Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!

[Eric Paddon]

That is the line I was thinking of, and since you've pointed out that it is in the book then I must apologize for accusing the screenplay authors of composing it. It is a fair point to suggest that a new Gentile Christian not steeped in the notion of Christ as Messiah fulfilling Jewish prophecy would not grasp that point, though the counter-argument would be that Peter or those Christians who are preaching the faith to him (as Jewish Christians) would have considered it an obvious point to make at the outset.

[mkaroly]

LAURA by Vera Caspary (1942/1943). Detective Mark McPherson is assigned to investigate the murder of Laura Hunt, an independent and wealthy advertiser who is at the peak of her career in her thirties (and unmarried). She was found shot in the face in her home. McPherson interviews several people she knew: Waldo Lydecker, an overweight, flamboyant writer and socialite who helped Laura on the way to the top; Shelby Carpenter, the immature man Laura was to marry; Bessie, Laura’s sassy housemaid; and Ann Treadwell, Laura’s eccentric aunt. Everyone loved Laura because of Laura’s generosity and beauty, and all are shocked at her death. In the process of his investigation McPherson becomes obsessed and begins to fall in love with the memory of Laura. And then one night, while he is struggling to piece together the clues he has uncovered at Laura’s home, something unexpected happens that changes everything.

Caspary’s novel is an absolute blast to read; it is sensual, sinister, and downright suspenseful all the way up to the end. The novel is divided into five parts; each part is told from the perspective of a particular character in the story: Waldo Lydecker (Part 1), Mark McPherson (Part 2), Shelby Carpenter (Part 3), Laura Hunt (Part 4), and Mark McPherson again in the climax when the case is solved (Part 5). Caspary changes her writing style in each Part to reflect the character’s personality who tells the story, and this adds a great deal to the strength and power of the story. The desirability and independence of Caspary’s heroine comes though well; as I read the story I felt myself becoming as curious about Laura’s past and the mystery of her death as McPherson was. Laura comes across as her own person; she has strength and power. She is able to navigate through a male-dominated industry and succeed. As the story moves forward and the narrative takes its different twists and turns I imagine most people will begin to suspect everyone at one point or another; it is a credit to Caspary’s writing skill and how she very effectively draws the reader into Laura’s world. The plot twists are also very effective.

The character revelations are also fascinating: middle-aged Waldo Lydecker is so flamboyant one may immediately think (stereotypically) that he is gay, but he was Laura’s former lover. He runs people down with his words, loves expensive things, and is arrogant to the core. Shelby Carpenter is a loser and a two-timer who feels uncomfortable that he does not make as much money as Laura (his betrothed). McPherson is an interesting character in that he isn’t really a hardboiled detective but one who is thoughtful and more open to emotions and “feelings” than most detectives in novels of this time period. As the characters reveal a little more about themselves and their dark, sinister sides come to the fore (resulting in building suspicion on the part of the reader), the book gets more and more difficult to put down. This book is a murder mystery, a love story, and an exciting character study whose climax is brutally suspenseful and, at the same time, very tragic. This is well worth the time to pick up and read.

Otto Preminger directed the screen adaptation of the novel in 1944. It starred the hypnotically gorgeous Gene Tierney as Laura, Clifton Webb as Waldo Lydecker, Dana Andrews as Mark McPherson, Vincent Price as Shelby Carpenter, and Judith Anderson as Ann Treadwell. The film is known for David Raksin’s score as well as Gene Tierney’s performance as the title character. The film is mostly faithful to the book but deviates from it in a few significant ways. The weapon used to do the killing is changed in the film (which itself kind of changes the sexual subtext of the film from the novel…kind of). The characters change as well in some ways; for one, Waldo Lydecker is overweight in the book. While Clifton Webb’s appearance looks more like what I thought the character looked like in the novel before being told he was overweight, I do think the physical change of the character in the film makes Waldo somewhat different.

Laura is very sexualized in the film as an object of desire, but very little is emphasized concerning her independence and power, traits critical to her character in the novel. There are moments in the film in which Laura does assert herself as an independent woman who can take care of herself (such as when she picks up the phone to call Shelby in defiance of Mark’s orders, or when she answers Mark during an interrogation sequence, or a few of her responses throughout the film), but in emphasizing her beauty and sexual allure over her independence the film does not fully fill out her character as the book does (and I believe there was a clash between Preminger and Caspary over what he thought made Laura feminine and what Caspary thought made her feminine…male view of femininity versus female view of femininity…but don’t quote me on that). The character of Mark McPherson is also somewhat different between the novel and the film. In the film he comes off as more boyish and hardboiled than he does in the book in my opinion, though to be honest it is very difficult to “show” the inner journey of a character developing obsession over someone in a film. I do not know that Vincent Price was the best choice for Shelby Carpenter, and the film changes Ann’s character dramatically (she is not as sickly and eccentric in the film as she is in the book, and she outwardly lays romantic claim to Shelby at one point in the film, though I do not think that is suggested in the book). There is a scene between Shelby and McPherson in Laura’s country home that did not occur in the book either.

The film and the book are both enjoyable experiences, though I do prefer the book over the film. The book is better because it can describe the inner thoughts of the characters – in that way it is a more intimate experience. It is more seductive, more sinister, has more bite to it, is more intriguing and just reads better than the film “views.” That is not to say I dislike the film – the film is a classic and I still enjoy watching it. The dynamics of the film are somewhat different due to the changes the filmmakers made as described above, but the film is still very entertaining. And the ending of the film does build tension very well as the murderer is revealed. There is more I could discuss but I will close by saying that both the book and film are worth your time.

[mkaroly]

JURASSIC PARK by Michael Crichton (1990). Paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant and paleobotanist Ellie Sattler are recruited by Jon Hammond (founder of InGen Corporation) to come to Isla Nublar (an island off the shore of Costa Rica) in order to explore the very special “biologic preserve” which he has created. Grant and Sattler are joined by a lawyer (Donald Gennaro) and a chaos mathematician (Ian Malcolm) because several strange deaths related to animal attacks have occurred on the island and in Costa Rica. All are shocked to discover that Hammond and his people have successfully found a way to clone dinosaurs, and the island is full of them – including two Tyrannosarus Rex and several Velociraptors. Although no expense had been spared in building the park and making sure it was safe, science’s attempt to control nature falls chaotically apart when a computer programmer (Dennis Nedry) commits an act of industrial espionage while Hammond’s guests (also including his two grandchildren, Lex and Tim) are touring the park. All hell breaks loose as humanity tries to survive against nature run amuck.

For those people familiar with the blockbuster movie, the novel may come as something of a shock to the system, for its tone is radically different than the film’s tone. Crichton’s book is very sinister and terrifying from start to finish. There is very little humor in the book (and what humor is there is very dry) as Crichton addresses the dark sides of science, entertainment, capitalism, and human/science ethics. The action set pieces in the park are very gripping – from Grant’s and the kids’ harrowing escape from a T. Rex on the water to Ellie’s fight with Velociraptors in the compound. The book builds tension and never lets up until the very end. Crichton does get preachy through the voice of Ian Malcolm who explains over and over again to everyone that natural systems cannot be controlled. For example, Hammond’s geneticist Dr. Henry Wu has done all he can to genetically engineer and create dinosaurs (think Victor Frankenstein here) to make them all female so that they cannot breed, but by filling in the dinosaur DNA strands with amphibian DNA Wu had made a horrible error as the dinosaurs, somehow, are able to breed. The warning that just because science and humanity can do something does not mean either should do it permeates the whole novel. Hammond’s greed, arrogance, selfishness, and inability to accept responsibility make him arguably one of the most repulsive characters Crichton has ever created – much more of a monster/threat than any dinosaur. JURASSIC PARK is reflective, entertaining, and disturbing as a book and very much worth reading.

Steven Spielberg made a movie in 1993 based on the book, and what an incredible film it was. I myself saw it six times in the theater on its initial release – seeing dinosaurs on screen that looked so lifelike and believable was an absolute joy for me. John Williams’ score captured the sense of awe, amazement, and danger associated with the park and its creations, and I still enjoy listening to it. Spielberg certainly remained faithful to the book in many ways, but the biggest changes he made concerned characters, the addition of humor, and a focus on making the story more entertaining. In other words, Spielberg significantly lightened up the material contained in the book, and he dramatically changed the character arcs of Dr. Alan Grant and John Hammond. In the book Dr. Grant is a widower, likes kids, and is not romantically interested in Ellie Sattler (who herself is engaged to be married to a physician). In Spielberg’s version Dr. Grant does not like kids and is romantically interested in Ellie Sattler. Thus Dr. Grant becomes a typical Spielbergian male protagonist (like Indiana Jones or John Banning or Ray Ferrier, for example), a self-absorbed, immature character who has to go on an epic journey of sorts to “grow up” and mature into the ideal Spielbergian male: one who finds happiness, maturity, a sense of responsibility, and fulfillment in marriage and fatherhood.

There are many other deviations from the book in the film. For example:

-Hammond is not the arrogant, evil person from the novel. Rather, he is a well–meaning but misguided adult “child” who comes to realize his errors and accepts some level of moral/ethical responsibility for what he had done in creating Jurassic Park. He thus becomes something of a sympathetic character in Spielberg’s film, nothing like the John Hammond of the book.
-The fates of Ian Malcom, Donald Gennaro, John Hammond, and Muldoon are all different in the film version are all different than the book version.
-In the film Donald Gennaro is both a lawyer and the book’s character Ed Regis.
-In the book Lex is younger than Tim, and Tim is the computer expert. In the film Lex is older than Tim and is the computer expert.
-The ending of the film is radically different than the book. Spielberg wanted to give the T. Rex the final say (and hero’s exit) in the film; in the book Grant, Sattler, and Gennaro find a large Velociraptor nest…and that is all I will say about that!
-The film leaves out several park sequences in the book (such as the T. Rex boat river chase, the aviary [which I think shows up in JURASSIC PARK III], the Compy attack on the little girl [which shows up in THE LOST WORLD], the discovery of the Velociraptor nest, and the baby T. Rex material, Grant’s battle with the Velociraptors in the hatchery, and the defense of the lodge from attacking Velociraptors). I imagine some of these sequences were left out due to budgetary concerns, feasibility of filming, and because you can only fit so much into a two hour movie…not a big deal.
-In the book the sick animal the tour group comes upon was a Stegosaurus, not a Triceratops (Spielberg changed that in the film because the Triceratops is his favorite dinosaur).

Watching the film again, it is far from perfect. At times it is very sloppy with its continuity. For example, during the helicopter flight over to Jurassic Park Hammond is clearly sitting opposite Ian Malcom; once the helicopter lands, Hammond is sitting across from Donald Gennaro. During the egg hatching scene the mechanical hand mysteriously disappears in an edit while the baby Velociraptor pokes its head out. Then there is the egregious oversight of Ellie Sattler running out of the bunker (after having brought all the park’s defenses back on line) and grabbing a fence door that clearly (according to the signage) should have been electrified with High Voltage. Finally, there are a couple of scenes in which windows on cars have condensation on them followed by no condensation and bright blue skies. To be fair, I did not notice these things until after I had seen the film multiple times; they bother me a bit now but do not take away from the sheer entertainment value of the film. I will say, however, that the crack about sexism between Sattler and Hammond comes off as a forced addition to the script, and I have always thought that Sattler’s “butt shot” as she runs to Alan Grant is extremely goofy could have been filmed in a less objectifying way. Spielberg’s version of JURASSIC PARK is a great example of how a well–established filmmaker takes material and crafts it according to his thematic visions and idioms. Spielberg is not a “dark” filmmaker at heart, and his film version of the book clearly reflects this. The film continues to be wildly entertaining and well worth watching. If you want something darker, read the book.

[Eric Paddon]

Advise And Consent by Allen Drury

-Allen Drury was a Washington correspondent for AP and the New York Times whose coverage of the US Senate led to his first novel, "Advise And Consent" which became a phenomenal best-seller and won the Pulitzer Prize in 1960. It used the story of a controversial nominee for Secretary of State to give readers a sweeping and satirical look at the Senate and its inner workings as well as the broader Washington political and social scene. Interestingly, Drury never once refers to either political party by name, it is simply "The Majority" and "The Minority" though in 1950s America, it was obvious that "The Majority" meant the Democrats as the Republicans had been a diminished Congressional party since the early 1930s and Americans were used to thinking of the balance in those terms. And almost all of the book's major characters belong to "The Majority" which offers a reminder of how the Democratic Party used to be comprise of many factions that have disappeared in the decades since!

-Robert Leffingwell, an intellectual liberal who has headed several Federal agencies is nominated by the President (who is never named) to be Secretary of State. It's up to the Senate Majority Leader, Bob Munson of Michigan to try and shepherd the nomination through the Senate where Leffingwell is despised and hated by old Senator Seab Cooley of South Carolina who sees Leffingwell as the embodiment of evil and who also holds a personal grudge against him. Leffingwell is clearly well-liked by the liberal establishment of the press but on the whole is viewed cautiously by other Senators who don't like Leffingwell's haughty attitude. That includes those committed to supporting Leffingwell like Munson, Senate Majority Whip Stanley Danta of Connecticut and opponents like Orrin Knox of Illinois. Leffingwell also has a fanatical supporter in young, impulsive and maniacal Senator Fred Van Ackerman who has become the head of a growing peace organization that favors accommodation with the Communist bloc based on the slogan, "I would rather get on my knees and crawl to Moscow than die under an atomic bomb." (The name of the group is COMFORT, "Committee on Making Further Orders For a Russian Truce!"). And then there is young, well-liked Senator Brigham Anderson of Utah who finds himself unexpectedly heading a subcommittee to look into the Leffingwell nomination.

-During the hearings, an awkward witness named Herbert Gelman emerges charging that when he attended the University of Chicago when Leffingwell taught there, he and Leffingwell and a man known as James Morton were part of a Communist cell group. The haughty Leffingwell, who has already left some Senators unimpressed with his philosophical views on how he would handle foreign policy, angrily denies Gelman's charges and soon seizes on an inconsistency that leaves Gelman destroyed. But crafty Senator Cooley soon discovers that "James Morton" is in fact a prominent figure in the Commerce Department where Gelman now works and can confirm that Leffingwell, rather than confront his past which might have been just a youthful indiscretion, chose to lie to the Committee instead. Cooley orders Morton to confess to Senator Anderson, who as sub-committee chair can block the nomination from proceeding. Anderson, offended by Leffingwell's attitude and deceit wants the President to quietly withdraw the nomination. But the President, in his second term and dying, refuses to budge and failing to buy Anderson off with political gifts is soon willing to resort to duplicitous methods of his own (he sends Morton overseas so he can't be present to testify). And then, when circumstances conspire to lead the President to discover that Anderson has a secret of his own in his past (a one month homosexual affair during the war with a fellow Air Force flyer), he is willing to have the volatile Van Ackerman publicly threaten exposure of Anderson's carefully concealed indiscretion. Shattered by the realization that his marriage and career will be over with the exposure, a despondent Anderson commits suicide in his Senate office, but not before leaving a letter to his closest friend in the Senate, Senator Knox of Illinois, who angered by what has happened soon takes charge to insure the final defeat of the nomination.

-"Advise And Consent" was first adapted for the Broadway stage in 1960 and then Otto Preminger bought the movie rights and the film was released in 1962. The film boasts an all-star cast and is notable for being Charles Laughton's last film (as Senator Cooley) and of course film music buffs know it as the movie that ended Jerry Fielding's time on the blacklist. The film out of necessity is forced to streamline much of Drury's novel. The most significant change in the film is how the character of Senator Orrin Knox, who is the most vital figure in the final part of the novel (Drury divides his novel into four "books" and assigns them to a different character to reflect their prominence at this point in the action. Book One is "Bob Munson's Book", Book Two is "Seab Cooley's Book", Book Three is "Brigham Anderson's Book" and Book Four is "Orrin Knox's Book") is reduced to a very minor character played by television actor Edward Andrews. In the novel Knox serves the role of the outraged avenger of Brig Anderson who makes sure that not only will Leffingwell go down, so too will the President for his role in hounding Anderson to death (the novel had a backstory of how Knox, driven by ambition to be President had lost the Convention battle to the President seven years earlier; there is a climactic scene where the dying President pleads with Knox to let the nomination go through and he'll now back Knox for President at the next Convention). Knox also serves the role of Drury's conscience on American Foreign Policy in the Cold War era, which is decidedly conservative and takes the view that the Soviet Union is not to be trusted and that the "we must seek accommodation" postures of those like Leffingwell represent a danger to America's well being. To emphasize this point, Drury shows the Soviet Ambassador as a condescending figure whose attitude basically confirms the instincts of those like Knox.

-In the film though, this part of Drury's story is softened considerably. The decided conservative foreign policy tilt of the novel is watered down and in the process this also goes a ways toward why Orrin Knox becomes ultimately the most expendable major character of the novel. Robert Leffingwell, who is a more shadowy figure in the novel by contrast is given a more human face in the persona of Henry Fonda. Drury never shows us Leffingwell alone or lets us enter his private thoughts. By contrast, we see Leffingwell at home with his young son, Eddie Hodges as a loving parent and a man who is idealistic and sincere in his liberal vision of foreign policy. And critically, when Leffingwell is first confronted by Gelman, he goes to "James Morton" and pleads that they make a clean breast of it, but "Morton", concerned about his own reputation, tells Leffingwell instead to seize on Gelman's inconsistencies and destroy him. Even after doing this, Leffingwell, ashamed that he lied asks the President (Franchot Tone) to withdraw his nomination and he makes a confession to him. But the President after hearing this still wants Leffingwell in the job and won't withdraw him. This attempt to humanize Leffingwell is commendable on one level, but it also sets up an inconsistency in the film narrative in that you have Leffingwell in effect being pushed into lying by "Morton" but then we have to pick up with the book's narrative of Cooley getting to "Morton" and forcing "Morton" to confess to Brig Anderson, setting up the other events in motion. The matter of how Leffingwell was boxed in by this never comes up again in the film narrative and in the end it leaves a plot hole that wasn't part of the original story narrative.

-Related to this change is that the President is not the ruthless figure of the novel. While he does send "Morton" out of the country he has nothing to do with the blackmailing of Anderson which is a pure Van Ackerman operation. George Grizzard hardly seems like the kind of person capable of commanding such a ruthless group of henchmen to do such dirty work, but I suspect Grizzard was cast simply because he doesn't come off as a man worthy of being a Senator. Unlike the novel, Van Ackerman doesn't make a public speech threat to expose Anderson, it's all done behind the scenes, but when he's found out, he simply slinks away as befitting the weak figure he is.

-If the film softens the conservatism of the book's foreign policy, the film is more conservative on the matter of Anderson's sin, which is probably more due to Production Code standards of the day. Drury's take on Anderson's homosexual affair is drawn in sympathetic terms. In the film, Anderson is ashamed of what he did and in another change from the novel his ex-lover had been harassing him before agreeing to be bought off by Van Ackerman's men (he is still bought off in the novel, but he did so because of poverty. In the novel, when he learns of Brig's suicide, he himself commits suicide too by jumping off a bridge).

-Some other aspects of the novel stayed, such as Senator Munson's (Walter Pidgeon) affair with attractive DC socialite Dolly Harrison (Gene Tierney), the handsome womanizing Senator Lafe Smith (Peter Lawford; the book has him from Iowa, but this was changed to Rhode Island which made more sense) and the Vice President, Harley Hudson (Lew Ayres) who isn't seen by the dying President as a man capable of taking over the job. The near elimination of Orrin Knox meant the loss of another subplot involving his son's marriage to Senator Danta's daughter. Preminger also opted for a more dramatic ending regarding how the final vote on the nomination comes out than how Drury depicted it where Leffingwell's defeat is a foregone conclusion by the final act of the novel.

-The film is a good representation of most of the major aspects of the novel, but because the undercurrent regarding foreign policy was changed, it's easy to understand why none of Drury's five sequel novels to "Advise And Consent" written between 1962 and 1975 were adapted into films since as the series progressed (and I might add Orrin Knox became an even more important character!) the foreign policy debate that tore America apart in the 1960s was mirrored in Drury's novels from a decidedly "Silent Majority" perspective. I'd note that Drury also established himself as the Bernard Goldberg of his time in being a member of the working media who understood perfectly the biased nature of the press corps and the dangers to American society posed by the biases of the press. This shows up to a degree in "Advise And Consent" but it explodes with a vengeance as the series progresses. Liberal critics who were willing to praise "Advise And Consent" generally ignored all of Drury's subsequent novels, despite the fact they were all bestsellers, precisely because they didn't like the message of them. But I think if one were willing to give Drury's entire "Advise and Consent" series a try, one would find some refreshingly different takes on events of the 1960s (Drury's third novel "Capable of Honor" gives us a bitterly divided Convention over the matter of a Vietnam style war taking place in Africa complete with violence and he wrote this BEFORE the chaos of 1968 Chicago) as well as some lessons for today that are still relevant. In the novel just before his suicide, Brig Anderson contemplates on how he and Robert Leffingwell are alike in wanting to cover up their past sins, but the difference is that because Leffingwell stands for the "right" ideas favored by the press and other powerful establishment forces (one could easily substitute the term from today "The Deep State"), his sins are to be ignored whereas because Anderson stands in the way of their agenda, anything goes. That Anderson could be harassed by the forces of the Left over homosexual behavior has a kind of eerie prescience to the hypocrisy we see today on similar matters (look at the attacks on Lindsey Graham recently from some quarters).

-I should before ending this lengthy discourse note one intelligent aspect of the film's casting with Henry Fonda as Leffingwell and Charles Laughton as Senator Cooley. The two men hated each other in real life stemming from their experience when Laughton directed Fonda in the Broadway production of "Caine Mutiny Court Martial". It ends up lending an underlying authenticity to the frosty distance in the two times they're on camera together. Laughton deserved an Oscar nomination for his performance (Preminger's original hope was Spencer Tracy; Charlton Heston, in his journal admitted that after being offered the part of Brig Anderson, which went ultimately to Don Murray, he angled for the part of Cooley simply because it would be so challenging and different! Heston thankfully was turned down on that point).

[Eric Paddon]

The Taking Of Pelham One, Two, Three by John Godey.

-This is a case where the film improved on the novel by taking all the great parts it had to offer, trimming away all the fat (some of which was in extremely bad taste), and augmenting it with some subtle changes that resulted in movie that strikes the perfect balance of serious caper and situational humor. This is ultimately the reason why the original novel is pretty much forgotten compared to the movie because while a lot of what made the film is great there, the things that made the film a classic are still missing and required the creative touches of Peter Stone's final script to pull everything off.

-Godey's novel is structured so that he jumps around from the inner thoughts of one character to another. He might at one point be focusing on a hijacker and then he might jump to one of the hostages. The problem is that after a bit this means that we have to see a LOT of rather tedious and tasteless back stories about some of the characters (like for instance the hooker hostage) that grind the narrative to a halt. Where it works best is offering some backstory on how the hijack scheme was hatched which we never learn in the film. Ex-motorman Longman and ex-mercenary soldier Ryder happened to meet each other in the Unemployment line to collect their checks and that was how one thing led to another. The hijack idea is tossed out by Longman more as a way to try and ingratiate himself to Ryder (since Longman is a loner without friends and is trying to make an impression) and it then appeals to Ryder's sense of adventure which has been missing a good deal since there are no more wars he can fight in at this point.

-Biggest difference with the film is the principal Transit copy character is the black Lieutenant Clive Presscott, a sharp dresser and failure as a would-be basketball player. The Lieutenant Garber character we see in the movie was a minor figure in the novel, essentially the Jerry Stiller Lieutenant Patrone character (but with even less to do). This ends up creating a good deal of racial tension social commentary when Presscott has to take control of the TA Command Center to communicate with the hijackers to the distaste of trainmaster Frank Correll. Presscott soon gets so exasperated with Correll he even pulls his gun on him!

-The novel breaks down in its final sequence where Godey tries to be too "realistic." Presscott never leaves the Command Center to confront the hijackers in the tunnel. We just get a rather pedestrian written shootout where the Chief Inspector Daniels guns down Ryder just as he's about to blow away the undercover hippie cop who jumped off the train and took out one of the other hijackers. And ultimately when Longman is apprehended at the tag of the novel it's by a detective character who isn't introduced until the final 20 pages.

-Peter Stone's script utilized the novel's lines and sequences to craft a brilliant, taut storyline that is both dramatically compelling and funny all at once. So much of the dialogue and set-up pieces in the film come out of the novel but end up having a whole different bite to them the way Stone refashions them. Stone also was responsible for the clever conceit of the hijackers referring to themselves only by color-code names, "Mr. Blue", "Mr. Green," "Mr. Gray", "Mr. Brown." He also simplified the disguises (in the novel, the hijackers wear dissimilar disguises when boarding the train and then early in the going switch to putting nylon masks on which would not have worked cinematically). Another small change that helped the script is that in the novel, the motorman Denny Doyle is kept among the hostages and gunned down later while conductor Bud Carmody is released to take the passengers in the other cars back to 28th Street. Stone reverses it so the motorman is released, the conductor remains a hostage and is eventually killed. The brilliance of this switch is that it allows Walter Matthau to correctly deduce that one of the hijackers has to be a former motorman since if the motorman had remained a hostage, he would have thought they needed him to drive the train.

-Which brings us to the change of the black Lieutenant Presscott to the Jewish Lieutenant Garber. This was not originally planned since the earlier draft of Stone's script has the Presscott character. Apparently they were not able to get a star black actor for the part which is why they turned the sidekick character of Garber (he had all the Jerry Stiller dialogue in the earlier draft) into the lead cop and the new character of Italian Lieutenant Patrone inherited the earlier Garber dialogue. In the end it works better since we don't get the unnecessary racial tension of the novel and we also get the great byplay between Matthau and Stiller. The film's lone remaining vestige of the Presscott character was to make the Inspector Daniels character black. This allowed an amusing exchange Stone first wrote for the white Daniels when he sees Presscott for the first time after talking to him on the radio and reacts to his being black by going, "Oh, I thought you were ahhhh.....". Here the joke is transposed to Garber's reaction when he meets the black Daniels for the first time.

-Interestingly, Stone's earlier draft for the climax initially followed the novel where Blue (Ryder) is just gunned down by Presscott and to simplify matters further Longman is captured at the scene so its all wrapped up there. The final shot was to show a weary Presscott buying a newspaper and walking home at the end of the day. This was improved on in the final version which gave us a confrontation moment in person between Garber and Blue and culminated with Blue's dramatic suicide by stepping on the third rail. And of course there is that oh-so-memorable ending of the film stemming from the recurring gag of Mr. Green's sneezing, which I remember Stone saying on the Criterion commentary track for "Charade" that he came up with by recycling the recurring bit of Ned Glass's character sneezing in that film.

-Robert Shaw is not at all the description of Ryder (Blue) in the novel, who is a much younger man and is American, but Shaw is perfect in the part bringing the right blend of methodical ruthlessness and just a hint of madness. THe other actors in the hijacker roles, Martin Balsam, Hector Elizondo and Earl Hindman are the perfect embodiments of their descriptions in the book and you can say the same of the other supporting characters too like trainmaster Frank Correll (Dick O'Neill), the bedridden Mayor (Lee Wallace) and the forceful deputy Mayor LaSalle (Tony Roberts). David Shire's score and the location photography complete the picture of capturing the image of New York as a city in decay in the mid-1970s.

[AndyDursin]

Great review Eric, I've long wondered how the book stacks up! Sounds like another adaptation along the lines of JAWS where the screenwriter chucked out the fat and really boiled it down to the essentials.

[Johnmgm]

Wow, what a great analysis! I have the book and for whatever reason, never got around to reading it; now I’m glad I didn’t waste my time.

The original film is one of the best of the 70’s and the final scene is perfection.

The remake, with John Travolta and Denzel Washington is terrible (despite a good performance by Washington-a great actor who picks a lot of crummy scripts) but sounds a little closer to the book.

[Eric Paddon]

I've never seen the 2009 remake but I did have the misfortune of seeing the late 90s TV remake with Edward James Olmos and Vincent D'Onofrio when it aired and it was amazing how deadly dull it was despite the fact that it was practically following Stone's script verbatim (albeit cleaned up for television. It also didn't help that they shot this in Toronto which makes a poor stand-in for New York!). I really don't understand why anyone ever considered it something that needed to be remade because the story is really a product of its time in early to mid-1970s New York when the city had declined dramatically. It just doesn't work divorced from that context (though I assume the 09 version drastically reinvented the plotline considerably).

Great comparison Andy with the improvements made in "Jaws". The difference is if you read the "Pelham" book you'll recognize many of the lines and dialogue that are in the film but you'll end up appreciating how a brilliant writer can make those same lines so much better as Stone did in the adaptation. The "Jaws" script ultimately has very little to nothing in terms of dialogue that comes out of the original novel.

[Eric Paddon]

Postscript on "Double Indemnity".

Eric, if you ever do decide to read Double Indemnity, I'd love to hear what you think. For all I know I might be the only one who thought the ending was weirdly artistic in its own way...lol...the thrill of the book is that I didn't see it coming, and when I finished I immediately remembered that key piece of dialogue earlier in the story which then made me think about the ending, Phyllis' character (as well as Walter's), and the darker arc of the story as a whole. The book's ending is memorable for how unexpected it was, but the film's ending is just flat out moving, almost to the point where I cry. Big difference.

Well thanks to my new Kindle device I was able to go through the book. I admit I wasn't expecting something this short, and if you only know the movie as I do (it's really the one piece of film noir I consider a true classic; most of the time, noir just doesn't quite land with me no matter how much I try), it will also be a big surprise. There's almost nothing of the film's dialogue in the book (I've gone back and read more about the production and seen how Chandler convinced Wilder that it just didn't work on screen) and there are a lot of other differences too (I had to laugh when Huff describes having a "Filipino houseboy" who is never named).

The ending I agree I wasn't expecting. The strange thing is that Phyllis is when you get down to it a much bigger monster in the book than she is in the film in terms of just how much she's really guilty of, and yet the book ultimately gives her an almost softer persona than what we saw from Stanwyck in the film.

[mkaroly]

Eric, glad you got to read the book! I really enjoyed it and appreciate the differences between it and the movie. Phyllis is much more of a monster in the book than in the movie, as you said.

[mkaroly]

PLANET OF THE APES by Pierre Boulle (1963). In the distant future a couple is taking a relaxing, romantic ride in space when they come across a bottle floating outside their spacecraft. The couple retrieves it and discovers a manuscript written by journalist Ulysse Merou. He was an astronaut who, along with lead scientist Professor Antelle, young physician Arthur Levain, and a chimpanzee named Hector had journeyed from Earth in 2500 AD to the far reaches of the galaxy toward a gigantic star called Betelgeuse in order to study it. There they discovered a planet which they chose to investigate because it so closely resembled Earth in every way. They landed on this planet (called Soror) and discovered humans there (including a very beautiful woman named Nova), but the humans behaved like uncivilized wild animals in every way. It did not take long for Ulysse and his team to discover the horrifying secret of Soror: simians ruled the planet, and humans were hunted like animals. Ulysee and Nova are captured and brought to a laboratory for study. There Ulysse meets Zira, a chimpanzee scientist who, along with her fiancée Cornelius, help to secure Ulysee’s release once they discover his intellect. Although Ulysee enjoys a period of celebrity among the simian population, a discovery made by Cornelius at the archaeological site of an ancient city coupled with some revelations in an experiment (as well as an unexpected surprise from Nova) put Ulysse, Cornelius, and Zira in great danger.

I have been a huge fan of all things related to Planet of the Apes since I was a kid. While I absorbed the movies, TV show, and cartoons like a sponge absorbs water, I did not read the original story by Pierre Boulle until I was an adult. The book upon which the Planet of the Apes universe is based is one of the most entertaining, imaginative, and thought-provoking works of fiction I have ever read. The book is divided into three parts, and it is the third part which is the most chilling. The story is grounded in scientific discovery, evolution, intelligence, theology, and the quest for purpose and meaning. One of the most interesting aspects of the book is how it basically holds up a mirror to humanity, reflecting how arrogant and condescending it can be toward other creatures. Ape society is very much like human society – they travel in cars and airplanes, run shops in “modern” cities, and have a societal hierarchy of leadership where orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas are represented and have their general “place” amongst each other. Ulysse comes across as very arrogant at times even though the reader becomes sympathetic to his situation. The most chilling and horrifying aspect of the book is the discovery of evidence that explains how simians and humans “changed places” as dominant and submissive species on the planet Soror. Boulle’s writing is extremely good as he builds suspense through each stage of revelation toward the climactic revelation of how apes came to dominate the planet. Culminating in a double twist ending, PLANET OF THE APES still has relevance for our time and context.

In 1968 Franklin J. Schaffner made the book into a film with a screenplay written by Michael Wilson and Rod Serling, and to me it is an absolute masterpiece. It will always be my favorite APES film among the nine films that have been made based on the Apes universe. With stellar performances by Charlton Heston, Roddy MacDowell, Kim Hunter, and Maurice Evans, APES excelled at everything. I especially loved the costumes and make-up which, to me, hold up better than the CGI costumes of the recent redux as well as Tim Burton’s attempts (though his were good too). Jerry Goldsmith’s sparse but powerful score holds up well as it complements the on-screen action and atmosphere. The outdoor scenery is fantastic, especially in the first thirty minutes of the film as Taylor and his companions seek to find civilization amidst desolation and dwindling rations. The entry of the apes in the film still holds up as one of the great reveals in cinematic history. The characters in the film have different names than the book’s characters. Dodge is a scientist who seeks knowledge (kind of like Professor Antelle), Landon seeks fame/immortality, and Taylor is a selfish and arrogant character who journeyed into space in order to escape humanity, hoping upon his return that humanity had evolved beyond its love of war. I honestly cannot find a flaw in the film at all...it has earned its status as a classic.

The film does use the foundation of the book for its narrative, but it differs from the book in some ways. For example, in the book ape society is just like human society – they use cars, planes, own shops, live in large cities, etc. In the film ape society is much more primitive. The film is very much anti-war at its foundation (especially as evidenced by the film’s climax) whereas the book is not. While the film retains the quest for scientific knowledge as well as the tension between scientific and religious truths as found in the book, it is much more skeptical and focuses on humanity’s lack of evolution. The film’s climax is just as shocking to me as the book’s climax, though both are different. The ending of the film ties into the anti-war undercurrent of the film whereas the book’s ending is just a surprise I wasn’t expecting. In the book Ulysse gains celebrity among the apes and wins his freedom after he is allowed to tell everyone at a public congress where he came from; there is no such thing in the movie (though this part of the story is recycled and reversed to an extent for ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES). The explanation for how apes evolved and took over the rulership of the planet from humans is not really there to a significant degree in the movie (though humanity’s penchant for violence and war is provided as a foundational clue). Dr. Zaius’ knowledge and use of theology to keep the real truth from being exposed play a part in both the book and the movie as well. The book’s explanation of the above is much more specific and chilling (in my opinion), providing the “missing link” between the human era and the simian era on the planet. I would argue that this part of the book’s story in some ways provided the inspiration for the narrative of CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. There is more I could talk about but at the end of the day I love both the film and the book for what they are; both are thought-provoking and entertaining and both help me appreciate the other. I cannot really explain how big of an impact seeing PLANET OF THE APES made on me as a kid; along with the ALIEN and Bond franchises, APES ranks up there as a cinematic universe I can return to over and over again and be thoroughly entertained each time.

I will watch the Tim Burton film here soon and comment (briefly) on it as an addendum to the above.

[Eric Paddon]

Final addendum on "Double Indemnity." I've seen the classic film many times so after going through the novel I decided to take a second look at the forgettable 1973 TV-remake which is included as a bonus. It's hard to believe that these kind of remakes of classics were more commonplace back then but that's a testament to how the original films were not easily accessible to the public in the pre-home video era. Redoing a classic was thus considered an "event."

Strike 1. The TV remake has to fit a 90 minute format (these were the days when the 90 minute TV movie was commonplace) so that means we have to get some streamlining that leaves two big gaps in the narrative in that it never explains how Walter Neff slips away from his apartment to the Diedrichson house or gets back unnoticed.

Strike 2. Although they hired Stephen Bochco to do the teleplay, he recycled as much of the original film script as he could and in the process revealed a few other things. First, early 1970s America was a vastly different world from mid-1940s America and in taking a plodding literalism to the remake it created awkward bits of shoehorning that only highlighted the silliness of trying a remake. #1, we have to establish that Mr. Diedrichson is afraid of flying to justify the fact he'd take a train in the first place. #2, we have to invent the conceit that in a day when passenger rail service was by now just Amtrak that a "new" line would create an ananchronistic throwback like a rear observation car, something you'll *never* see on an Amtrak of any kind. #3, because men didn't wear hats any longer by the 70s and because train service would only go from Union Station that means Neff in "disguise" is walking in plain sight in front of dozens of people in the open instead of with his hat down at a darkened local train station. And finally, #4 the whole manner of speaking is still 1940s style that is so out of place in the 70s. It just proves that if you're going to do a remake you need to reimagine things completely and not try to echo the original so much.

Strike 3. The cast just comes off as poor imitators of the original except for Lee J. Cobb who proves a worthy successor to Edward G. Robinson in the Keyes role. Samantha Eggar is drop-dead sexy when she makes her entrance in a towel but after that proves how she's not in Stanwyck's class. And Richard Crenna fails to make his take on Neff distinctive.

[mkaroly]

March Madness is upon us, so here is my addendum to the POTA review above...

PLANET OF THE APES (2001). I remember being very excited about a Tim Burton directed POTA reboot, and I remember generally liking the film when it initially came out. I thought it was visually outstanding, and I enjoyed Danny Elfman's percussive score (I still feel the same on these two points). I thought it was cool that Burton paid homage to the original film by including Linda Harrison and Charlton Heston. But I saw this film without having read the original book back on the day. Watching it this morning I have to ask the question: what does this film contribute to the lore of the POTA universe, if anything? And my answer is, unfortunately, that it contributes nothing to the POTA universe...and that is its biggest flaw. I remember being upset that the film chose to break the 'Ape shall not kill ape' foundation of simian society. But that law was not in the original book; it was an invention of the original movie series, so I cannot hold that aspect of the film against it.

What I can say about Burton's film is this: it has next to nothing to do with the original book. As I said above, it is an homage to the original film. Burton's offering reverses character names (Nova is now a chimp; Heston plays an orangutan) and dialogue but has very little to do with the book. The narrative is not very cerebral at all - yes, it does mention "animal" rights and points out the ills of enslavement, the need for tolerance, equality, etc., but really this film is nothing more than an action/adventure film with an unsympathetic villain and a dull hero. This movie is more concerned with time travel paradox than it is with science, theology, or the way in which apes evolved to become the dominant species of the planet. All of that is fine and good except that it makes for a very dull film that missed an opportunity, in my opinion. Even the twist in the climax, while making a general nod to the first twist ending in the book, falls a bit flat for me.

I genetally like Mark Wahlberg, but his character is just so dull in this movie...his performance is really flat. I also found Thade's character to be cliched as a villain; maybe I missed it, but why the intense hatred of humans? He seems to be clueless...unlike Dr. Zaius in the original POTA. I also found the pouty arrogant kid wanting to be a part of everything (and ultimately putting the Master Plan in danger due to his rashness) eye rollingly cliche. I still like Elfman's score here and there - it is cool to listen to with heaadphones. Burton's POTA just kind of stands with one foot in the POTA universe and the rest of its body outside of it. It is its own thing that ultimately doesn't quite fit in for me. The original 1968 film and Boulle's book are both far more interesting than Burton's offering.

[mkaroly]

RISING SUN by Michael Crichton (1992). In Los Angeles, at the American corporate headquarters of a Japanese company named Nakamoto, a gorgeous young woman is murdered during a grand opening celebration. Lieutenant Peter Smith of the Special Services division is called to the scene to act as a liason between the Japanese and American police force. He is accompanied by John Connor, an older policeman who is an expert in Japanese customs and has been on an extended leave from the department. What seems at first to be a straightforward murder investigation quickly becomes a complex mystery full of lies, deception, and misdirection as Peter and John weave their way through media, politicians, and the Japanese themselves to find the truth. At the heart of the case is an American company (MicroCon) whose sale to Nakamoto means big gains for the Japanese as well as huge losses for American technology. The key piece of evidence is a missing videotape of the murder shot from a surveillance camera in the building that someone desperately wants and will stop at nothing to get it. Peter and John find themselves in a race against time to solve the case as the powerful forces around them converge to bring an end to their efforts.

Crichton’s book is, as always, a page turner despite its darker subject matter. There are several twists and turns throughout the book making the story read at times like detective noir books (THE BIG SLEEP, for example). Despite all the turns Crichton is able to keep them in balance and tie them all together by the end brilliantly. The book is written in a way in which the reader feels the pressure the characters are under, and although no one in the book is a saint it is easy to root for the two protagonists in the story (Peter and John). The book’s primary focus is on industry and how America had been selling itself away to foreign competitors, how America needs to look after itself and be wiser in its economic and trade choices. To the Japanese business is war (according to the book), and with different cultural/societal norms than Western countries, the tension between American values/customs and Japanese values/customs in the book can be tangibly felt while reading the story. American–Japanese relationships (and the underlying distrust and “racism” exhibited by both toward the other) thus provide the sinister and dangerous backdrop against which Crichton tells his story. I enjoyed RISING SUN but it does have a provocative edge to it that might not be to everyone’s liking.

The film version of the novel was made in 1993 and directed by Philip Kaufman who is also credited with the screenplay (along with Michael Backes and Michael Crichton himself). One of the biggest changes the film version makes is to cast an African American actor in the role of Peter Smith (now called Webb Smith) in order to play on the theme of racism. In the book the racism occurs from both the Japanese attitude toward Americans (or anyone who is not Japanese) and the American attitude toward Asians (as especially exemplified in the behavior of a police officer named Graham). In the film, with Webb Smith (played by Wesley Snipes) being African American, the racist commentary extends to issues between whites and blacks mostly. Frankly I think this was a huge mistake which provides some very awkward and silly moments/dialogue in the film. As a matter of fact, there is one sequence in which Webb and John Conner (played by Sean Connery) drive through a “bad neighborhood” in which Webb enlists the aid of some African American/Latino friends to help get the Japanese off their tail. Needless to say but this was not in the book…it sticks out like a sore thumb in the movie. I get why they made this change (black and white issues more in context with the film-going audience), but I do not feel it did justice to the book.

There are a couple of things I did enjoy about the film. First, I really enjoyed Sean Connery’s performance; I felt as if he embodied the character of John Conner from the novel very faithfully in every way. I applaud his performance. I also enjoyed Toru Takemitsu’s score – it is not intrusive but provides an atmospheric backdrop against which the story unfolds. I will give credit to the film for being generally faithful to the book for a little more than half the film. But then the wheels fall off, and if you have read the book and then watched the film you will likely have more than a few WTF? moments as the movie works its way to the end credits. I found myself absolutely livid with some of the outrageous changes the filmmakers made to the story (and Crichton needs to be blamed for some of this too). I hesitate to give a lot of detail in order to avoid spoilers, so I will try my best to give a few examples without spoilers:

-the ending is nothing at all like the book for they changed the identity of the killer…kind of. Or at least they leave it somewhat open based on a line of dialogue toward the ending. It radically undercuts the monstrosity, the sadness over the woman's death, and the literary artistry of the revelation/confrontation that is in the book. The crime is horrifying in both book and film, no doubt; but the book's ending shows the absolute monstrosity of the killer within the context of the book's themes much better than the movie did. The filmmakers made a horrible choice here in my opinion.
-the book is very character driven with very little action. Yet in order to, I suppose, make it more palatable for audiences, the filmmakers include two martial arts sequences (hey, the movie is about Asians, right?) that are so dopey and poorly executed/choreographed as to be laughable and disgusting all at the same time (sorry Wesley…your moves are awful). These scenes were completely unnecessary and an example of filmmakers trying to sell more tickets.
-the book is told from Peter Smith’s point of view. It is basically his statement for the police record. Oftentimes John Connor goes away from Peter in order to do something or do extra leg work, which in the book adds an air of mystery to John’s character as an enigmatic figure. I understand that for a film you cannot have your two big stars in a “cop buddy” movie be doing things separately. However, in keeping the two characters together for almost all of the film the writers had to invent situations for them to explain those characters being together. In my opinion, this really hurts the drama and suspense of the apartment showdown sequence later in the film as compared to the book. It also hurts the relationship between Peter and Theresa (a technician who helps them solve the murder mystery by analyzing the videotapes [book]/laserdisc [movie]). But the filmmakers screw up the whole Peter – Theresa relationship by the end of the film anyway in a ridiculous way.
-there is a scene that revolves around a gift the Japanese give to Connor (a golf club membership) in the book and movie which the filmmakers changed. In the book Connor understands what the gift is (and it is paralleled to a "gift" of a new house which is offered to Peter) in the context of relationships and the investigation. Connor explains things to Peter. In the movie the gift to Connor is used as an opportunity for Peter to say something about race (if I heard the dialogue correctly). Connor gets a lesson from Peter...and that undermines Connor's character since he is the expert in Japanese relationships. It really irritated me.

In condensing the book’s narrative the filmmakers had to move things around and let some sequences go, and I understand that. But again, it ruins the dramatic flow of the story, and in this case the filmmakers did not improve on the source material. I guess that is my biggest complaint with the film overall. The book reads like a rough and edgy detective noir; the film barely achieves any kind of noir standing. It ends up being more of a “cop buddy” movie that has a lot of night scenes. Stylistically the settings are not very atmospheric but dull compared to the book. The film isn’t gritty but just kind of “there.” I am very disappointed with this adaptation, especially with the ending of the film. I laughed when I shouldn’t have and was livid at things the filmmakers didn’t want me to be livid about. Read the book and skip this piece of ridiculous garbage.

[Paul MacLean]

I also enjoyed Toru Takemitsu’s score – it is not intrusive but provides an atmospheric backdrop against which the story unfolds.

Takemitsu was a master of "understatement", and this score was one of the best of the 1990s. His end credits music for Rising Sun is a masterpiece as far as I'm concerned, with its clever blend of noir-like jazz, Japanese colorings and ondes Martenot.

Hiring Takemitsu however struck me as Phillip Kaufman trying to impose a "foreign art film" sensibility on Rising Sun -- though he clearly didn't have the same respect for the composer which Japanese directors did. Kaufman had portions of Takemitsu's score "re-written" by someone else -- which greatly affronted the composer (in Japan, film composers have far-more creative say, and in many cases also design / supervise the sound effects). This, along with the rejection of Takemitsu's gorgeous music for Jim Jarmusch's Night On Earth (a year earlier), soured the composer on ever working in American cinema again.