I just picked up the novel a clockwork orange by anthony burgess and anyone who says that kubrick did a better job in making the film that he did in writing the book needs some Pavlovian brain conditioning. It's awesome. To come up with the language (derived from Ruskie) was a sheer stroke of genius. As is the setting, the characters and the fantabulous incidents of carnage and lashings of the ultra-violence. it's got me thinking about my own writing and that (i study film and tv).. another thing that got my brain humming was Steve McQueen's Hunger.. what a corker of a film and not even an academy nod! instead of likening the plot to an arc he described it in terms of a river.. you start off by lying on your back as you watch the expository world come into and out of focus then the rapids of the 22 min heavy dialogue scene followed off by the waterfall or the lead's descent into death. a great approach... anywise,, what i wanted to ask you malchickees was what books, films and discussions have got you thinking differentwise about the whole storyline thing. and also a good list of horrowshow type art films to viddy... weeeeeeellllll????
Horrorshow tolchocks and Steve McQueen
- Thread starter mrpeech
- Start date
I can only think of one example where the movie is better than the book: 84 Charing Cross Road (and honestly that's only because the book is just a collection of letters between two people).
I can think of countless examples where the book is better than the movie. And anyway I don't know anyone who's read clockwork orange and not said the book was better....
I can think of countless examples where the book is better than the movie. And anyway I don't know anyone who's read clockwork orange and not said the book was better....
The introduction in the Penguin Modern Classic edition has one such example "James B. Hesemath, put this thought with embarrassing bluntness in 1976, suggesting to Burgess that he'd been a 'lesser English novelist', whose novel had been 'more or less forgotten', until Kubrick's film."
There was a wave of critics who thought likewise, it's a kind of well known thing about this particular novel.
Sure but saying that he was a 'lesser English novelist' does not necessarily equate to 'bad book,' but I take it to be a comment on his lack of notoriety. And the fact that the novel had been 'more or less forgotten' until Kubrick's film is just a fact and I don't think that statement implies any opinion on which was better.
Well I don't know any professional critics, but they seem like pretty picky jerks. Not worth listening to. Like I said, I don't know anyone who's read the book and said the movie was better. Same with Trainspotting.
I've never understood the point of comparing books to movies as you would apples to apples. They are two vastly different media. I understand the visceral, innate urge to compare the two but it doesn't make much sense to on an artistic level. It's certainly fantastic and agreeable to have a preference as to which method you prefer to devour a certain story (for instance, I love the film version of The Shining but could only suffer the novel once). But I never know how to participate in "the book was better than the movie" debates. Books are books; movies are movies. A minority opinion, probably.
I've learned for myself, when "comparing" a book to a film, to look at this this way:
I ask myself does the film capture the "spirit" (such a qualifiable quality I know
of the novel. It was interesting to read Lord Of The Rings again recently, and see where things originally happened in the book vs where in the films. I know before the films came out, there was heated discussion about things like "Why no Tom Bombadil?" "There were no elves helping at Helms Deep" ect, ect by people who knew LOTR like the back of their hands. To which someone kindly suggested perhaps the person would prefer filming the turning of the pages of the book?
But it captured the SPIRIT of the books for me, and surprised me with stuff that had been better than my imagination (the Balrog for IE). Was it "better" than the book? It was different, neither was better. The book will always have more detail, nuances, because it's the written word. I think thinking in terms of "was I satisfied/happy with the interpretation" is better served than "one is better" IMO.
Just my 002.
No, you're right
there's no way anyone could win such an argument as the point of reference is unquantifiable and completely subjective although you could make a good case of it by weighing the elements of each piece and appealing to people's mores and tastes..anyhoo... everyone's got on board to something that has merely meant as a joke! the real question i wanted to ask was whether people had a list of art films or art house film books they could recommend.
No, you're right
anyhoo... everyone's got on board to something that has merely meant as a joke! the real question i wanted to ask was whether people had a list of art films or art house film books they could recommend.
I recommend "Waking Life" (don't know if it's "arthouse") as a film. It certainly took an interesting angle.