I get that question not infrequently. I didn’t include it on the FAQ, since it tends to be more work specific rather than applicable to the list/project as a whole. My general response is that it is the list of 1001 books to read before you die, not the 1001 best books, greatest books, or even most important books. I stand by that answer, though without more of an explanation it is a bit of a cop out. Plus, 1001 is quite a lot.
Without further ado, I present works whose place on the list has been questioned and why I think it was put on the list (the book that goes with the list actually discusses this, too, but I’ve never ready that book - it isn’t on the list after all; thus, I don’t know what it has to say on this topic).
The Virgin Suicides. I think the most commonly cited reason for this book being on the list is its satirical portrayal of the hollowness of suburban life/ middle America, and the destructive forces it brings on those caught in that life, using our anxiety about sexuality, primarily female sexuality as its impetus. I personally think the main reason to read this book is for the collective first-person perspective of its narrator(s). Having read books with so many different types of narrators, perspectives, and narrative constructions, I can say that this one stands out as unique, at least thus far, making Virgin Suicides worth reading for that alone.
American Psycho. I feel like I pick on this one all the time. Really, it wasn’t that bad! If you like your murders graphic, sudden, and frequent. In all seriousness, I think this one’s main contribution is the way it epitomizes the hallow violence of the 1980s Wall Street culture it indicts.
Casino Royale. Okay, this one isn’t exactly War and Peace or even The Golden Notebook, but on the other hand, James Bond is iconographic. With this novel, Ian Fleming created a character that would span a book and movie industry, and create an archetype (or tap into one and revitalize it, if you prefer) that has impacted countless other works, including parodies.
The Cider House Rules. I think this one suffers from mainly being associated with the movie, and thus seen as light weight, which strikes me as unfair. The world Irving created is sharp, Dr. Larch is fascinating, what it does with storytelling adds this layer that still impresses me, and of course, it explores issues of abortion in an unflinching, honest way. I do think it loses steam in the middle and the character of Melody is a bit much to take, but still, worthy of the list.
The Black Dahlia. I got nothing. Truly, I don’t, aside from a minor gripe. This list is heavy on the noir. It may mostly be my perception, since I might have read more noir than I should have from a proportional perspective, but it still feels heavy on the noir. Chandler and Hammett I can get behind, but still.
No one has ever demanded that I explain why X work isn’t on the list. I think that’s less because people don’t have quibbles with the list in that direction, more that people don’t realize that they do, since it’s such a rather long list.
Showing posts with label Ian Fleming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ian Fleming. Show all posts
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Books vs. Movies
Serious Spoiler Alert for The Big Sleep, Casino Royale, and Rebecca.
Conventional wisdom suggests that the book is superior to the film adaptation. While I agree this is typically the case (cough The Black Cauldron cough), there are certainly exceptions (To Have and Have Not, undoubtedly, but personally I enjoy the HP films more than the books). I’m not interested in cases where there isn’t one version that is clearly better, but where the different versions have different strengths. Many of the list books have film adaptations. Unfortunately, the films I’ve seen and the books I’ve read do not match up too well, but here are some thoughts.
The Big Sleep.
If I had to choose one over the other, the film would win. Bogart and Bacall absolutely sizzle in this one. There a spark that To Have and Have Not has over Big Sleep, and a depth to their relationship in Key Largo, but their chemistry in Big Sleep is in a class by itself. My main complaint about the book is, of course, that they don’t have as much of a relationship. Vivian and Phil are not a couple at all, really. Mona Mars even gets one of the best scenes, thus eliminating the scene when Phil tells Vivian that he didn’t know they still made them that good (and oh, Bacall, they don’t now; it’s sad). Mona is even the woman Phil is thinking about at the end. It’s just wrong. But, the book did help clear up all of my confusion about why Geiger did what he did and why Mr. Sternwood hired Marlow in the first place; what can I say, I’m a bit slow when it comes to noir. Vivian, Carmen, and Phil also have a more interesting dynamic in the book, since Carmen doesn’t have to be redeemed at all. She’s a much darker character, and I like it that way. My favorite scene in the book is missing in the movie (and wouldn’t work in the movie while still keeping my favorite movie scene, so I guess I have to live with that), and it shows Carmen at her rawest. It’s positively terrifying. So, there are definite tradeoffs. I really do not understand, though, why they don’t have Vivian married to Sean in the movie like she is in the book (though his name is Rusty in that). Don’t get that change at all.
Casino Royale.
Again, movie wins hands down. Vesper is just an infinitely more awesome character in the movie. Vesper and Bond therefore have a much more interesting, and I would argue believable, relationship. Vesper in the book is almost your average Bond girl and she doesn’t do anything for me, really. That being said, SMERSH is works much better as the villain in the book; the Russian set up makes much more sense. I also like that Vesper commits suicide in the book. Finally, I think Baccarat is more fun than Poker. So, no contest, but the book is worth checking out and does have some things I like better than the film. It probably goes without saying, but I’m talking about the Daniel Craig film; I’ve never seen the first one.
Rebecca
I’ve always had a soft spot for Joan Fontaine. However, the book wins out for me with this one. The lead works better if you are in her head; she comes off as awfully simpering in the movie; in the book, she’s at least marginally interesting. The real reason the book is superior, in my opinion at least, though, is that the death of Rebecca makes so much more sense than in the film. It’s supremely ridiculous in the movie: “I was upset, and then she just kind of died.” Really, movie? Really? In the book, he’s a murderer! It’s awesome. Whether it’s the movie or the book, though, Rebecca kind of bugs. I am obviously not cut out to be a gothic heroine. “Thanks for telling me that’s not how Mrs. de Winter used to do things; I’ll just file that away in the completely irrelevant column. I am curious, though: what time of day did she write up help-wanted ads? I think I’m in the market for a new housekeeper.”
There are several that I should probably see the movie version, since the movie is almost more famous than the book (Dr. Zhivago, The French Lieutenant’s Woman, American Psycho, The Cider House Rules, The English Patient). We’ll see. I’m particularly interested in seeing the first two, since I don’t understand how they could work as films without messing with important aspects of the novels.
Conventional wisdom suggests that the book is superior to the film adaptation. While I agree this is typically the case (cough The Black Cauldron cough), there are certainly exceptions (To Have and Have Not, undoubtedly, but personally I enjoy the HP films more than the books). I’m not interested in cases where there isn’t one version that is clearly better, but where the different versions have different strengths. Many of the list books have film adaptations. Unfortunately, the films I’ve seen and the books I’ve read do not match up too well, but here are some thoughts.
The Big Sleep.
If I had to choose one over the other, the film would win. Bogart and Bacall absolutely sizzle in this one. There a spark that To Have and Have Not has over Big Sleep, and a depth to their relationship in Key Largo, but their chemistry in Big Sleep is in a class by itself. My main complaint about the book is, of course, that they don’t have as much of a relationship. Vivian and Phil are not a couple at all, really. Mona Mars even gets one of the best scenes, thus eliminating the scene when Phil tells Vivian that he didn’t know they still made them that good (and oh, Bacall, they don’t now; it’s sad). Mona is even the woman Phil is thinking about at the end. It’s just wrong. But, the book did help clear up all of my confusion about why Geiger did what he did and why Mr. Sternwood hired Marlow in the first place; what can I say, I’m a bit slow when it comes to noir. Vivian, Carmen, and Phil also have a more interesting dynamic in the book, since Carmen doesn’t have to be redeemed at all. She’s a much darker character, and I like it that way. My favorite scene in the book is missing in the movie (and wouldn’t work in the movie while still keeping my favorite movie scene, so I guess I have to live with that), and it shows Carmen at her rawest. It’s positively terrifying. So, there are definite tradeoffs. I really do not understand, though, why they don’t have Vivian married to Sean in the movie like she is in the book (though his name is Rusty in that). Don’t get that change at all.
Casino Royale.
Again, movie wins hands down. Vesper is just an infinitely more awesome character in the movie. Vesper and Bond therefore have a much more interesting, and I would argue believable, relationship. Vesper in the book is almost your average Bond girl and she doesn’t do anything for me, really. That being said, SMERSH is works much better as the villain in the book; the Russian set up makes much more sense. I also like that Vesper commits suicide in the book. Finally, I think Baccarat is more fun than Poker. So, no contest, but the book is worth checking out and does have some things I like better than the film. It probably goes without saying, but I’m talking about the Daniel Craig film; I’ve never seen the first one.
Rebecca
I’ve always had a soft spot for Joan Fontaine. However, the book wins out for me with this one. The lead works better if you are in her head; she comes off as awfully simpering in the movie; in the book, she’s at least marginally interesting. The real reason the book is superior, in my opinion at least, though, is that the death of Rebecca makes so much more sense than in the film. It’s supremely ridiculous in the movie: “I was upset, and then she just kind of died.” Really, movie? Really? In the book, he’s a murderer! It’s awesome. Whether it’s the movie or the book, though, Rebecca kind of bugs. I am obviously not cut out to be a gothic heroine. “Thanks for telling me that’s not how Mrs. de Winter used to do things; I’ll just file that away in the completely irrelevant column. I am curious, though: what time of day did she write up help-wanted ads? I think I’m in the market for a new housekeeper.”
There are several that I should probably see the movie version, since the movie is almost more famous than the book (Dr. Zhivago, The French Lieutenant’s Woman, American Psycho, The Cider House Rules, The English Patient). We’ll see. I’m particularly interested in seeing the first two, since I don’t understand how they could work as films without messing with important aspects of the novels.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)