The Howards End Trifecta

I dove back into my comfort zone this past month: English literature. As you may see from my Goodreads feed in the corner of this blog, I listened to the 2009 Blackstone Audio recording of Howard’s End by E.M. Forster narrated by Nadia May and available on iBooks. I sifted though a few samples before landing on her as my narrator of choice (narrators can make or break an audiobook). This, of course, was after I’d watched the 2017 BBC series based on the novel starring Hayley Atwell and Matthew Macfayden. However, before I decided to compare it with the 1992 feature length film version starring Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins.

I love watching adaptations. I love getting more of something I already love or seeing how ~maybe~ the movie could make it better *cough cough* The Horse Whisperer *cough *cough* or present it exactly the way I’d imagined and more! Books and their movie counterparts can be equally enjoyable, change my mind. I will say, I was a tad surprised that I found the 1992 adaptation lacking. I was bored stiff, and by amazing actors and performances. But I don’t think it was the running length. Obviously the 2017 miniseries had more time to explore the details of the novel – it was the 1992 versions’ screenplay.

The script followed the outline of the novel well enough, but it was devoid of any of those cinematic moments that truly make you feel for the characters you’re watching. And this is coming from a person who has watched the 2005 Pride & Prejudice FAR more than I ever have the beloved 90s miniseries. The film hit all the right plot points, but I wasn’t torn when Margaret was forced to choose between her sister and her husband upon accepting Mr. Wilcox’s proposal nor was I very worried when Helen suddenly broke contact for mysterious reasons. Those small moments that get us close and intimate with a character I think were lost in the film’s attempt to be a faithful adaptation to the text beat by beat.

I guess I just can’t say enough good things about Macfayden’s nuanced performance as Mr. Wilcox either. He’s an amazing actor to watch. You hate him one moment and love him the next, Hopkins seems far too detached to be likable even in the end when the audience is meant to come around to his character. All the characters seem more fully realized in the 2017 miniseries. Except Leonard Bast… I’m still trying to figure out what Joseph Quinn was doing looking mildly constipated the entire time.

So, here’s the order in which I consumed my media:

2017 BBC miniseries
1910 Novel
1992 Film

I recommend all for comparison, but the novel doesn’t exactly need my endorsement. It’s a classic.

(featured image is Hayley Atwell as Margaret Schlegel in the 2017 adaptation available on STARZ)

remember my best sellers challenge? et al.

Remember that thing I said? That I was going to pick up my best sellers reading challenge from 2016? I really did enjoy diving into The Horse Whisperer and getting transported back to the 90s while watching the visually beautiful film adaptation. It was one of those books that makes you almost *enjoy* your anger while you’re reading it. So yeah, maybe I’ll make an empty promise to go back to this list again.

I still have my copy of The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown and his prose is mainly what stopped me from reading the rest of it. His writing is so bad for so many reasons… but hey, I have no excuse not to finish it now. And, in case you can’t tell, I love books with film adaptations. I love seeing changes/differences and understanding why the writers made the changes they made.

I’ve been watching one of the Great Courses on screenwriting with all my downtime and I’m getting a lot from it, except one major point with which I disagreed mid-course. Prof. Angus Fletcher recommends writing an adaptation as a “warm-up” exercise to eventually writing an original story of your own. Having done both, I can say an original script felt FAR simpler than an adaptation. You’re not attempting to meld a story from one medium into another when you’re writing an original piece. Can’t say it wouldn’t be a great challenge though for someone interested.

We’re so quick to criticize books > film as an audience I don’t think we tend to appreciate the MASSIVE challenge screenwriters/directors face in the process. Having recently watched the 2020 Emma., and being about as unimpressed as I thought I would be (not with the visuals – those were super fun), I keep going back to my favorite 2009 BBC adaptation with Romola Garai in the title role.

Honestly, it’s probably THE only adaptation where they get Harriett’s character right…

It’s 4 hours compared to 2 which should be noted, but Sandy Welch does an excellent job with every series for which I have seen her adapt a story for the screen.

Bringing it back, I’ll probably go back to The Da Vinci code and watch the movie just to see what Tom Hanks was so excited about. Although reading the book… I think Dan Brown was imagining more of a Chris Hemsworth type than a Tom Hanks for his protagonist.

We all have dreams, don’t we, Dan Brown?

greta, thou hast surprised me

Color me wrong. The best kind of wrong.

There were many happy surprises throughout a film that I was prepped not to like, but found myself charmed instead. It reminded me a bit of the book > film adaptation Mansfield Park (1999) which fills out the heroine’s personality (Fanny Price) with characteristics of the story’s author (Jane Austen). A huge deviation from the book, but something that works for one of Austen’s most criticized heroines.

There’s flecks of Louisa May Alcott’s actual life peppered into Jo’s story in the film (her meetings with her publisher) which rely less on the source text of Little Women and more on the actual journey of Alcott as an author. Not a bad choice considering I think the book, overall, is a bit more saccharine than Alcott seemed to be herself.

A friend tipped me off that the story was told in a non-linear fashion, events unfold out of sequence and the movie does a great deal of timeline hopping. This actually reminded me of my initial reading of the novel when I was in high school. I was given the SECOND installment of Little Women, published under the title Good Wives in 1869, as a gift and read it without knowing it was the first half of Alcott’s now famous tale of the March sisters. Much as this reading experience didn’t affect my appreciation of the story – neither did the this choice for the film. A technique of which I am usually skeptical, but Gerwig uses it effectively. One example is with Professor Bhaer.

He’s the first man we meet in the film as it works it’s way back to him again. This gives the audience more familiarity with him than in the book where he can seem like a tacked-on love interest after Jo’s rejection of Laurie. That’s my take on it anyway. If you’re looking for a more in-depth reason as to why Prof. Bhaer is so dreamy in this version I think The Cut covers that pretty well here. And I agree with Gerwig’s choice.

I think the 90s version still has my, overall, favorite casting choices. I won’t harp too much on comparing one film version to another as this is a novel > film comparison, ultimately. I think each adaptation brings it’s own strengths/weaknesses to the table. HOWEVER, if you want a good laugh that will leave you wondering if some critics ever bother to read the source material you can always click here to see why one man thinks what I consider an OK adaptation is OMFG THE BEST EVER. He pretty much hates everything Greta did with a vehement passion and offers no justification tying it back to the actual novel. He says Gerwig “settles for sentimentality.” Classic. Um, have you even *read* Little Women, bro? It’s sentimental AF. Why is that a bad thing? ROTFL. #endrant

Other than that, the reviews I found online were mostly favorable. Mine being one of them. I could go on about casting choices (surprised how much I enjoyed Emma Watson as Meg in this, Gerwig really seemed to bring out her acting chops and not just rely on her Emma Watson-ing), but I think I was pleased with most of them. The actors played well off each other and the sister-dynamic that is so crucial to the telling of Little Women was present and accounted for. Amy was much more grounded in this, but I attribute that to a slight rewriting of her character and less on Florence Pugh’s performance. Another change I didn’t mind.

I think if an audience member comes into this film with no expectations and fresh eyes it can be an amazing experience. I didn’t think a new version of this story was needed. Now, I’m glad we have this one in the canon. I think Gerwig made it just different enough to introduce a new generation to the March sisters and renew an interest in Alcott and her legacy. I just wish the previews didn’t make it seem like such a feminist manifesto, save for a few bolder scenes (Amy’s speech about marriage to Laurie), the film is much more nuanced than that (Jo’s speech to her mother about being independent, but also lonely <— REAL LIFE).

I recommend Little Women (2019) right up there with my other favorite version(s) of the film. Oh yeah, the book is pretty great too.

little women (the preamble)

Today I was asking a friend of mine whether or not she’d ever read Louisa May Alcott’s Little Women or seen any of the film adaptations. She had not! A very exciting prospect to consider, coming to such a well-known text with no prior impressions. What a treat!

She then said she always prefers film adaptations which stick closest to the book.

Slightly disagree. I can’t say I entirely agree. There are too many differences in the way a story is told to justify the idea that “the book is always better than the film.” As previously explored in my post about The Art of Adaptation there’s many reasons why major changes to a source text can result in a successful film. So long as the heart and characters of the story remain intact, I’m happy.

Of the 3.5 versions of Little Women I have seen, the 1990s adaptation with Winona Ryder us my favorite. I didn’t even finish the most recent, gritty, BBC series… 30 min. in and it just didn’t feel like Little Women. As for the most recent theatrical release in the U.S., I have avoided it. From what I can tell, feminist anachronisms abound and I am not about that. The Alcott’s were mold breakers in their own time and I prefer to keep their attitudes in context. But hey, I’ll give it a go today and see if it surpasses my expectations.

more horse talk

The second half of The Horse Whisperer certainly lost its momentum. It’s one of those books that’s easy to read (I got through it in just under a week), but I’ve been putting off this review because I didn’t like it. So, not sure if I was really aching to write this post. The prose of the book isn’t even bad! Aside from some awkward sex scenes, but then, I don’t even read romance novels so I may not be an authority on what makes a GOOD sex scene.

I will say this, I enjoyed the movie far more. This was one of those rare instances where the movie was definitely better than the book. Fight me, this film came out in 1998. Where the movie succeeded and the book didn’t, to me, was making the focus not Annie, but Annie and Grace’s relationship. There’s an equal weight to both of their arc’s. Come to think of it, I don’t even think Annie has an arc in the book. She starts out a selfish, controlling woman who continues to be selfish and controlling up until the end, cheats on her husband and gets pregnant by the man she “truly loves.”

Everything is all well and good in her world when all you want is for her to nose-dive off a cliff.

The only sad part is when Tom is trampled by a herd of wild mustang (actually super random and kinda funny) and dies. Really, he should be thankful, he would have had to spend the rest of his life with one helluva woman.

The film keeps Tom alive at the end and has Annie “doing the right thing” and going back to her family. Sure, the story doesn’t have to end on a moral high note, but I think it felt like a more natural ending to this saga, otherwise, what was that all for? Going back to my Gone With the Wind analogy, it’s not like at the conclusion of that story where Rhett’s walking away, and you get it, but there’s a small part of you thinking: “But they should be together! I don’t know why because she’s terrible, but they should! ”

Nicholas Evans, I am way late to this gravy train, but this book was not the business.

horse update

For a book I bought on a whim and have had sitting around my apartment/in boxes for the better part of two years. I’m actually surprised at how much I am enjoying The Horse Whisperer. I’m not always too keen on titles that make the bestseller list (either because I’m too hipster, out of the loop, or buried in old books). This does go down pretty easily – as popular fiction tends to do.

For anyone who doesn’t know what this book is about – After her daughter (Grace) is left disabled and traumatized in a riding accident, a workaholic mother (Annie) whisks her daughter and her hopelessly shaken horse to Montana, enlisting the help of a quiet rancher who’s known to work miracles with horses.

I will say, this book does seem pretty of its time. Annie’s one of those career women of the 90’s that I see emulated in my own mother. Grace is of the headphones and MTV generation. I have no love loss with Annie – I don’t like her – which makes me wonder if she’s supposed to be one of those Scarlet O’Hara type figures that you love to hate. The thing is, I like Scarlet as a character, I can’t stand Annie. I probably identify all to well with Grace. Maybe that’s the rub. And the fact that Annie’s behavior will somehow be rewarded with Hot Cowboy Guy (Tom Booker) somehow being all into her and her strong lady routine while her Good Man husband (Robert) sits forlorn in their New York apartment… MAN, is this book ever British!

The author, Nicholas Evans, was a screenwriter/producer up until he published this book. Although today. I was thinking about Nice Work by David Lodge, which I had to read in my undergrad, and then it hit me, “Ah yes, the typical representation of unhappy marriages where there is 0 communication as to what is causing the actual unhappiness.” The foothold the British Literature/Drama. I’ll probably have this finished within the week and have watched the 3 HOUR film adaptation starring and directed by Robert Redford. Hopefully then, I’ll also be able to tell you why in God’s blue Montana sky they felt the need to make a film that long with a such a bare bones premise.

Bestsellers

Years ago, a friend of mine and I had the idea to start a list of New York Times Bestsellers Through the Decades and read down the list. The list was meant to start from a decade back and move up to the present… 2016. Needless to say, we didn’t get very far, at all. The only one we did manage to read was The Martian by Andy Weir which, if I remember correctly, I did review on this blog when it was published. Not a huge fan, but it was popular enough to be made into a film so that made me think about bestsellers and how reflective they are of the time in which they are published. We’ve had Mars fever for a while, but only in recent years does it seem as though we’re getting close and closer to actually touching its surface with human beings. Mars is in the public conscious.

Also, think about it, Gone With the Wind was a hugely successful bestseller in 1936 followed by the equal success of its 1939 film, but would that get made today? Maybe, but the direction would certainly be different.

Here was our list:

2015 THE MARTIAN – Any Weir (READ)

2005 THE DA VINCI CODE – Dan Brown

1995 THE HORSE WHISPERER – Nicholas Evans

1985 LAKE WOBEGON DAYS – Garrison Keillor

1975 RAGTIME – E. L. Doctorow

1965 THE SOURCE – James Michener

1955 BONJOUR TRISTESSE – Francoise Sagan

1945 THE BLACK ROSE – Thomas B. Costain

1935 VEIN OF IRON – Ellen Glasgow

2016 (Let’s Bring it Home) THE BURIED GIANT – Kazuo Ishiguro

^ This list is the only reason I own a copy of The Da Vinci Code and The Horse Whisperer. Do people even talk about these books anymore? Remember what an absolute stir Dan Brown caused? Meanwhile, Gone With the Wind is still talked about in all its controversy. So, why do some of these books have staying power and some don’t? Surely, they were culturally relevant at some point. If you look at the list, some still ring a bell, others are almost completely forgotten to the modern reader.

I think I’d like to get back to the list and ask myself the same questions as I read. Honestly, though, I hate holding myself to a strict regiment – so I might just hop around. I’ll start with the books I already own, at least! Maybe I’ll add the decades missing. I think I’ll start with The Horse Whisperer. I’m dying to know what all the whispering is about, 1995 here I come!

The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact And Fiction Into Film

For those who don’t know me, I hate research. Okay, I don’t HATE research, but I’m not a huge fan of it by rigid academic standards where they want you to show your work like in a math problem. I’m far too free of a sprit when it comes to what I read and consider research. “Reasearch-y” type books with stilted academic language drive me crazy. So, when I picked up The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact and Fiction Into Film by Linda Seger from the shelf of my university library I gave it a mad side eye.

I’m not going to act like I know everything there is to know about writing. I don’t. I have a blog I barely update, 1 degree (and coming up on another in “creative writing” – whatever that means) and most of what I write remains either in the slush pile somewhere or between the pages of my journal. What does that mean? I read more and write more and read more and write more. Gotta get better in the meantime. By the “meantime” I mean the space in which I avoid writing my dissertation.

Seger’s book was written in the 1990s so it’s a tad outdated – and almost hilarious with how much Seger talks about a potential The Phantom of the Opera (based on the Lloyd-Webber musical) film adaptation. Oddly enough, most of her suggestions were addressed in the subsequent 2004 adaptation. She talks about Field of Dreams a LOT as an example of an adaptation that made some significant changes, but still was a successful translation to the silver screen. And I’m a firm believer in films still being true to the book and decent translations of the original text even if they veer here and there. Hey, I even have/had a podcast about it! But that’s MIA right now…

What I like most about Seger’s approach though is, she’s been in the trenches, she’s been consulting on scripts herself since 1981 so she’s not just theorizing what does and what does not work. You can kind of tell the authors of these “how-to” books who have never actually done the job themselves. They use “perhaps” and “quite possibly” a lot…

Nah, in my mind, something either does or does not work, and that’s the approach Seger takes. The first 4 chapters alone detail why specific genres defy the transition to the screen: Why Literature Resist Film, Why Theatre [sic] Resists Film, Why the True-life Story Resists Film etc. Brilliant. Start with what doesn’t work. ANNNND the whole book runs just over 200 pages. No need to wax on.

I think my other major take aways are her discussions on style and tone and the need to clearly establish these in the beginning of a film/screenplay. Film is a different medium than a novel, you don’t have as much time to rest on your laurels in exposition (I’m looking at you Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them). And a change in style or tone mid-film can alienate an audience and throw them off. She didn’t use this as an example, but Howl’s Moving Castle by Diana Wynne Jones, for one. The book is set firmly in the realm of fantasy until midway through the main character, The Wizard Howl, steps into the real world. In Hayao Miyazaki’s film of the same name the entire story remains firmly rooted in fantasy and it’s wonderful. A shift in the middle would have made it feel like a different film entirely.

What I’m trying to say is, if you want a good, no-nonsense approach to adapting something into a screenplay, this is a good read OR if you’ve ever watched an adaptation of one of your favorite things and thought, “This… doesn’t work…” and can’t figure out why, Seger probably has the answer.

 

The Birth of a Podcast: Pride & Prejudice

Ever wonder what two women with degrees think about some of the popular adaptations of great works of literature?  Now is your chance to find out by listening to the It’s Not That Terrible podcast where me and my pal Camilla tear apart and analyze literary classics and their film adaptations.  This episode features commentary on Jane Austen’s Pride & Prejudice (everyone’s favorite) and its 2005 film adaptation (not everyone’s favorite) directed by Joe Wright and starring Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen .

Click Here to download the first episode.  Special thanks to Ace Garcia for our music.

Up next:  The ever popular and currently over-blown The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien.

Atonement

Maybe I should read the book before I actually do a review on the film, but no one ever wrote these rules down so I think I have every right to break them.  I doubt the literary police will come knocking at my door.  With this review (or rather personal critique) I am expanding my blog to include reviews of films based on works of literature.  Today’s feature is Atonement by Ian McEwan (film directed by Joe Wright screenplay by Christopher Hampton).  I always wonder what the process is when a screenwriter writes a book, it becomes widely read, and then someone else writes the screenplay.  One would think that it would be a natural progression for the original writer to adapt his own work of film, but then, I’m not in the business of making films.  What do I know?

Look at how deep and broody they are ^

I’m not going to bother with much of a plot summary because my pet peeve in reviews is when people spend half of it on plot summary.  Did no one take high school English?  Basically it’s this: Sister sees older sister with childhood crush.  Younger sister gets jealous and pins horrendous crime on said crush as revenge.  Spends rest of movie “atoning” for sin.

I should have known from the reviews that I would not care for this film.  When I was looking it up on Netflix I saw someone post something to the effect of, “If you love The English Patient you’ll like this film!”  RED FLAG.  I love me some British drama.  I love me some good acting.  I don’t love me some pacing problems.  I can even handle the artsy-fartsy long-shots and brooding close-ups and scenes that are meant to illicit an emotional response without the proper set-up,  now and again.  However, I’ve found that when screenwriters (and directors) take a lengthy novel and attempt to adapt it to the screen (especially one with such gravitas as Atonement) they get so caught up in capturing the same weight of the novel that some of the effect is lost in translation.

I have one of those DVD players that lets you see the time of the film as you watch it.  Meaning I can see the timer at 30mins when I’m thinking, “What’s the conflict in this movie? Where is this going?”  There’s a lengthy set-up and this slow and delicate pace carries through the rest of the film.  Through war, rain, sleet and snow.  Not to mention a lack of focus (i.e.: which character am I following and whose story is this?).  I imagine, in the novel, the story belongs to both sisters, but in the film it may have been beneficial to narrow it down to Briony (Romola Garai) since the second act seems to be going in that direction anyway and the film certainly ends on that note.  I know I’m suppose to feel for Cecilia (Keira Knightley) and Robbie (James McAvoy), but I don’t.  I really don’t.  I didn’t spend enough time with them and I really don’t think there is enough time.  Even in a 2-hour film.  The moments we spend with Briony are so powerful that we should have been given more time to see her perspective and her plight in the intermittent years.  As it stands, she only reappears after “the incident” with about 45 mins left of film!

The acting is fantastic, the cinematography is wonderful, but oh that writing and oh that direction.  Thanks Joe Wright, I am sufficiently drained.