From page to screen

You never know what's going to happen when Hollywood adapts a novel or play to the big screen. Fans of the original work often brace themselves against what they fear is going to be a commercialized, unfaithful adaptation of a beloved story. Other people, perhaps more inclined toward watching movies than reading books anyway, feel no such apprehension. As a general rule, I have found that the book is better than the movie. But what about when this is not the case?

Two movies leap to mind as being better than the book on which they were based: The Silence of the Lambs and The Godfather (also The Godfather, Part II, which was based on the same book). Each of those movies won the Academy Award for Best Picture, in 1991, 1972 and 1974, respectively. This got me to thinking: How many Best Picture winners are better than the book? I realize that this is an entirely subjective determination and not every movie is even based on a book, but my new project for 2010 is to read the book, watch the movie and then decide which is better.

The three aforementioned titles are the only ones I can check off the list straightaway, but there are a few others (All Quiet on the Western Front, Hamlet, No Country For Old Men) where I've read the book and only have to watch the movie. Speaking of No Country For Old Men, I checked it out from the Dartmouth library yesterday and finished it this afternoon. It was my first Cormac McCarthy novel, and I really liked it. The ending threw me a bit, but hopefully it'll sit better once I digest it more fully. I'm looking forward to watching the movie, and especially to seeing Javier Bardem's Best Supporting Actor-winning performance as Anton Chigurh.

Merry Christmas Eve!