The third time, just a few days ago, was when I reached the last page of DOUBLE INDEMNITY, the 1943 crime novel by James M. Cain, which was originally published as an eight-part serial in Liberty Magazine in 1936. I've seen the classic 1944 film adaptation many times, and it's one of those movies that can be watched and enjoyed over and over, even though the story holds no more surprises. And I was aware that the screenplay by novelist Raymond Chandler had been altered considerably for the movie. But I had no idea what was awaiting me in the last chapter of the book. No spoilers will be forthcoming. Please buy the novel and read it for yourself.
.jpg)
Several years ago, I picked up a used copy of a James M. Cain three-novel compilation featuring THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE (1934), DOUBLE INDEMNITY and MILDRED PIERCE (1941), all of which were made into successful Films Noir. I had already read MILDRED PIERCE, which also differed quite a bit from the 1944 film. It was much more sordid than the slickly made Warner Brothers production, which was primarily a star vehicle for the legendary Joan Crawford. In my experience, books are usually superior to the film adaptations, although there are exceptions. When I started reading DOUBLE INDEMNITY, the main characters were all being portrayed inside my head by Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson and Jean Heather. The narrator had MacMurray's distinctive voice. But as I got involved in the twists and turns of the story, especially in its last stages, the cinematic images began to fade, and I was no longer preoccupied with the movie version. Was the book better than the movie? I have to say yes. But that takes nothing away from the movie. The novel's ending could certainly have been adapted into a powerful movie sequence. But considering the prevailing standards and audience expectations of 1944, I doubt if it would have worked. Still, it's fascinating to wonder what might have been. Next up: I plan to dive back into the dark world of James M. Cain with THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE. Let's see how far I have to get into the book before Lana Turner and John Garfield are no longer smoldering inside of my head.
.jpg)
I've never seen the 1968 film CHARLY, the adaptation of FLOWERS FOR ALGERNON, but I would like to. I did pick up the Criterion Collection release of the 1964 adaptation of FAIL SAFE, directed by Sidney Lumet. I didn't expect the icy chill I experienced at the end of the novel. But I was wrong. It came back, intensified beyond belief. Truly one of the most terrifying cinematic experiences of my life. Highly recommended.
You really do a great job comparing and contrasting the differences between books and adaptations of books into movies. Books do allow your imagination to show the characters as you watch their personalities evolve. I’m definitely a “book is better than a movie adaptation of a book” person. For example, Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher (a character developed by Lee Child) was so miscast that I couldn’t bring myself to watch any of the movies. Jack Reacher is tall, strongly built, and not very attractive. Tom Cruise isn’t any of that. You get my point and I get yours. Thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteThank you for commenting! I haven't read the Jack Reacher books or scene the movies, but I definitely get your point. I initially struggled with the film adaptations of Midnight Cowboy and The Last Picture Show because the novels had such an effect on me, and I was unsatisfied by the movies. It took years for me to accept and appreciate the movies on their own merits. One film that I consider to be a perfect adaptation is To Kill a Mockingbird. But Fail Safe comes very close. I finally got around to reading Dracula and Frankenstein decades after seeing the movies over and over, and I was amazed at how much different the books were.
ReplyDeleteSpell check: "Scene" the movies? Come on, Mike. Let's change that to "seen".
DeleteThe most frequent changes made in movie adaptations is the streamlining of the plot and cast of characters to fit into a feature film runtime. That can be very frustrating if a unique novel is made into something generic. That is often the reason for the "book is better than the movie" attitude that is so prevalent. I do my best to judge each independently of the other. I only object to pointless or illogical changes from the source material in a film.
ReplyDeleteReading the source material first creates a bit more of an intimacy with the characters as they are fully formed in our minds being prompted only by the author's words. It is awfully hard to avoid visualizing the novel's characters as their movie counterparts if one has seen the film adaptation first. (Every time I read one of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot mysteries, I can't help but see Albert Finney's splendid Poirot from 1974's MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS.) It really is a bit of a mental juggling act for the reader if the film's actors are not similar to their prose predecessors. It is less of an issue if the film varies wildly from the novel.
In recent years, I also read several novels by Raymond Chandler and The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett. Weirdly enough, I didn't have much of a problem associating the characters with the film actors. Not sure why that would be the case, but I really enjoyed those books. Thanks for reading my post, Flash, and for the great comments!
DeleteNot everything on paper transitions so easily on film, regrettably. Having read Brett Easton Ellis's American Psycho in my youth, I assumed the chance of it being adapted into a film was zero. I was wrong, of course. Although, much of the graphic content from the book wasn't included in the film. Still a great film, regardless.
ReplyDeleteAlex Garland's The Beach and Max Brooks' World War Z are two books that I adore that were cursed with terrible film adaptations. The latter being turned into just another Brad Pitt vehicle, was particularly wasted potential.
Some film adaptations stray so far from the source material that they're almost unrecognizable. Raymond Chandler's Farewell, My Lovely was first adapted in 1943 for The Falcon Takes Over, an entry into the RKO Falcon detective series, all decent B movies. The bare bones of the story are present, but detective Phillip Marlowe is replaced by George Sanders' "Falcon" character. Double Indemnity was remade in 1945 as a low-budget programmer called Apology For Murder, which takes quite a few liberties story wise, but is a pretty decent little movie on its own merits. Thanks for commenting!
Delete