Thursday, November 3, 2016
The Big Sleep - Book vs. Movie Adaptation
Warner Brothers produced the film adaptation of Chandler's novel The Big Sleep directed by Howard Hawks in 1946. Whom starred Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall and was and still is considered a classic film noire. Of course like many other films that have been adapted, the book will always be better than its film adaptation. In the book we were able to relate more with Marlowe as we were able to get into his head while reading his narration. One would think that it'd be an easy task to just simply make a movie from a book, copy the lines, set the scene in the descriptions from the book, and use the same characters and wallah! But a lot of film directors have failed at this task. The book is always more personal, which sets a high standard for the movie to follow. In The Big Sleep the writers who adapted Chandler's novel chose to have Eddie Mars killed instead of leaving him as a constant threat to the General and his daughters.. Also The idea of Marlowe meeting Mars at Geiger's house at the end of the film was also added by screen writers because in the book Marlowe tells Vivian that he wants to just talk to Mars and warn him about his knowledge Carmen killing Rusty. Did they do that for an interesting cinematic finale? Was a talk not so interesting? Also the way Marlowe was killed was different, maybe if it would have ended up in a shooting the movie wouldn't have had as neat of a finish as it did? Also, the homosexual relationship between Geiger and Carol were only hinted at. (Maybe inappropriate for a 1946 film?) Also in the film Bogie lets the air out of the tires to go into the garage but in the book Marlowe gets a flat tire by running over something sharp in the road. There are many differences in the movie, many of which are because the movie doesn't have as much time as the book does. The book can encompass so much more with its readers, gets all the more personal, and is able to make its readers fall in love. Unfortunately enough for its film adaptation most readers are already in love with the material from the novel, and don't really like seeing the characters portrayed any differently than they are in the novel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with Kaitlyn because I feel as though no matter how good you make a movie, I feel like 95% of the time the book will always be way better. Directors try their best to bring the book to life in a film all while changing certain aspects of the book that you never saw coming. I think they do this because if they just made a movie that was exactly every step that happened in the book, it wouldn't interest people as much because they know every detail that happens. Take And Then There Were None, in the book every single person dies at the end but in the film, two people remained alive to live to tell the story. This could either have people surprised and love the film or hate it. For me personally I hated it because it defeates the purpose of the title of no one being alive. The book just makes me feel more connected to every character and the descriptive scenes in the book make me feel as though I'm inside the protagonists head as if I'm there with him witnessing everything.
ReplyDeleteI find that movies are hitting its audience with a smack in its face. Movies from certain periods and of a certain style like those of the Classic Hollywood era. This leads me to believe that people during the times or just after had more of an appreciation for text that can be read. This is an idea/hypothesis because people who started out only reading could've came to appreciate movie's of the such in the exact or similar way. This is one way to look at why people appreciate reading vs watching films that have extremes that seem unlike reality or are unlike reality. Also this is one way to look at why it is isn't this way or why it may not be this way or why this is a hypothesis.
ReplyDelete