Book vs. Film: Fugitive Pieces vs. Fugitive Pieces

Basic Plot: After narrowly escaping from the Nazis (and watching his family be dragged off by them) in Poland, young Jacob Beaer is rescued by Athos Roussos, a Greek archaeologist who hides him for the duration of the war. Afterwards the two move to Toronto, where Jacob grows up to be a writer and is haunted by his past. He marries but the union is unsuccessful do to his inability to let go of the past and after their divorce, he finds love again but first must find a way to reconcile himself to his survivor's guilt.

Book vs. Film: The Talented Mr. Ripley vs. Purple Noon and The Talented Mr. Ripley

Basic Plot: Tom Ripley is a small time conman who weasles his way into the life of his former acquaintance, Dickie Greenleaf, after Greenleaf's parents become frustrated with their son's extended vacation from his responsibilities. Dickie is amused by Tom at first, but quickly grows tired of him which eventually leads to Tom killing Dickie and assuming his identity. Thus begins a cat and mouse game as Tom tries to elude the authorities but still maintain his hold on Dickie's fortune.

Book vs. Film: The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest vs. The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest

Plot: The final entry in the Millennium Trilogy begins only moments after the end of the previous story, The Girl Who Played with Fire. Lisbeth Salander, suffering from multiple bullet wounds (including one to her head) is rushed to the hospital, where she is basically put under house arrest in her hospital room while she recovers from her injuries. Meanwhile, Mikael Blomkvist is working overtime trying to prove that Lisbeth has been railroaded by corrupt government forces and a scandal-crazed media.

Book vs. Film: The Girl who Played with Fire vs. The Girl who Played with Fire

Plot: The follow-up to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo picks up more or less where that story left off: Lisbeth Salander has absconded into a new identity with the money she embezzled in the first instalment. Mikael Blomkvist, meanwhile, is still in Sweden and using his magazine Millennium to take on the corrupt forces of the world. When Lisbeth returns to Sweden and is implicated in three murders, Blomkvist works to prove her innocence while she eludes capture by the police and tries to track down Zalachenko, the man behind the murders and, as it happens, her father.

Book vs. Film: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo vs. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Plot: 40 years after the disappearance of Harriet Wagner, her uncle Henrik, certain that she has been murdered and that her murderer has been taunting him, hires disgraced journalist Mikael Blomkvist to investigate. With the help of computer hacker Lisbeth Salander, Mikael begins to unravel the mystery, discovering in the process that a serial killer has been at work in the area for decades and may now be targetting them.

Primary Differences Between Book and Film: The film compresses the story as presented in the book and also alters the timeline (for example, in the film Mikael serves his prison sentence at the end; in the book he serves his time in the middle of the story). The film also makes Lisbeth a more active character and involves her more deeply in the solving of the mystery, and it alters the resolution of the mystery somewhat.

For the Book: The book, by virtue of the fact that it has the luxury to take longer to tell its story, is also able to give us more direct insight into the characters and flesh out the relationships between the large cast of characters. There is also a different tone to the relationship between Mikael and Lisbeth in the book which makes it eaiser to see them as a potential romantic couple, whereas I never really felt they clicked that way in the film.

For the Film: Lisbeth is the story's most fascinating character both in the book and the film. By giving her a bigger role, the film centralizes the story's most compelling aspect and gives the story a stronger energy. Also, Lisbeth as a character is (somewhat) softer in the book than she is in the film and I liked the harder edges that Noomi Rapace's portrayal gives her. Oh, and did I mention that Rapace is just generally awesome? In all likelihood I don't even need to but, for the record, there it is.

Winner: Film. I prefer the streamlined version of events as told by the film and found that when I read the book, I spent a lot of time waiting for Lisbeth to come back. I like the book a lot, but to me the film is a lot more powerful and compelling.

Book vs Film: Dangerous Liaisons vs Dangerous Liaisons

Plot: Two dissolute aristocrats wreak havoc on the innocents around them, corrupting everything and everyone in their paths. One, Madame de Merteuil, wants to get revenge on a former lover by arranging the seduction of his bride to be; the other, Valmont, simply wants the pleasure of knowing that he can make a virtuous woman break her marital vows. Sex, violence and all manner intrigue ensues.

Primary Differences Between Book and Film: The film really isn't different from the novel in any significant way - when a story is this perfectly crafted, there's little that needs changing. The ending of the film is slightly different from the book, but just as devastating.

For the Book: It's brilliant. Nearly 230 years after its initial publication, it remains a thoroughly engaging and entertaining read, the kind you burn through because you just can't put it down. It is also, given the time in which it was written, surprisingly direct with regards to sex, perhaps even more so than the film.

For the Film: The acting, the acting and... the acting. Yes, even Keanu Reeves - Danceny is a "duh" kind of character even in the book so Reeves' performance really doesn't seem out of place in the film. You also have Glenn Close, John Malkovich, Michelle Pfeiffer and Uma Thurman turning in great performances. Beyond the actors, Stephen Frears' direction is also great and I actually think that the final moments of the film are stronger than the finale of the novel (even if only by a hair).

Winner: Tie. The book is awesome and so is the movie. You can't go wrong with either.

Book vs. Film: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button vs. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Plot: Benjamin Button is born under unusual circumstances. Unlike those around him, he's born elderly and grows backwards until eventually reaching infancy. During the course of his life he fights in a war, falls in love, and has various other adventures.

Primary Differences Between Book and Film: Um... pretty much everything except the basic concept and the protagonist's name. Even the concept is a bit different because in the film Benjamin is born an old man but infant sized and though he's born old in body, he's born new in mind and his intellectual/emotional development occurs in a normal way. In the book, Benjamin is born a full grown old man (incidentally, after this we never hear of his mother again) with the mind of an old man. As his body grows younger, so too does his mind. Further, while the film version is built around a love story, there's no Daisy in the book version. Instead, there's a woman with whom Benjamin falls in love when he's old and she's young, and then gradually falls out of love with as he grows young and she grows old.

For the Book: Written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, the prose is of course extraordinary. The tone is light, leaning to comedy where the film leans towards drama, and it's a quick, easy read.

For the Film: The film is more ambitious in terms of the journey that it wants to take. The book sort of washes over you as it immerses you in absurdity and then it lets you go, but the film achieves something more profound. It's about the elusive qualities of life and love, and about the inevitability of loss and many of the images and scenes crafted by David Fincher et al. are lasting and beautiful.

Winner: Film. It comes down to a fairly simple storytelling issue: the book tells the story of a man who starts out with knowledge and gradually loses it, devolving as a person. The film tells the story of a man who, while physically growing backwards, nevertheless continues to grow and learn as a person and that makes him a more compelling character. The book is worth a read (particularly the illustrated version), but the film easily tops it.

Book vs. Film: The Tin Drum vs. The Tin Drum

Plot: The Tim Drum is an allegory that takes the form of a bildungsroman and follows the life of Oskar Matzerath. Oskar is born in Danzig in 1925 and the story explores the rise and fall of Nazism through his eyes. An accident as a child stunts Oskar's growth so that even as he gets older, the "child's eye view" is maintained because he's always treated like a kid, and he carries his tim drum - which symbolizes his carefree childhood - with him everywhere, banging on it fiercely.

Primary Differences Between Book and Film: The film is pretty faithful to the half of the book that it explores, but in telling only half of Gunter Grass' novel, it does profoundly change the meaning of the story. In the novel, everything is symbolic: Oskar's official father symbolizes Germany, his probable father symbolizes Poland, his mother symbolizes the Polish Corridor. Oskar's physical deformity symbolizes the social/political deformity that makes the rise of National Socialism possible. The film ends at the end of WWII, when the German citizens who aren't being executed are being expelled from what was once Danzig, and Oskar begins growing again. Taking the symbolism of the story into account, this ending then suggests that the end of the Nazis also marks the end of Nazi mentality. In the book, Oskar does start growing again at the end of WWII but the growth quickly stops again and, thus, the deformity isn't eliminated, it's just taken a different shape. The book then goes on to explore the effect that eliminating the Nazis but not dealing with the circumstances that made the Nazis possible has on the people in Germany.

For The Book: Aside from Grass' fantastic prose, there's part of Oskar's personality that is much easier to take in print than on film. He has the ability to scream so loud that he can break glass and he demonstrates his talent with a fair bit of frequency. Obviously that's much easier to take in the book than it is in the film. Also in the book's favor is the fact that it's just a lot more resonant than the film. By telling only half the story, the film really just scratches the surface of what Grass is able to accomplish.

For The Film: The performances are excellent (even though, I have to admit, that David Bennent, who plays Oskar, kind of creeps me out as the character gets older) and it's visually stunning. Writer/director Volker Schlondorff translates scenes from book to film increadibly well.

Winner: The book is one of my favourites so, I've gotta go with the book. The film is quite good, but for me it just doesn't reach the heights of the source material.

Book vs Film: Perfume vs. Perfume

Plot: Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, a man completely lacking in humanity but possessing a heightened sense of smell, wreaks havoc on the world around him as he endeavors to capture the very essence of human beings. Grenouille is basically a vampire who thirsts after scents rather than blood and in attempting to capture various scents to create one perfect, beautiful scent, he leaves a trail of bodies behind him.

Primary Differences Between Book and Film: Plotwise, the differences between the two are minimal and largely the result of the film having to compress the timeline. A small subplot involving Grenouille's experience as a scientific oddity is cut completely and not particularly missed. In terms of characterization, the character of Grenouille is fairly significantly changed. In the book Grenouille is a very conniving character, very calculating and overtly aware of the ways in which he's manipulating people. The film version of Grenouille seems somewhat less aware of how his actions affect those around him and though he's not innocent in a general sense, he seems innocent in the sense that he doesn't seem to understand the full impact of his actions because he doesn't understand what it means to be human.

For The Book: The story is very much an interior one, relying very heavily on the psychological experience derived from the sense of smell. Some of the book's most memorable passages involve breaking down and describing the combination of scents that intoxicate and drive Grenouille, which really can't be translated to film. Further, the book gets deep, deep into Grenouille's head and since he's a character of few spoken words, that means that the film version is going to seem a little shallow in comparison.

For The Film: It sounds impossible, but director Tom Tykwer is able to translate Grenouille's aromatic experiences into a completely visual tableau. This is an expertly adapted film that truly captures the spirit of the source work and runs with it, creating a film that is entirely enthralling. Ben Wishaw stars as Grenouille and renders a surprisingly sympathetic performance, and there are nice supporting performances from Dustin Hoffman and Alan Rickman.

Winner: Film. I like the book a lot and highly recommend it, but the film absolutely blew me away. For a story about a vile creature committing a series of horrible acts, it's amazing how beautiful the film is. Major kudos to cinematographer Frank Griebe for his wonderful work. The book is good, but the film is a masterpiece.

Book vs Film: Tell No One vs. Tell No One

Plot: A widower gets a mysterious message leading him to believe that his wife might actually be alive. As he investigates further he finds himself in the middle of a large-scale plots that finds him accused of murder, on the run, and being pursued by assassins as well as police.

Primary Differences Between Book and Film: Easily the biggest difference between the two is that the book takes place in New York and the film takes place in Paris. Aside from that the film is generally faithful to the book save for a few minor details, although the ending of the film is wildly different from that of the film.

For the Book: The book expands a lot on the characters' relationships and backstories, giving a clearer idea of certain characters' motivations. For example, the protagonist's sister plays a very small and inadvertent part in the plot against him and the motivation for her silence regarding certain secrets is more clearly elaborated in the book.

For the Film: There's a long chase scene in the middle of the story that is much better suited to film that it is to literature. The ending of the film is also a lot stronger than the ending of the book, both in terms of the identity of the killer and the series of events leading up to it, as the book tends to get more over the top the closer it gets to the end.

Winner: Film. The book is highly entertaining in its own right, but the film is far superior. The changes made to the story through the adaptation, the great acting across the board, and the wonderfully staged chase scene give the film the edge over the book.

Book vs Film: East of Eden vs. East of Eden

Plot: Two brothers, one “good” and one “bad,” vie for the affections of their father as well as a local girl. While the father will never be able to understand or connect to the bad son, the girl sees another side of him and comes to love him. This betrayal, in addition to the bad brother’s insistence on dredging up the family past, eventually shatters the psyche of the good brother.

Differences Between Book and Film: I saw the film version long before reading the novel so imagine my surprise when I discovered that Elia Kazan’s film is only an adaptation of about the last 100 of the novel’s 700 plus pages. The film is, however, very faithful to those last 100 pages, though it cuts out one of the novel’s best characters – the housekeeper, Lee – who adds an interesting, and perhaps problematically latent, element to the story.

For The Book: First and foremost, the prose by John Steinbeck is beautiful and the story, which follows two generations of brothers in the Trask family and juxtaposes it against the story of the Hamilton family (based on Steinbeck’s own family), is powerful and deeply complex, drawing on the biblical story of Cain and Abel. The major female character of the novel, Kate, the wife of Adam and mother of Aron and Cal, is one of the most terrifying villains in fiction, a character without moral compass and entirely lacking in empathy for anyone. She’s an absolutely fascinating character, though considerably declawed in Kazan’s film.

For The Film: James Dean, James Dean, and James Dean. This was Dean’s film debut, the only film he lived to see released in theatres, and the first of two performances for which he was posthumously Oscar nominated. He simply is Cal, the defiant kid desperate for his father’s approval, jealous of his brother’s status in the family, and often acting as his own worst enemy. The film itself is far from perfect, but Dean’s performance makes it worth a look.

Winner: Book. The film is good and displays some solid work by those in front of and behind the camera, but I really love the book. The Grapes of Wrath may be Steinbeck's masterpiece, but for me East of Eden runs a fairly close second.

Book vs. Film: The French Lieutenant's Woman vs. The French Lieutant's Woman

Plot: The French Lieutenant's Woman, both in book and film form, is a story about telling a story. The story being told takes place during the Victorian era and centres on a Sarah, a woman with a bad reputation. She's known as "the French Lieutenant's whore" because of a rumored affair she had with a sailor who abandoned her, and now she's a pariah in the community. Charles Smithson becomes fascinated with her, threatening his future with his financee, the daughter of a wealthy tradesman.

Primary Differences Between Book and Film: To put it simply, the book is about writing a book, the film is about making a film based on the book. Although much of the book unfolds unimpeded by authorial asides, John Fowles does break in every once in a while to remind the reader that he's telling a story and remark on the actions of his characters, particularly the growing idiocy of Charles. In the film, some of the action takes place in front of the cameras as part of the film-within-the-film, but some of it takes place behind the scenes as the actors playing Sarah and Charles find their own lives mirroring that of their characters.

For The Book: I'm a bit biased because the book is one of my absolute favourites. Fowles does somethig tricky in that he lulls you into immersing yourself in the story of Sarah and Charles and then yanks you out of it without making the transition seem jarring. The novel is a brilliant example of post-modern style and often disarmingly funny.

For The Film: By adapting it as an "onstage/offstage" story, the film captures the spirit of the book better than a straight adaptation ever could. Aside from being the story of Sarah and Charles' doomed love, The French Lieutenant's Woman is also about actively analyzing at the mores and attitudes of a bygone era, which the film does in its offstage portions. There are also great performances by Meryl Streep and Jeremy Irons, though Streep stands out more by virtue of the fact that both of her characters (the actress and Sarah) are written to be stronger presences than those portrayed by Irons.

Winner: I like the movie, but I love the book. The film is, however, one of the best page to screen adaptations I've ever seen, even if it starts to lag a little by the end. So, obviously, the winner is the book but it's a pretty tight race.

Book vs. Film: The Color Purple vs. The Color Purple

Primary Differences: With regards to the basic turns of the plot, the film is pretty faithful to the novel. However, when it comes to the complexities of the characters, the film sells the novel short. The film presents things in a very black and white manner, while the novel is all about the various shades of gray which exist in the relationships between the characters.

For The Book: The first person narrative related by Celie through a series of letters cuts straight to the heart. We’re brought directly into her thoughts as she experiences incredible hardship and, every once in a while, moments of supreme joy. The characters created by Alice Walker are so rich and deep that even those who do bad things are not simplified to the point where they can be called “villains.”

For The Film: First and foremost, the film has the absolutely stellar central performance by Whoopi Goldberg. It’s a soulful portrayal completely lacking in vanity; one of the very best ever captured on film. Hers is surrounded by a multitude of other great performances, namely from Margaret Avery and Oprah. Also of note is the film’s beautiful cinematography, particularly during the scene which inspires the title.

Winner: Book. On the one hand, it’s refreshing to see a film that not only focuses on the experiences of people of color, but specifically on the experiences of women of color; but on the other hand, it’s also important to look at the framework within which these experiences are portrayed. The women in this film are portrayed in a way that is nothing but sympathetic, but these portrayals come at the expense of the male characters who are shown in one of two ways: bad and cruel, or good and stupid. The relationships between men and women in the film are universally portrayed as bad, in one way or another, and stripped of the intricacy with which they were granted in Walker’s novel. The relationships in the novel are not nearly so simplistic or cut and dried, even the abusive relationship between Celie and her husband, Mister.

The female characters make the transition from page to screen largely unscathed, but by sacrificing the complexities of the male characters, the film makes them seem less human and robs the story of some of its depth.

Book vs Film: Dracula vs Bram Stoker's Dracula

Primary Differences: The film incorporates the legend of Vlad the Impaler as a back story for the Count. It also cuts the book’s afterward which details Mina and Harker’s married life and the birth of their son.

For The Book: There’s no question that the book has been incredibly influential. It introduced one of the most recognizable characters in fiction and, along with Carmilla by Sheridan Le Fanu, it helped establish the hallmarks of a genre.

For The Film: What I love most about the film is that it’s not just an adaptation of the novel but also of the major vampire films that preceded it; it’s like an appreciation of the entire genre. It’s also a film that doesn’t take itself too seriously and, as played by Anthony Hopkins, provides my favourite version of Van Helsing. Hopkins has a lot of great moments in the film, delivering lines with admirable dryness (my favourite? “I just want to cut off her head and take out her heart,” said as if it’s the most reasonable and ordinary thing in the world). Gary Oldman also delivers a great and memorable performance.

Winner: Film. It may be a classic, but I really dislike the book. Partly it’s the style (it’s told in epistolary form, which I hate) and partly it’s Stoker’s preoccupation with emerging technologies (which Coppola’s film alludes to) which I find really disrupts the tension that the story proper is attempting to build. For me, the book was a total slog .

The film, on the other hand, is an absolute guilty pleasure of mine. It isn’t a great movie, or even the best vampire movie, but it’s a lot of fun to watch, especially with other people. I think it’s a brilliant homage to the classics of the genre (literary, filmic, and mythological), a movie which is obviously made by someone who loves movies. And even though it features some questionable accents (hello there, Keanu and Winona) and some blatant pandering to adolescent male fantasies (Harker’s seduction by the Brides of Dracula, and a kiss between Winona Ryder and Sadie Frost which is perhaps meant to suggest Carmilla), I still adore it.

Book vs Film: The Fountainhead vs The Fountainhead

The Plot: Both book and film chart the rise of Howard Roark from obscurity and poverty to the heights of fame and adulation. Roark possess a singular and unshakeable vision which is constantly at odds with the ideas of those around him, who attempt to break him and make him compromise and conform. During his struggles he meets Dominique Francon, who believes in his vision but not in his ability to withstand all the obstacles set up against him. Her fears prove to be unfounded, though, as Roark will later make clear to the world that he would rather destroy his own creations than allow his vision to be bent to someone else’s will.

Primary Differences Between Book and Film:
The book is quite long while the film comes in at just under 2 hours, so obviously the story has been condensed considerably;
The character Peter Keating is prominent throughout the novel, his own descent serving as a parallel and contrast to Roark’s rise, but he’s barely a footnote in the film. Similarly, while Ellsworth Toohey is given a few scenes in the film, he’s a much greater presence in the book;
Roark’s early years are glossed over by the film, due I imagine to the fact that at 48, Gary Cooper couldn’t exactly pass as a young man just out of college;

For The Book: I realize that liking Ayn Rand is unpopular but… I like her. There, I said it. I’m willing to concede that she’s not the best writer, but I do think she’s a really great storyteller and I think she’s really great at clearly expressing her ideas (you might not agree with them, but you always know exactly where she stands). She’s often criticized for creating idealized, one-dimensional characters and while I think this is true of some characters, it’s unfair to say it’s true of all of them. In between Rand’s idea of the “very good” person and the “very bad” person, there are those who take some very interesting twists and turns. Gail Wynand, for example, has a fascinating arc in the book and brings about my favourite moment: Toohey’s much deserved comeuppance. Peter Keating is an interesting character as well, going from the golden boy able to coast on his knowledge that other people will help him or let him step over them, to the broken man who has what he wants (success in business) but destroys himself with the knowledge that he didn’t earn it. While the book is primarily concerned with Roark’s rise, it also compellingly charts the victories and defeats of several other people as well.

For The Film: I quite like the performance by Patricia Neal as Dominique, but there’s not a lot about the film that I would actually recommend. It’s strange to me that Rand wrote both the novel and the screenplay, because while the former consistently picks up steam throughout, the later just falls flat. The problem, I guess, is that the story is dependent on Roark to push it forward and while the Roark imagined on the page is able to do that, the Roark brought to the screen by Gary Cooper simply cannot. There’s no conviction in Cooper’s performance, which I guess isn’t surprising when you consider that Cooper admitted to not really understanding the material. For the story to work, Roark has to be able to convince the audience that he believes in the philosophy by which he lives because without that core belief, this is just an exercise in futility.

Winner: Book (by a long shot). I can’t think of a single scene which plays better on the screen than it does in the book.

Book vs. Film: An American Tragedy vs. A Place In The Sun

The Plot: A lower class young man is taken under the wing of his rich uncle and is given a job at his uncle's factory. He begins a relationship with one of his co-workers but also, and against all odds, gains the affection of a debutante who is a friend of his wealthy relatives. As his relationship with the debutante begins, and his own social standing begins to rise, his girlfriend learns that she's pregnant and threatens to bring scandal upon him unless he marries her. In a panic, he plots to kill her but at the last moment has a change of heart... or so he claims. The girlfriend dies regardless and his failure to cover his tracks leads to his arrest and the exposure of the dark side of social climbing and class politics.

Primary Differences Between Book and Film:
The film tells an abridged version of the book’s story;
The character names are changed: Clyde becomes George, Sondra becomes Angela, and Roberta becomes Alice;
The setting is moved from the 1920s to the 1950s.

For The Book: The film only tells about 2/3rds of the book’s story, skipping over Clyde/George’s impoverished childhood, the circumstances of which help to add dimension to his desire to climb the social ladder. Clyde is a more morally dubious character than George – when he arrives at the home of his relatives it’s after a couple of years on the lam, having fled his hometown after being involved in a hit and run. His relationships with Sondra/Angela and Roberta/Alice are given greater psychological depth in light of his previous bad experiences with women.

For The Film: Let’s start with the obvious – Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor. These are two of the most stunningly beautiful actors ever to grace the screen and are so wonderful together that the characters from the book naturally pale in comparison. The relationship itself is also more compelling in the film because it’s a love story, whereas in the book the relationship is really more of a Pygmalion-like scheme on Sondra’s part to prove to Clyde’s cousin that she can make Clyde fit for high society. The love story aspect also helps to maintain the emotional engagement of the audience in the story and gives the film’s ending an added punch, whereas in the book Sondra basically abandons Clyde following his arrest and the story really runs out of steam by the time it gets to the end.

Winner: Film. The book is good and makes for an interesting companion piece to The Great Gatsby, which was also released in 1925 and explores some similar themes; however, the story told by the film is more effective and tightly focused and maintains the narrative tension throughout, whereas the book is great in the build up, but weak in the follow through and only limps to its conclusion.