn’t happy about it, of course:

The result isn't so much a celluloid fable of moral equivalence, as a triumphant -- indeed, orgasmic -- battle hymn of the dove. Its climax has "Avner" fornicating in a grotesque montage, intercut with violent visions of the Olympic hostage drama. The inspiration for it probably comes from the Syrian poet Nizar Qabbani, whom I quote in Vengeance, celebrating his new-found potency after Israel's initial setbacks in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Qabbani is sexually aroused by Arab warriors crossing the Suez Canal. Spielberg and Kushner see "Avner" sexually aroused by the massacre at Munich. There's no accounting for tastes.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Allegra

An interesting example is Spielberg’s Munich and the book it’s based -Vengeance by George Jonas. The film faithfully followed the events and many detailed account in the book, but set a quite different stand. It’s a good film if you don’t compare it with the book. If you do, the whole film has an equivocal element through out. No one can put it better than the superbly eloquent George Jonas himself in his article The Spielberg massacre - George Jonas | The Spielberg massacre:



Well, Spielberg is a product of Hollywood therefore his way of handling this sensitive subject is understandable, but what I don’t get is a very bad touch near the end of the film – Avner the Mossad assassin team leader’s fierce love making scence with his wife acompanied by grusome flashbacks of Israeli athletes being slaughtered. That, feels SO wrong. George Jonas wasn’t happy about it, of course:

I didnt know the book existed not for sure. I thought it did because hollywood rarely make movies on real event without it having a famous book behind it.

I read the hole article by the author. It was interesting. I thought the same when i finished watching the first time. It was typical easy way out of Hollywood movies. Too neutral. Shouldn't have bothered with a historic event like this without daring to tale the story fully.

Now i will definitly check out the book and see if its more realistic,less neutral. Less hollywood....


I agree most on that article those terrorist and their like are evil. Doesnt matter if you are a Palestine or an Israeli or whoever.

A great qoute this from the article:

what might turn them off is treating terrorists as people. Not demonizing human beings is dandy, but in their effort not to demonize humans, Spielberg and Kushner end up humanizing demons.

[Allegra]

Originally Posted by Connavar

Now i will definitly check out the book and see if its more realistic,less neutral. Less hollywood....

I'm glad you take interest in this book, Connavar. It's realistic, not neutral, and nothing Hollywood. I was blown away by the book and couldn't stop thinking about it after I finished it.

Jonas is the author of about a dozen books and a political columnist. His By Persons Unknown won Edgar Allan Poe Award for Best Fact Crime book. Vengeance is based on the true account of 'Avner', real name Juval Aviv, an ex-Mossad team leader of Operation Wrath of God -Operation Wrath of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, even the brief info on wiki reads like a fiction!

The book is brilliantly-written, intriguing, thought-provoking and heartfelt. Besides espionage-assassination, it also provides lots of valuable info of political background and of different sorts of underground terrorist groups and networks in West Europe at that time. As Amazon editorial review says, "The mechanics, the horror, the day-by-day suspense of what they did surpass by far anything John le Carré or Robert Ludlum could imagine… Vengeance is a profoundly human document, a real-life espionage classic that plunges the reader into the shadow world of terrorism and political murder. But it goes far beyond that...'.

Hope you'll find it and enjoy it as much as I did!

[Connavar]

I think i will like it. I love spy/political thrillers. Not the James Bond kind but the kind that lets you see the political backround,realistic view on those kind of people and their world.

[Rosemary]

I don't think there is any film that I have seen and which is better than those books I read. After reading a book I already have an image in my mind on the characters and scenery.

[Vladd67]

Originally Posted by Rosemary

I don't think there is any film that I have seen and which is better than those books I read. After reading a book I already have an image in my mind on the characters and scenery.

I can't think of a better quote when it comes to films of books