It's crazy how much the movie has overshadowed the book, to the point where I bet most people aren't even aware of the book even if they've seen the film. The Wikipedia page is a great example. How many adaptations get the URL with no addendum, while the original novel gets _(novel)?
The movie is in the running for greatest American movie made; so much of it is so very good, and so many things went exactly right. The book, as others have said, is a pulp potboiler; no serious critic would place it on a list of 1,000 best novels.
Funnily enough, Die Hard is similar. It’s a great action movie, legendary and timeless. The book on which it’s based is awful.
It’s so rare that this happens, when usually it’s the reverse — a great book is made into a bad or mediocre movie. The true exceptions — great books made into great movies — seem vanishingly rare to me. Off the top of my head I can only think of a few: Lawrence of Arabia (from The Seven Pillars of Wisdom), The English Patient, The Name of the Rose. Apocalypse Now from Heart of Darkness, perhaps?
* The Silence of the Lambs
* The Shining
* Shawshank Redemption (novella but I'll allow it)
* Brokeback Mountain (same)
* No Country for Old Men
* Little Women (there are a few versions to choose from but I would choose the 1994 adaptation myself, thought he 2019 version was very good)
* Requiem For a Dream
* Lolita
* Roots (mini-series but I think we should allow it)
That's what I can think of off the top of my head.
...
Lush Life by Richard Price
The Godfather by Mario Puzo
V by Thomas Pynchon
...
I don't know why everyone has to crap on that novel every time the movie comes up. Much of the movie is a straight copy from the book, including plenty of word-for-word dialogue reuse. The book does have a couple of subplots that are embarrassingly bad, though--almost as if Puzo felt the need to tack on some halted novellas he had in his drawer.
It's not a bad book -- but it IS a pulp novel, Puzo would absolutely admit that. The fact that a decent, but by no means extraordinary book, would go on to be the basis for one of the greatest films of all time is such a rarity (Gone with the Wind is probably the only other similar situation and that novel was probably better critically received in its time than The Godfather was, although it has understandably fallen out of favor today), that it is notable.
Adaptations are tricky and although it is very common for a sublime piece of literature to become a mediocre film, and somewhat common for a fantastic book to become a fantastic film -- it is rare for a film and a screenplay that are inarguably among the greatest of all time to come from a book that would likely not be memorable without the film.
Everything about The Godfather should have been a failure. From the casting, to the production, to the monetary situation at the studio, to the lawsuits, to the source material. But it's a near-perfect film. And that sort of anomaly coming out of such chaos (again, Gone with the Wind is probably the closest similarity when it comes to English-language film) is almost as remarkable as the film itself.
> Adaptations are tricky and although it is very common for a sublime piece of literature to become a mediocre film, and somewhat common for a fantastic book to become a fantastic film -- it is rare for a film and a screenplay that are inarguably among the greatest of all time to come from a book that would likely not be memorable without the film.
I think The Shining is a great example of a good book, while the movie is one of the best horror movies ever made. And yet, reportedly Stephen King hates the Kubrick film. As someone who enjoys both, I simply think he’s wrong and I guess as the author he will always come at it with a unique viewpoint.
These are also great in my opinion (book as well as film): The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, and Jurassic Park.
This is so subjective. I’ve seen people jerk themselves silly over Heart of Darkness and it is so ordinary. It is the epitome of “tell, don’t show”. I can’t believe something so mediocre is considered a classic.
The English Patient - didn’t read it but the movie is pretty terrible. Exactly nothing interesting happens for 3 hours.
Reasonable people can disagree, but at least don’t present these examples as universally acclaimed books and movies.
Heart of Darkness doesn't show or tell you what the actual horrors are, as far as I remember. Isn't it kind of psychological horror that only hits you after you finish it and then start really reflecting on what probably/possibly happened?
I think it's a bit of a weirdly paced novel though, and from recollection it's really easy to miss certain implied meanings if you miss a single sentence or so towards the end.
You realize that the core story of Heart of Darkness has become countless reinterpretation like Apocalypse Now, right? I mean, how bad can it really be if it spawned an entire motif of sorts?
As for English Patient - look, you might not like romantic sagas, but it's rather flippant to call it pretty terrible given the awards it won. Clearly someone enjoyed it.
I had to re-read your comment originally because I thought you were naming more great movies but poor books lol excellent choices! Agree with all three.
Was The Name of the Rose a better book or movie though, not sure.
Heart of Darkness was a way better book, I mean it was published 120 years ago and people still talk about it, the only thing I think people really remember from Apocalypse Now was loving the smell of napalm in the morning.
I do remember more than that about the movie. It really impacted me.
It's funny that I started reading the book many years later, not knowing that it was the inspiration for the movie. I realized almost half way through the book.
they almost made a movie out of Survivor, until shortly after 9/11 something that has a catastrophic suicidal plane crash in it became a no-go zone for movie studios.
I don't know if you've read it, but if you haven't it's a pretty odd choice to make a movie out of. It's closer to pulp than it is literature. Not that there is anything wrong with that, you can't live on michelin star restaurants and can get by with the occasional big mac combo meal, but given how feted the movie became, the novel is somewhat underwhelming.
It’s unambiguously a pot boiler, intended as a beach read. In fact I encountered the paperback, a couple of years after it was issued, at someone’s beach house on a shelf full of potboilers (Michener, Susann, etc). 11 year old me was scandalized by the sex scene in the first chapter.
I haven't read "The Godfather" but the films are truly fantastic. That said there are several other examples of adaptations that outshine the original - "Shawshank Redemption", "Bladerunner", etc. Among recent productions there's many readers who say "Station Eleven" was better than the source material.
Naw, King's novella "Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption" was totally solid in its own right before the movie. Same with "The Body" and its earlier subsequent "Stand By Me". Both of those from "Different Seasons".
Kind of easy to overshadow a book that is so poorly written. I've heard rumors that Coppola was pretty discouraged after reading the book and had no clue how to make it into a good movie.
"The film also brought Minnelli, daughter of Judy Garland and Vincente Minnelli, her own first chance to sing on screen, and she won the Academy Award for Best Actress. With Academy Awards for Best Supporting Actor (Grey), Best Director (Fosse), Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Sound, Best Original Song Score and Adaptation, and Best Film Editing, Cabaret holds the record for most Oscars earned by a film not honored for Best Picture."
If you read the book, you will see that Coppola really didn't have to do a lot of adapting for the movie. It's pretty much all there.
My problem with The Godfather is that it makes Italian gangsters look like some chess-playing intellectuals, when in reality they were the crazy low-lifes that you see in Goodfellas.
When seeing his picture on his Wikipedia page, I think when Tarantino was asked: how do you want Travolta to look in Pulp Fiction, he probably said: like Cazale in Dog Day Afternoon.
We can't say definitively how it would have turned out if Kubrick did finish it but apparently AI is much closer to what Kubrick intended than many people give it credit for. I personally really like the movie but I know it's quite divisive.
it has the same signature mechanics but it's really the plot that ultimately gets people to watch it, I mean if Clockwork Orange's main plot descended into some weird orgy ring for the rich (I admit Korova Milk Bar was a prelude to a certain degree), without any identifiable struggles of the common human experience, it might have been written off.
The problem in my view is that EWS's failure was in that most people just didn't identify enough with the characters or their struggles other than a superficial 'affluent married couple with divorce lawyer on speed dial with illuminati'.
In fact, it's just become a favorite topic of conspiracy theorists that have largely decoupled from the story line, and in my view, simply did not do Kubrick justice since an artisan or creator's final work is always scrutinized. I remember large parts of the movie being edited out which allegedly enraged Kubrick and put him at odds with producers.
A lot of people strongly disagree with my comment, but I stand by my opinion. I genuinely like almost all of Nolan's and Coppola's works.
The Godfather is absolutely timeless, and I totally get why people love it so much. I like it too, and feel Interstellar hits like the Godfather in that same class of movies that capture both the anxieties and nihilism of current culture.
Tangent: anyone else confused by that title? Of course it "almost never" happened, mathematically speaking, if we assume time is infinite, because almost everywhere in time it wasn't happening except for this brief moment in the 1970s.
Whatever you may think of Gianni Russo's tales in his book and interviews his story of how he, a non-actor, got a major part in the Godfather is a classic:
Anyone read Puzo's "The Last Don"? It's a very thinly veiled statement about his experience with the studio over this. Of course he doesn't say that's what it's about, but boy is it obvious.
It wasn't supposed to be – Coppola made it because Paramount said either he could make it, or they could give it to someone else, but they were going ahead with a trilogy.
Coppola and Puzo wanted it to be its own film, titled "The Death of Michael Corleone," and believed (rightly) that a duology of Godfather films based on the original novel was the right decision.
When you get around to it, for the third part, watch The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. Its a recut of the third part that improves on the pacing of the original cut.
Its a fantastic trilogy. If you become a super-fan, there's also a complete chronological cut that is ~10hrs. :)
That will be a fascinating experience: we've had decades of film and TV made either me-too or as a riposte to the films - and The Sopranos was the latter - so it will probably land very differently for you to people who saw it before Casino, Goodfellas, Sopranos, etc.
I moved into a new house last summer and every time there's a new problem I look for The Money Pit on one of the 5 streaming services I subscribe to but haven't found it yet :/ It's so good. I hate The Godfather too.
I don't love "The Money Pit" at all, but I really enjoyed the scene where Hanks' character becomes trapped in the carpet-floor-hole and his gasping/agonizing is mistaken by the inspector as laughter.
There's a series called The Movies That Made Us, and the thing that stuck with me, is that so many of these movies have the constant theme: a million things came up lucky for these movies to have been made and be the success it was. e.g. Home Alone almost didn't have Joe Pesci or the score or the fact it was actually supposed to be cancelled mid-production, and on and on.
The technology is almost there in terms of AI and deep fake so that in the future we'll able to ask for a remake of a movie with another (CGI) actor, dead or alive (licensing permitting) or ask it to generate a new episode of a tv show "I want an episode of Columbo but with Brad Pitt and he kisses Jason Momoa in a scene".
Michael Hudson (Harrison Ford) has spent his professional life trying to escape the shadow of his much more successful eccentric fraternal-twin brothers Ed (Steve Martin) and Anthony (Jeff Goldblum). After a few too many drinks with his commiserating co-worker Barbara (Felicia Day), he finally hatches the plan to end all plans before his upcoming retirement--as long as President Collison (Tim Meadows) doesn't get wind of the scheme first.
I'm not sure if we've seen the same movie, but between the first and the second film, the lives of every[1] single person involved are completely ruined.
[1] With the possible exception of Johnny Fontane, who can't help but fail upward, and Enzo the baker, who got his immigration issues sorted out.
The whole lesson of gangster films is centered around regret and the tragedy that befalls the family. It's actually a good test on people and their views of status. If someone emulates gangster bravado, it reveals a lot about them and how they've missed the entire point of the genre.
Sure, but it is a bit like Truffaut's observation that anti-war movies end up being pro-war. Maybe the "point" of the Godfather movies is that being a gangster is bad, but along the way it makes the mafia look really cool.
When/if you're done reading, please tell me who defends the little guy when both the legislators and enforcers are corrupt and/or willing to turn a blind eye?
> When/if you're done reading, please tell me who defends the little guy when both the legislators and enforcers are corrupt and/or willing to turn a blind eye?
Not murderers, racketeers, and traffickers, that's for damn sure.
The movies weren't intended to, but audiences came away with an intended respect for the mafia; indeed, trying to hammer home the message that Michael's life is a disaster was the motivation for the ill-fated Godfather 3.
