Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!

[Eric Paddon]

Here's a case where I read the book and where I don't want to rewatch the movie.

Viper Three (1972) by Walter Wager.

-A SAC nuclear missile silo is seized by four escaped inmates from Montana's death row. The leader of the group, Lawrence Dell, on death row for the murder of his wife, is a former SAC Major who used to work at the base and knows all the commands inside out to be able to seize the missile and cut it off from the outside world. Dell and his group of unstable inmates demand $10 million in ransom and safe passage out of the country AND they want the President of the United States as a hostage to insure their safe passage.

-This is what became the 1977 film "Twilight's Last Gleaming." Except Robert Aldrich decided to make Major Dell, a former General and decided his motive was that he knew too much about American crimes in Vietnam and wants the President to release a Top Secret document in which America will admit it fought in Vietnam, knowing they couldn't win, just to show the Soviets how tough they were. In the process, a taut suspenseful story in which the President and his aides must figure out what to do to defuse the crisis without endangering American security is ruined in a sea of anti-American speech making and pretentiousness. Which was a tragedy because the novel is loaded with great, suspenseful moments in which the ramifications of the missile seizure ends up inadvertently THWARTING a hostile Soviet move on West Berlin because the US raises their alert status owing to the seizure but it made them look tougher to Moscow than they expected them to. Dell, it's implied was wrongly convicted for murdering his wife but the novel unfortunately doesn't delve too deeply into this point as they should. I'd note also that because we are spared the awful political subtext Aldrich slapped on it, we get a more positive ending where Dell and one of his fellow inmates (the others now dead at this point) are finally ready to surrender to the President, who is waiting at the top of the elevator, with the ransom money.....but Dell is by this point tired of the whole thing.

-Could have been a great film but Aldrich ruined it. Although I wish the novel had delved a bit more into the characters and not ended things a little too abruptly it was very well done.

[mkaroly]

THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR by R.A. Dick (pseudonym for Josephine Aimee Campbell Leslie), written in 1945, tells the story of a romantic relationship that develops between Lucy Muir and the ghost of Captain Gregg. Lucy Muir is a widower and mother of two young children. For most of her life her identity has been dictated by her husband and his in-laws. One day, after the death of her husband and during the period of mourning, Lucy decides to leave her in-laws behind, go out on her own with her children, and assert her independence. She takes her family to Whitecliff and there falls in love with a home by the sea called Gull Cottage. She discovers that it is haunted by the ghost of one Captain Gregg who was thought to have committed suicide in it. Over the course of the novel Lucy and the Captain develop their relationship while Lucy tries to maintain her independence in a world that doesn't necessarily think it is appropriate.

I will confess up front that I am a HUGE fan of the movie; it is one of my all-time favorites and so it was very, very difficult for me to read the book and not think of Rex Harrison or Gene Tierney throughout. Be that as it may, I did enjoy reading the book even though at times it was awkward and uneven. The book is divided into four parts: part one covers Lucy's move to Whitecliff and the discovery of Gull Cottage (and Captain Gregg); part two develops their relationship as well as introduces Miles Fairly Blane, a living romantic interest for Lucy (more on that below). Part three tells the story of Lucy's need for money and the Captain's offer to dictate his life story to her (the novel's name is BLOOD AND SWASH) so that she can sell the book for financial gain. Part four brings the novel to a close in which Lucy must deal with her grown children and the travails of getting old. The scenes that work the best in the book are between Lucy and Captain Gregg; it is clear there is a romance developing between the two of them, and there are some really well written passages of dialogue between the two (damn near poetic). The book engages in some spiritual discussion, and the ending is very moving. I do have criticisms of the book, but I will discuss them in the context of the movie.

THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR was made into a film directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz with an outstanding screenplay adaptation of the novel by Philip Dunne. I am so heavily biased toward this movie that I am unsure if I can be objectively critical of it. Gene Tierney's and Rex Harrison's performances are spot-on and very memorable - they ARE those characters. The lighting and moods expressed through black and white cinematography are like paintings that leave an indelible imprint on the mind. Bernard Herrmann's score is its own poem and has an amazing artistry that anchors all else that works in the movie...I daresay it is his most romantic and moving film score as well as my favorite of his. I cried at the ending the first time I saw it and still do...even moreso than the book one feels the pull of wanting to see these two connect in some way; I ache every time I see Lucy (called 'Lucia' by the Captain) fall for Miles who is totally not right for her. This is really a solid movie that holds up after multiple viewings.

Another one of the film's assets is Philip Dunne's screenplay adaptation of the novel. His efforts actually make the film version of the book better than the book itself. He was very wise to focus on Captain Gregg and Lucy throughout the film; to that end, he jettisoned one of Lucy's children from the book (the older Cyril who becomes connected with the church). Her other child, Anna, is "there" but, aside from a mother-daughter moment toward the end of the film, doesn't really factor in much. Dunne also wisely used a great deal of the book dialogue between Lucy and Captain Gregg. Perhaps Dunne's best decision overall was to rearrange and "tidy up" the relationships between Miles, Lucy, and the Captain. In the book (before Lucy writes BLOOD AND SWASH) Captain Gregg bets that Lucy (who is determined not to remarry) would fall for the first male who gave her some attention. This leads him to "lure" Miles toward Lucy to help her out when her dog gets stuck in an animal hole near Gull Cottage. A relationship between Lucy and Miles develops so quickly that she is willing to (essentially) give up her two kids and marry Miles (who comes off as a lying snake throughout the courtship). Gregg apologizes to Lucy and tells her that Miles is really married, which Lucy does not believe at first but comes to realize he is a cad before she makes the mistake of marrying him. In the book these sequences come off as incredibly awkward and confusing, as nothing up to that point would suggest Lucy would ever do such a thing. It seems so out of character for such a strong female character.

Dunne does something amazing with the material. After she writes BLOOD AND SWASH, and after it is clear that the she and Captain Gregg are truly falling in love, Lucy meets Miles at the book publisher's office. He offers to give her his appointment with the editor. Afterward he obsessively pursues her, leading to Captain Gregg expressing jealousy. Miles visits Lucy in Whitecliff and paints a picture of her (very creepy, by the way) and expresses his love for her. Captain Gregg tells Lucy to be careful because there may be "breakers" up ahead (perhaps he knows, perhaps he doesn't...we really don't know). Gregg realizes that he is preventing Lucy from moving forward in her life and so, whether he knows what a scumbag Miles is or not, in a very moving scene while Lucy is asleep, he basically says goodbye to her and lets her go. Lucy discovers on her own that Miles wanted to cheat on his wife and family, and she grows old without seeing Captain Gregg again until the climax of the film. This does so much more justice to the characters of Lucy and Captain Gregg and makes the story more romantic and heart wrenching, yet at the same it honors the source material. Dunne was a genius - the movie is full of humor (I still laugh out loud when Captain Gregg gets mad at Lucy concerning his monkey puzzle tree) and pathos (especially with the melancholy reflection on the passing of time and aging). There are several differences between the movie and the book, but none of those changes dishonors the source material. I can go on and on but I will summarize by saying THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR remains one of my all-time favorite films, and I am glad I finally got to read the book.

[Paul MacLean]

Bernard Herrmann's score is its own poem and has an amazing artistry that anchors all else that works in the movie...I daresay it is his most romantic and moving film score as well as my favorite of his.

By all accounts it was Herrmann's favorite of his scores as well. Whenever he did lectures on film music, he always screened clips from The Ghost and Mrs. Muir as examples of how he scored a film. He also re-used portions of the score in his opera Wuthering Heights.

[Eric Paddon]

Two novels that became one movie.

The Glass Inferno (1973) by Thomas Scortia and Frank Robinson and The Tower (1972) by Richard Martin Stern.

-The Towering Inferno came from these two novels when Irwin Allen recognized that two studios owning rights to two novels about the same general idea of an uncontrollable fire in a tall building would likely result in two unsuccessful films. Allen deserves credit and praise for recognizing the solution in bringing both projects together because when going back to the original novels, you see one novel that is slightly better than average and another that sinks under the weight of the author's desire to have his characters talk in speeches then pay attention to a compelling through-line narrative. Yet both novels have elements that Stirling Silliphant managed to effectively blend together for the best result of the whole disaster film genre IMO.

-Glass Inferno deals with a fire that breaks out in a 66 story residential/commercial building in an unnamed western city called "The Glass House." People have erroneously assumed that this novel's action is set in San Francisco and accounts for the SF locale of the movie, but that in fact isn't correct. At one point a character makes reference to the fact that a TV newscaster (ultimately not depicted in the film) who is running an expose on the cutbacks and safety issues in the building had worked in San Francisco before and I suspect that's where Silliphant got that from. At any rate, the fire erupts because the builder, Wyndom LeRoux (a close approximation of the Jim Duncan character played by William Holden in the film) has cut safety corners in all areas and thus an electrical fire breaks out and turns into a nightmare catastrophe for the people in the building and those trapped in its Promenade Room restaurant.

-The Tower, by contrast deals with a fire in the brand new "World Tower" building in lower Manhattan, a 125 story commercial structure. The catastrophe is twofold. First, electrical change systems to cut corners made by the greedy son-in-law of the builder, combined with the fact that a disgruntled fired employee from the building project named John Connors has managed to get himself inside the building (this is the most unbelievable part of the book. On the day this Tower is having a VIP reception dedication, the building is EMPTY and devoid of security inside and two policemen in the plaza let Connors in without a hassle when he says he's an electrician called in to do a job and they go through no pretense of checking this out!) and sabotage the whole electrical thing in the sub-basement so that as a result, he causes an explosion that COMBINED with the coincidental electrical fires that break out due to the design changes, turns everything into a lethal inferno that traps the VIPS on the top floor that include the Governor and Mayor of New York and others.

-As I said "The Tower" is the weaker of the novels. In addition to the wild implausibility of how Connors gets into the building to sabotage it, and the idiocy of how NO ONE was in the building to notice him, even a building not fully finished, he doesn't believe in the drama of the story enough. Characters frequently stop to make philosophical speeches then actually ACT as they would during a fast-moving breaking crisis. He also develops wildly implausible character relationships over too short a time-frame (The idea that in the span of two hours, the trapped Governor will have amidst all of this had time to meet and propose marriage to one of the other guests is a testament to how bad a writer Stern is on that point; not to mention how he manages to have the DA in possession of a warrant to search and seize necessary records in so short a timeframe.) Bottom line is that while "Glass Inferno" has compelling narrative through-line "The Tower" doesn't.

-But that said, there are elements from both novels that helped to make the movie great instead of giving us two middling movies ultimately. This is a breakdown of what came from what and how Silliphant pulled off the tough chore of credibly using elements from both.

From Glass Inferno.

-The residential element of the building.
-The detonation of water tanks to put out the fire.
-The explosion of a scenic elevator trying to get people down.
-An express elevator stops at mid-floor resulting in horrible death for the person trapped inside.

And these character subplots.

-Lisolette Mueller and Harlee Claiborne. Played ultimately in the film by Jennifer Jones and Fred Astaire. This storyline is faithfully adapted in the film. The difference is that whereas in the film, Lisolette is a glamorous widow, here she's an unmarried retired school teacher who just happens to have some family money that makes her a target for Harlee's con-game. Like in the film, Harlee falls for her and decides to reform for her. Key point is that unlike the film, Lisolette doesn't get killed falling out of the scenic elevator, though the earlier scene in the film of her helping the children of the deaf mother down is from the book (along with the explosion of the gas line and having to get across a chasm in the stairwell). They are happily reunited at the end.

-The Robert Wagner character in the film (Dan Bigalow there, John Bigalow here) finding his tryst interrupted by the fire. He attempts to make it out exactly like in the film and fails. His lover, in the book an out of work actress he's been shacking up with, just like the secretary character in the film, plunges to her death out the window.

-O.J. Simpson's Jernigan character, also from this book. He's shown as a responsible family man though the part isn't too big as the assistant security chief (and no, he doesn't rescue a cat!)

A lot of other character subplots from this book though, don't make the final film including some more prominent ones like that of an arrogant newscaster, Jeffrey Quantril, who for his own self-centered reasons has been targeting the Glass House in expose reports on its lack of safety because the builder who is aware of the changes ordered by the corrupt LeRoux, has leaked the stories to Quantril. There's a subplot similar to the Bigalow one of how a bored, henpecked man working at a credit union tries to take advantage of the fire to steal money and slip away to a new life in the commotion but ends up killing himself in the process.


From The Tower

-The world's tallest building is imperiled.
-The breeches buoy rescue device. In this case it's fired from the nearby North World Trade Center tower building.
-The greedy son-in-law who cuts corners on the electrical system. He's called Paul Simmons instead of Roger Simmons, he's married to the builder's daughter and he's a skunk but because he's not at the party with the VIP's he doesn't get his comeuppance like Richard Chamberlain does in the film. (Though like Chamberlain who tries at one point to foolishly get down the stairs, there is a character who does the same and dies in the effort)
-Two firemen make their way up to the top where the door is blocked. In this case it's because the idiots have left crates of communication equipment up against the door causing it to be blocked from the inside.
-The "Will Giddings" character who is the first victim of the blaze in the film is in this novel, but he's just the engineer in charge, who grumbles over things but is still alive and well at the end.
-Mayor Robert Ramsey and his wife. It's amusing how the name of this character ultimately endured to be the name of the lead character in the awful 2006 "Poseidon" remake!

-The Tower has a downer ending. In the end the breeches buoy has only rescued about three-quarters of the people trapped when the fire finally overtakes things on the top floor to eventually burn itself out. Casualties include the governor, mayor, a US Senator (a rough version of the eventual Robert Vaughn character in the film) and others. The book just keeps wanting to scream about how bad big buildings are, how they serve no purpose, how cities have become too crowded etc. etc. Far too many speeches, not enough compelling action.

-As for the two leads, the architect combines features of the Craig Barton character from "Glass" and the rugged, backwoodsman "Nat Wilson" of the "Tower." In fact, early drafts called him "Craig Wilson" before it became "Doug Roberts" for some reason. The fire chief, was originally supposed to be the "Mario Infantino" character from "Glass" and intended for a lesser tier actor like Ernest Borgnine until Steve McQueen's insistence on playing the fire chief resulted in the character being beefed up in importance and becoming Mike O'Halloran.


These are cases where it's better to have seen the film first and then go to the books to go looking for what you recognize. And then, you come to appreciate more and more what was put together because I can't think of any other film that so effectively combined things from two separate source elements and made it all flow together in a decent through-line that also helped elevate the film above so many disaster films with their more threadbare plots. In this case, Irwin Allen did well and also wisely recognized how having so many golden age stars and familiar faces could in this case help sell things to the audience. (Irwin though, after succeeding here and before with "Poseidon Adventure" would then see his luck run out with "The Swarm" and everything else afterwards)

[Paul MacLean]

(Irwin though, after succeeding here and before with "Poseidon Adventure" would then see his luck run out with "The Swarm" and everything else afterwards)

No love for When Time Ran Out?

[Eric Paddon]

LOL. That title applied more to Irwin's success as a filmmaker! (I can only imagine how ticked off the likes of Newman and Holden were to have to fulfill contractual obligations to do that film).

[mkaroly]

THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY (1975) by Michael Crichton. Yes, I plan on reading through all of Crichton's novels...lol...

In 1855 200 pounds of gold was stolen off of a moving train traveling from London bridge Station to Folkestone. Crichton's novel is a highly fictionalized account of that robbery. Edward Pierce is the mysterious mastermind behind the operation; Robert Agar is the safecracker and key duplicator; Barlow is Pierce's strongman and coach driver (whose distinguishing feature is a scar on his forehead); Miss Miriam is Pierce's mysterious and attractive mistress, an actress who plays multiple roles for the heist; and Burgess is their inside man, the one who guards the gold on the train. In order to rob the gold off the train the team has to find and make duplicates of four keys, two of which are at the train station with the other two being held by the bank president (Mr. Trent) and the bank's general manager (Henry Fowler). The novel follows the exploits of the group, the difficulties and obstacles they face in carrying off the heist, and the eventual trial of Edward Pierce. Crichton's book is entertaining and reads as part history lesson on Victorian-era England and part "true crime novel." There is a great deal of criminal slang in the book (which I think is real, but I didn't bother looking up whether it is or not) which makes it somewhat difficult to follow at times; the book is full of very dry humor, is sometimes quite dark (Fowler contracts syphilis and is convinced that having sex with a young virgin female [a teen-ager...yikes!!] would cure him), and is something of a reflection on the "cult of personality" of white collar criminals/crime. Edward Pierce is infused with the most dimensionality in the book despite his mysterious character; although he is very arrogant, by the end of it all you will want to see him somehow get away with his crime. The book is not as quick of a read as his previous two novels but still engaging.

Crichton himself adapted his own novel into a screenplay and directed the film version of the book in 1978. Sean Connery plays Edward Pierce; he was, I think, a good choice to play the role of a charming criminal mastermind, almost seeming at times like an overgrown kid (though in the book Pierce is less charming and more arrogant and manipulative). Donald Sutherland plays Robert Agar; his performance was a bit...flat. I wasn't as impressed with him as I was with Connery. The stunningly beautiful Lesley-Anne Down plays Miss Miriam, and she has some of the best humorous moments in the film. Since the book's plot was so complex with many secondary characters, it was obvious to Crichton that he could not do a straight adaptation of the book. I would summarize what he did by saying he economized and simplified what was in the book. The major set pieces from the book are there (for example, acquiring the four keys; Pierce's journey across the top of the train to get to the compartment with the gold [Connery performed all his own stunts in that sequence....which does go on a bit long but is impressive nonetheless]; the ploy to get Agar into the train car containing the gold, etc.) but the film differs in several ways from the book. Agar, for example, becomes both an expert pickpocket (played by someone else in the book) and a safecracker. There is a great deal of double entendre in the film as compared to the book; the film is much lighter in its atmosphere than the book as well (although Fowler is characterized as a pervert in the film, there is no indication he has syphilis and desires to have sex with a young virgin female). The ending of the film is radically different from the book; the film ends as it does to be more entertaining and cinematic. Jerry Goldsmith's score has a solid main theme (and the End Titles are full of energy); it isn't his best score but it certainly enjoyable. I would probably give the film a 5/10 (Lesley-Anne Down gets a 10/10....lol...). I feel this film is a good example of how filmmakers simplify more complex novels in an attempt to make an entertaining (and not through-the-roof expensive) film.

[Paul MacLean]

I always thought The Great train Robbery was a very entertaining film, though I haven't watched it since the 90s. I was surprised to learn the film was a bomb -- it's much better than its box office take would suggest (what was its competition in theaters when released? It was released in '78-'79 wasn't it?).

Agreed on Goldsmith's score, which is one of his better efforts. He always did his best work for longtime collaborators (Chrichton, Schaffner, Verhoeven...ok, well, maybe not Schepisi!)

[AndyDursin]

Goes to show how Connery really struggled at times commercially with his projects. So many of them did poorly especially around that time -- CUBA, METEOR, etc. -- that even one of the better ones like GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY struggled (though I wouldn't call it a bomb, more a "disappointment" -- it did much better than those other films from that era!)

For fun here are Connery's biggest hits (US domestic performance), adjusted for inflation (some of them have little to no box-office information so there are some films that don't appear on this list) --

Numbers are adjusted gross & then unadjusted gross ($63 mil in 1965 was a HELL of a lot of money) --

1 Thunderball UA $693,396,000 $63,595,658 12/21/65
2 Goldfinger UA $614,601,000 $51,081,062 12/22/64
3 Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade Par. $458,090,900 $197,171,806 5/24/89
4 You Only Live Twice UA $332,830,000 $43,084,787 6/13/67
5 The Rock BV $281,182,000 $134,069,511 6/7/96
6 The Hunt for Red October Par. $267,389,400 $122,012,643 3/2/90
7 From Russia, with Love UA $247,167,800 $24,796,765 4/8/64
8 Diamonds Are Forever UA $246,186,200 $43,819,547 12/17/71
9 A Bridge Too Far UA $210,965,300 $50,750,000 6/15/77
10 The Untouchables Par. $180,825,400 $76,270,454 6/5/87

11 Dr. No UA $175,225,200 $16,067,035 5/8/63
12 Never Say Never Again WB $163,130,900 $55,432,841 10/7/83
13 Entrapment Fox $160,043,300 $87,704,396 4/30/99
14 Rising Sun Fox $141,467,200 $63,179,523 7/30/93
15 Murder on the Orient Express Par. $136,991,300 $27,634,716 11/24/74
16 Time Bandits Emb $135,268,300 $42,365,581 11/6/81
17 Dragonheart Uni. $107,732,000 $51,367,375 5/31/96
18 The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Fox $102,177,900 $66,465,204 7/11/03
19 Medicine Man BV $101,636,700 $45,500,797 2/7/92
20 Finding Forrester Sony $85,033,400 $51,804,714 12/22/00

21 First Knight Sony $80,127,800 $37,600,435 7/7/95
22 Just Cause WB $78,535,500 $36,853,222 2/17/95
23 Outland WB $57,936,100 $17,374,595 5/22/81
24 The Russia House MGM $50,576,500 $22,997,992 12/22/90
25 The Great Train Robbery MGM $48,114,800 $13,027,857 2/2/79
26 The Avengers (1998) WB $46,221,400 $23,384,939 8/14/98
27 The Presidio Par. $45,840,500 $20,324,096 6/10/88
28 Highlander 2: The Quickening Istr $34,253,500 $15,556,340 11/1/91
29 Meteor AIP $31,023,100 $8,400,000 10/19/79
30 Family Business TriS $27,618,700 $12,195,695 12/15/89

31 Cuba MGM $20,720,000 $5,610,280 12/21/79
32 The Name of the Rose Fox $17,874,100 $7,153,487 9/26/86
33 Highlander Fox $14,742,100 $5,900,000 3/7/86
34 Wrong Is Right Col. $11,299,000 $3,583,513 5/14/82
35 Playing by Heart Mira. $7,246,200 $3,970,078 1/1/99
36 A Good Man in Africa Gram. $5,119,300 $2,308,390 9/9/94
37 Five Days One Summer WB $627,700 $199,078 11/12/82

[Eric Paddon]

Basically it kind of notes how during the 70s, post-007, Connery was not exactly generating much broader interest in the box office. The only bona-fide 70s post-Bond hits he was in were ensemble pieces in "Murder On The Orient Express" and "A Bridge Too Far" (I have to admit I'm surprised that film did well).

[mkaroly]

That is a really interesting list...looks like he starred in a wide range of roles over his career (never really thought about it before). Some of those films at the bottom I never even heard of! Lol...he was certainly charismatic in TGTR; there is something really likeable about Connery as an actor no matter what role he played!

[AndyDursin]

Always surprising to see how well Time Bandits did in the US. Movie had to have been one of Gilliam's most successful films commercially.

[Paul MacLean]

Surprised to see Highlander so far down there. Tho that was another movie which tanked in theaters but was popular on home video, right?

[Monterey Jack]

Surprised to see Highlander so far down there. Tho that was another movie which tanked in theaters but was popular on home video, right?

It's astonishing to look at what 80's movies were cable and video store perennials that pretty much everyone has seen that absolutely tanked at the box office. There are famous examples, like Blade Runner and The Thing (which opened the same day!), but plenty of other films that are regarded as formative classics to our generation that no one bothered to roll out for in theaters. And yet there are top-ten grossers that no one looks back on with any degree of fondness now.

[AndyDursin]

Surprised to see Highlander so far down there. Tho that was another movie which tanked in theaters but was popular on home video, right?

Highlander was indeed a total wipeout in the US. It did better overseas which is why the sequels had to be funded with lots of foreign money and slapdash distributors. It did better on video, but still never had mainstream success. Its interesting that the producers were resourceful enough to maintain something of a franchise to keep fans interested despite that.