THE BIRDS
In Daphne du Maurier’s classic novella “The Birds,” Nat Hocken, a part time worker in an small Cornwall farm, notices strange behavior in the area’s birds. Isolated attacks soon become increasingly menacing and dangerous. Nat thinks this is a problem, but no one else takes him seriously. One man invites him to the farmhouse where they will have a shooting party and later eat roast gull but Nat gathers his family and boards up his house. Nat learns from the radio that similar attacks are beginning to occur in London. He tries his best to protect his wife and two children, but it seems like the birds are winning.
Alfred Hitchcock’s movie version tells a similar story but with a completely different setting and characters. An isolated farm becomes a coastal community in Northern California. The main characters are now a socialite (Tippi Hedren), a lawyer (Rod Taylor) and his sister and mother (Veronica Cartwright and Jessica Tandy). A few brief moments from the novella make it into the movie but nothing substantial until the final scenes in the movie as the birds first attack the house and then, in a memorably eerie moment, allow the survivors to leave.
Both the novella and the movie are well-done but Du Maurier’s tone is much more bleak and apocalyptic. Her story feels more like a variation on Night of the Living Dead as the farm family huddles in their house besieged by bird attacks. The story is also filled with eerie touches like the fact that the birds never squawk or make any noise other than the sound of their wings and the sound of their bodies thudding against the house. I’m not criticizing the movie version though. The only complaint I have is that some of the special effects are looking rather dated. Hitchcock’s editing is still remarkable which makes the bird attacks intense even when not everything is convincing.
This is certainly a story than could benefit from modern CGI. I would love to see this description filmed:
“…it was not the sea that held his eyes. The gulls had risen. They were circling, hundreds of them, thousands of them, lifting their wings against the wind. It was the gulls that made the darkening of the sky. And they were silent. They made not a sound. They just went on soaring and circling, rising falling, trying their strength against the wind.”
Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
-
Paul MacLean
- Posts: 7117
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:26 pm
- Location: New York
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
We had to read The Birds in high school English class. Having already seen the film, the story seemed "incomplete" to me, and I felt "It doesn't have any ending!" (I was naive!)
I'm sure Hitchcock's decision to shoot in Bodega Bay rather than England was more a practical than an artistic choice -- though Hitchcock loved Northern California and owned a home on the coast near San Francisco (he also maintained a house in LA but preferred spending time north).
Having been to the UK and Northern California numerous times, I've been struck by the similarities of the landscapes on the west coast of both places, and can see why transplanting the story to CA may not have seemed such a stretch...
Cornwall:
Bodega Bay:
I'm sure Hitchcock's decision to shoot in Bodega Bay rather than England was more a practical than an artistic choice -- though Hitchcock loved Northern California and owned a home on the coast near San Francisco (he also maintained a house in LA but preferred spending time north).
Having been to the UK and Northern California numerous times, I've been struck by the similarities of the landscapes on the west coast of both places, and can see why transplanting the story to CA may not have seemed such a stretch...
Cornwall:
Bodega Bay:
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
CONGO by Michael Crichton (1980). Deep in the heart of the Congo an expedition team employed by ERTS (Earth Resources Technology Services located in Houston, Texas) is on the hunt for blue diamonds for its client. One morning as the team is getting ready to check in with Houston they are viciously attacked and slaughtered by an unknown entity. ERTS becomes aware of the situation after seeing the camp site, the dead bodies, and the unknown entity by satellite imagery. Field supervisor Karen Ross believes it was a gorilla, but her boss Travis is uncertain. He sends her out to the Congo to find out what happened to the team (as well as to get the blue diamonds). To help her with her task, Ross contacts Peter Elliot, a young primatologist whose work her organization funds. She asks him to go along and he readily agrees because he wants to take a gorilla named Amy (who can use sign language to communicate) into the jungle and further his experiments with primates there. But Ross and Elliot and the rest of their team (including mercenary Captain Charles Munro) get way more than they bargained for on their journey through Africa into the Congo and straight into the greatest danger any of them has ever faced.
As with his previous novels, Crichton has fashioned an extremely entertaining (and credible) story. The first two-thirds of the book are all about the journey from Houston to the area in which Ross’ team was killed, near the Lost City of Zinj. His three main characters (Ross, Elliot, and Munro) are all ambitious in their own ways and all take the trip for selfish motives. There is no romantic subplot in the story; Elliot’s relationship with Amy the gorilla is very familial and provides a bit of heart to the story. Crichton spends a lot of time in the book talking in great detail about computer technology, and as in previous books he provides a great deal of “history,” some of which may be made up. He does a great job imbuing the Congo with a sense of majesty, beauty, and great danger. Tension develops throughout the novel as Ross’ team tries desperately to make it to the ERTS campsite before their competition does (coming from a Japanese-German alliance) as well as through their experiences and challenges. The “unknown entity” is really interesting and believable. All in all CONGO is a quick and exciting read.
Frank Marshall directed a version of Crichton’s book in 1995. I remember seeing this film on a day when I had nothing to do and decided to go and see three films in a row. At the time I thought CONGO was a very average film; it tried too hard to be funny, the final creature wasn’t as scary as I thought it would be, and I just left the theater with a “meh” feeling. If I had given the film a 5/10 that day, after watching it again now (and knowing what I know about the book), it drops to a 1/10. The filmmakers made so many changes to the novel’s storyline and changed so many of the characters in significant ways (and added a really dumb character played by Tim Curry) that I find the film now to be a solid bastardization of the novel despite its use of the basic structure/environment of the novel to tell the story.
There are tons of examples I can provide, but there are so many of them that I honestly stopped writing them down after about 30 minutes of the film had elapsed. Here are some examples of how radically the film differs from the book:
-Karen Ross works for TraviCom (not ERTS). She is ex-CIA. Her company wants the blue diamonds for itself and its own advancement (ERTS was contracted by an outside company to obtain the diamonds). In the book Ross is a gifted mathematician who never worked for the CIA and was ERTS’ youngest field supervisor at 24 years old. She is ambitious and somewhat arrogant in her own way but still likeable.
-Travis (Ross’ boss) is a stereotypical greedy, hot-headed CEO who is desperate to get the diamonds at all costs (even at the cost of his son’s life (Charlie) who led the earlier expedition team that was attacked and killed). Nothing like this is even implied in the book (Travis does not have a son who leads an expedition into the Congo), and frankly none of this pays off by the end anyway, so why put it in there in the first place??
-Ross was at one time engaged to Charlie, and before she goes out to find out what happened to the team she wants to know with absolute certainty that Travis is more concerned about his son than the diamonds. This leads to a “pay-off” of sorts at the end of the film, though to be honest it all rang so cliché and hollow that for me there was no pay-off at all. None of these relationships are in the book.
-Instead of initiating an expedition herself and organize her team (as she does in the book), Ross is forced to beg Peter Elliott to join their Congo expedition group. Elliott is hired by a Romanian philanthropist (Tim Curry) to find the Lost City of Zinj because he believes it contains King Solomon’s mines of diamonds; he also believes Amy the gorilla knows the location of the city because she had been drawing an “eye” in her paintings that matches the eye he has on his ring. In the book there is no Romanian philanthropist and Amy drew pictures of jungle and archways from the City of Zinj. Tim Curry’s character (though he is not a saboteur) kind of takes the place of the Japanese-German team and their industrial espionage from the book (to the film’s detriment).
I could go on but in the end (I suppose in order to get a wider group of people to see the film), screenwriter John Patrick Shanley (and Crichton himself???) made this wholesale changes, attempted to infuse the screenplay with humor (much of which comes across forced), and in my opinion undermined characters. In the book Ross, Elliott, and Munro (a “white hunter”) are all independent and authoritative in their own ways. How they get along in the trip and share leadership responsibilities is part of the story; that is completely lost in the nonsensical characterizations of Ross, Elliott, and Munro (played by Eddie Hudson in the film). Also lost in the film are the interesting reflections on animal intelligence, animal misconceptions, and genetic memory the book provides. Laura Linney’s talents are wasted in this film; none of the characters in the film are even close to being compelling. Jerry Goldsmith’s score soars at times but he does not have a lot to work with in this film so it is generally forgettable. I feel this adaptation of the book was a massive wasted opportunity; the film fails to capture the essence of the book’s characters, its sense of journey into the unknown, or the real danger of the environment. It is an example of ruining source material. Thumbs way down on this film. Skip it – read the book instead.
As with his previous novels, Crichton has fashioned an extremely entertaining (and credible) story. The first two-thirds of the book are all about the journey from Houston to the area in which Ross’ team was killed, near the Lost City of Zinj. His three main characters (Ross, Elliot, and Munro) are all ambitious in their own ways and all take the trip for selfish motives. There is no romantic subplot in the story; Elliot’s relationship with Amy the gorilla is very familial and provides a bit of heart to the story. Crichton spends a lot of time in the book talking in great detail about computer technology, and as in previous books he provides a great deal of “history,” some of which may be made up. He does a great job imbuing the Congo with a sense of majesty, beauty, and great danger. Tension develops throughout the novel as Ross’ team tries desperately to make it to the ERTS campsite before their competition does (coming from a Japanese-German alliance) as well as through their experiences and challenges. The “unknown entity” is really interesting and believable. All in all CONGO is a quick and exciting read.
Frank Marshall directed a version of Crichton’s book in 1995. I remember seeing this film on a day when I had nothing to do and decided to go and see three films in a row. At the time I thought CONGO was a very average film; it tried too hard to be funny, the final creature wasn’t as scary as I thought it would be, and I just left the theater with a “meh” feeling. If I had given the film a 5/10 that day, after watching it again now (and knowing what I know about the book), it drops to a 1/10. The filmmakers made so many changes to the novel’s storyline and changed so many of the characters in significant ways (and added a really dumb character played by Tim Curry) that I find the film now to be a solid bastardization of the novel despite its use of the basic structure/environment of the novel to tell the story.
There are tons of examples I can provide, but there are so many of them that I honestly stopped writing them down after about 30 minutes of the film had elapsed. Here are some examples of how radically the film differs from the book:
-Karen Ross works for TraviCom (not ERTS). She is ex-CIA. Her company wants the blue diamonds for itself and its own advancement (ERTS was contracted by an outside company to obtain the diamonds). In the book Ross is a gifted mathematician who never worked for the CIA and was ERTS’ youngest field supervisor at 24 years old. She is ambitious and somewhat arrogant in her own way but still likeable.
-Travis (Ross’ boss) is a stereotypical greedy, hot-headed CEO who is desperate to get the diamonds at all costs (even at the cost of his son’s life (Charlie) who led the earlier expedition team that was attacked and killed). Nothing like this is even implied in the book (Travis does not have a son who leads an expedition into the Congo), and frankly none of this pays off by the end anyway, so why put it in there in the first place??
-Ross was at one time engaged to Charlie, and before she goes out to find out what happened to the team she wants to know with absolute certainty that Travis is more concerned about his son than the diamonds. This leads to a “pay-off” of sorts at the end of the film, though to be honest it all rang so cliché and hollow that for me there was no pay-off at all. None of these relationships are in the book.
-Instead of initiating an expedition herself and organize her team (as she does in the book), Ross is forced to beg Peter Elliott to join their Congo expedition group. Elliott is hired by a Romanian philanthropist (Tim Curry) to find the Lost City of Zinj because he believes it contains King Solomon’s mines of diamonds; he also believes Amy the gorilla knows the location of the city because she had been drawing an “eye” in her paintings that matches the eye he has on his ring. In the book there is no Romanian philanthropist and Amy drew pictures of jungle and archways from the City of Zinj. Tim Curry’s character (though he is not a saboteur) kind of takes the place of the Japanese-German team and their industrial espionage from the book (to the film’s detriment).
I could go on but in the end (I suppose in order to get a wider group of people to see the film), screenwriter John Patrick Shanley (and Crichton himself???) made this wholesale changes, attempted to infuse the screenplay with humor (much of which comes across forced), and in my opinion undermined characters. In the book Ross, Elliott, and Munro (a “white hunter”) are all independent and authoritative in their own ways. How they get along in the trip and share leadership responsibilities is part of the story; that is completely lost in the nonsensical characterizations of Ross, Elliott, and Munro (played by Eddie Hudson in the film). Also lost in the film are the interesting reflections on animal intelligence, animal misconceptions, and genetic memory the book provides. Laura Linney’s talents are wasted in this film; none of the characters in the film are even close to being compelling. Jerry Goldsmith’s score soars at times but he does not have a lot to work with in this film so it is generally forgettable. I feel this adaptation of the book was a massive wasted opportunity; the film fails to capture the essence of the book’s characters, its sense of journey into the unknown, or the real danger of the environment. It is an example of ruining source material. Thumbs way down on this film. Skip it – read the book instead.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34443
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Another fascinating write-up Michael!
CONGO had a very strange production history. The first paperback (which I have, I think from 1981 or so) says "Soon to Be a Motion Picture", and the movie was in fact supposed to be made by Crichton himself. He started out wanting to an original script that was an updated KING SOLOMON'S MINES and envisioned Sean Connery for the lead, as a reunion after GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY -- by 1979-80 he managed to write the novel, turned in the script and it was in full production at Fox. Goldsmith was apparently signed to score it too. But they couldn't get the gorillas to function (and Crichton didn't want a "Rick Baker suit"), so Crichton gave up on it and Fox shopped it around to other directors before pulling the plug.
They tried again in the late 80s, apparently again with Connery (Crichton said the "movie was getting made" in 1987), before that died out and Kennedy/Marshall bought it in the early '90s, thinking it would be a hit with JURASSIC PARK in production.
That was a smart move -- CONGO could have been a good movie, and the final film still made money -- but it was IMO a goofy guilty pleasure (at best) that never fulfilled its potential. It's odd because it has some truly funny, intentionally comic moments in it ("Poppy seed cake!" -- all signs of John Patrick Shanley doing the script) but I think the big problem was Frank Marshall was not a very good director. The film is very claustrophobic in spite of a lot of money having been expended, and the script is dumb. Reading your write-up makes it really clear how deficient the adaptation was. Oh well -- maybe one day?
Here's a good article on CONGO's long genesis and false starts:
https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/con ... 995s-congo
CONGO had a very strange production history. The first paperback (which I have, I think from 1981 or so) says "Soon to Be a Motion Picture", and the movie was in fact supposed to be made by Crichton himself. He started out wanting to an original script that was an updated KING SOLOMON'S MINES and envisioned Sean Connery for the lead, as a reunion after GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY -- by 1979-80 he managed to write the novel, turned in the script and it was in full production at Fox. Goldsmith was apparently signed to score it too. But they couldn't get the gorillas to function (and Crichton didn't want a "Rick Baker suit"), so Crichton gave up on it and Fox shopped it around to other directors before pulling the plug.
They tried again in the late 80s, apparently again with Connery (Crichton said the "movie was getting made" in 1987), before that died out and Kennedy/Marshall bought it in the early '90s, thinking it would be a hit with JURASSIC PARK in production.
That was a smart move -- CONGO could have been a good movie, and the final film still made money -- but it was IMO a goofy guilty pleasure (at best) that never fulfilled its potential. It's odd because it has some truly funny, intentionally comic moments in it ("Poppy seed cake!" -- all signs of John Patrick Shanley doing the script) but I think the big problem was Frank Marshall was not a very good director. The film is very claustrophobic in spite of a lot of money having been expended, and the script is dumb. Reading your write-up makes it really clear how deficient the adaptation was. Oh well -- maybe one day?
Here's a good article on CONGO's long genesis and false starts:
https://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/con ... 995s-congo
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
That is really interesting stuff. It is a shame that Shanley (and possibly Crichton himself) changed the source material so radically. For example, the Tim Curry character was completely unnecessary; they should have stuck with the race to get to the diamonds between ERTS and the Japanese-German team. Also, I get why they wanted to put in some kind of "love" story in the film, but it was completely unnecessary and DOA...it didn't pay off (and was hardly there to begin with!). I loved that Ross, Elliott, and Munro in the book work synergistically together, depend on each other, and learn from each other. They were a team in the book - it gets lost in the film (IMO). Again, just a real missed opportunity...could have been so much better. And it didn't play like a throwback to old jungle adventure movies to me at all!
Funny that Crichton was looking to write something with Connery in mind for the lead. Speaking of which, Goldsmith's score sounds at times somewhat similar to MEDICINE MAN...lol...I forgot to mention that in the review!
Funny that Crichton was looking to write something with Connery in mind for the lead. Speaking of which, Goldsmith's score sounds at times somewhat similar to MEDICINE MAN...lol...I forgot to mention that in the review!
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Warning - this is a way longer review than I intended! Lol...I was going to divide this up into two posts but decided to just post the whole thing and put it out there as is.
THE ROBE by Lloyd C. Douglas (1942). This novel tells the story of Tribute Marcellus Lucan Gallio, son of respected Senator Marcus Lucan Gallio of Rome, during the time of Tiberius Caesar’s reign. Having offended Prince Gaius (a relative of Tiberius Caesar’s) at a party, Marcellus (accompanied by his very loyal personal slave Demetrius) is sent to command a Roman fort garrison in Minoa. He and his men are enlisted by the authorities in Jerusalem to carry out the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth; toward the end of Jesus’ life the soldiers cast lots for His clothing (Matthew 26:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23), and Marcellus wins His robe. But at a post-crucifixion banquet Marcellus is forced to put Jesus’ robe on and afterward becomes suddenly emotionally/mentally sick and suicidal. Upon his return home he is dispatched by an ailing Tiberius Caesar to find out more about this Galilean holy man. Marcellus leaves behind his family and Diana (his romantic interest) and sets off on his quest, only to find much more than he could have ever imagined possible.
That is an extremely basic summary of the overall narrative of this long and detailed novel of over 500 pages; the amount of side stories, plots, and characters in the book are too numerous to mention. THE ROBE is a work of historical fiction based on the Christian gospels as well as Acts of the Apostles up through (and a little beyond) the stoning of Stephen. Most of the book describes Marcellus’ search for information about Jesus (his guide is Barsabbas, also known as Justus who was one of the two disciples who were in the running to replace Judas Iscariot among the eleven [Acts 1:21-26]), his interaction with the early Christian communities, and his faith journey. Marcellus’ personal slave Demetrius also plays a significant role in the story, for in a way he kind of “disciples” Marcellus on his journey at crucial points. Douglas weaves in several gospel stories of Jesus’ healings and miracles as well as adds his own fictional stories in the spirit of what Jesus did (for example, the healing of Jonathan’s foot, Miriam’s miracle, and Peter’s healing of Demetrius). Douglas takes his time in telling the story; he is in no rush to get to the end but invites you as the reader to go on the journey with Marcellus every step of the way.
There were many things I liked about the book; I will only mention a few. First, I really liked the way in which Douglas handled the passing down of the stories of Jesus. Since THE ROBE takes place from around the time of Jesus’ crucifixion (somewhere around 30 or 33 AD) while Tiberius was Caesar up to the early period of Caligula’s reign as Caesar (37–41 AD), the gospels had not yet been written down and circulated. Thus the stories of Jesus mainly circulated in the context of oral tradition, something many Christian scholars (like Richard Bauckham) have written about. Thus one does not get a word-for-word statement of the gospels as they are (i.e. straight from a Christian Bible), but you get the feel of an eyewitness telling Marcellus his or her testimony as he or she remembered it. For me it brought a feeling of believability to the story (as no one at that time would have been able to recite word-for-word what I can read out of, for example, Mark 5:21ff. concerning Jairus’ daughter and the woman with the issue of blood).
Second, I thought it was a very interesting choice by Douglas to set Marcellus up as a type of Paul. In the book, having believed in Christ Jesus, Marcellus feels compelled to go to Rome. There he is arrested, stands trial before Caligula, and testifies to whom he will be loyal. In Acts of the Apostles Paul feels compelled to go to Jerusalem, gets arrested, gives his testimony before Felix, Festus, and King Agrippa, and then is taken to Rome (where Jesus had told him he would have to go) to stand trial before Caesar (Nero) on Paul’s appeal. It was a nice touch and an interesting parallel. Third, I really liked that Douglas took time to give the reader some personal moments with Marcellus’ thoughts as he struggled with what he was being told (especially about the resurrection) in the process of coming to a decision. His character is so real and believable which makes his journey that much more authentic.
I tried really hard to turn off my brain when it came to the historical aspects of the novel, as I preferred to get lost in the overall story and its characters as opposed to getting hyper-critical. Having said that, there are a few of things I was critical of in the book. First, as far as I know Caligula did not issue a widespread policy of persecution against the Christians during his tenure as Caesar (as he seems to do in the book). Emperor Nero did in the 60s AD, but not Caligula (though I may very well be wrong on that). Since Judaism was an accepted religion in the Roman Empire, Christianity would have been seen more often than not as an offshoot or branch of Judaism (see Gallio’s decree in Acts 18:12–17 which would have been made around 52 AD or thereabouts). So Douglas’ Caligula behaved in a way that was more Neronian than anything else. Second, the persecution of Christians in the early period after Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension seemed to me to come more from the Jewish leadership and Jewish groups than from the Romans or Greeks; Douglas’ book makes very little mention of the Jewish leadership and in turn makes the conflict seem more between the Romans and the Christians. Again, that was more historically accurate later (starting with Nero), but not in this particular period of time (before 41 AD)…generally speaking.
In the end, despite some minor complaints here and there, I did thoroughly enjoy THE ROBE. There is a great deal more I could go on and on about other aspects of the book, such as Demetrius and his journey, the story of Marcellus’ and Diana’s romance, the most chilling part of the novel for me (when Marcellus brings Jesus’ robe toward the ailing Tiberius Caesar), some of the other side stories, and how the ending reminded me of some of the early Christian writings on the saints (especially Polycarp). But this is getting too long and I have to get to the movie. THE ROBE is not preachy or weighed down with complex theology; it is not the gospels but it is an imaginative and encouraging story rooted in historical fact about the challenges, struggle, and integrity of the Christian faith journey.
Henry Koster directed the film version of THE ROBE for 20th Century Fox in 1953, and it was a huge success. Its subtext included a message of tolerance and defiance in the context of the Blacklist, among other things. Filmed in a new process (Cinemascope), THE ROBE influenced many Biblical epic films that came after it (including the Charlton Heston classic BEN–HUR in 1959). The visuals and scope of the film are astounding, the colors are vibrant, and Alfred Newman’s score is to me some of the best work he has ever done. I remember watching this film a long time ago (around the time Varese Sarabande released their two-disc expanded version of the score) and generally enjoying it. But seeing it now after having read the book, I do not like it very much at all where the story and characters are concerned.
First, the book is over 500 pages (and it is a dense 500+ pages in length). It would be impossible to film a true representation of the book unless one did it through the medium of a TV mini-series. I totally get taking material out; to be honest, the book does drag in a few places. But what the filmmakers did was make a hyper-dramatized version of the book. It is full of epic action, romance, and adventure which puts the spectacle over the substance. In order to do that characters and situations have to be changed, relationships have to be changed, and people in the book have to be jettisoned for a larger purpose. When you change characters, situations, and relationships, it makes for a different experience, and between the two I found that I had a more profound and satisfying reaction to the book. Some examples of changes between the book and the film:
-In the book Marcellus’ main antagonist for most of the story is Gaius. In the film it is Caligula.
-In the book Demetrius is completely loyal to Marcellus. Demetrius was bought by Marcellus’ father and given to Marcellus. They are a team in the book despite being master and slave, and Demetrius is given his freedom by both Marcus Gallio and Marcellus. In the movie Marcellus buys Demetrius in order to upstage Caligula. Demetrius is hardly loyal but very rebellious. Demetrius and Marcellus have a very tense relationship; Demetrius abandons Marcellus after the crucifixion (see below). Only later do the two unite and become a team when Marcellus goes in pursuit of the robe in order to destroy it, yet neither Marcus Gallio nor Marcellus releases Demetrius from slavery.
-In the movie Marcellus is characterized as a rich, irresponsible playboy type who has to grow up and mature. He is only concerned with “dice and women.” To the best of my recollection Marcellus is never characterized that way in the book. He may be a bit aimless and without purpose, and he may need to grow up some, but he is not the rich irresponsible playboy the movie makes him out to be.
-In the movie, Demetrius’ abandonment of Marcellus is a key moment. They are walking back from the crucifixion and it starts to rain. Marcellus demands that Demetrius give him the robe so he can cover himself. Demetrius hesitates; Marcellus grabs the robe from him and freaks out, yelling for Demetrius to take it off him. Demetrius rips it off him and then goes into a speech in which he states he will not serve Marcellus. This takes the place of the scene in the book where, in a post-crucifixion party where everyone is drinking (and Pilate is present), Marcellus is forced to put on the robe by one of the men he commands from the garrison at Minoa. This makes Marcellus sick and sends him into an emotional spiral downward. This is a very powerful scene in the book; the movie’s substitute seems much more silly and hyper-dramatic.
-In something not found in the book at all, later in the movie Marcellus sets out to rescue Demetrius who has been captured by Caligula’s forces. They break into the Imperial palace in a Robin Hood/Sea Hawk swashbuckling adventure moment with music that even sounds like it could have been written by Erich Wolfgang Korngold himself as they all escape.
-Early in the novel, in order to establish his authority at Minoa, Marcellus has to battle Paulus (the temporary commander of the fort) and wins his friendship. In the movie, Paulus and Marcellus battle when Marcellus has to defend the Christians from Caligula’s program of persecution.
There are tons of changes between the movie and the book like this (including Diana’s role and her relationship with Marcellus, Tiberius’ motives, who tells whom to do what, etc.). The point is that the changes between book and movie are so significant as to make the movie a much different experience in its message and journey. The movie is even more religiously generic than the book, for none of the specific gospel miracle stories in the book are included in detail in the movie except for a couple that Douglas himself made up. In addition, the Jewish leadership is nowhere to be found at all in the film so it is purely Romans versus Christians. And I will be honest – Richard Burton is an absolute bore in this film. He may be a great stage actor/Shakespearean actor but his performance in THE ROBE is just awful. The filmmakers did change Marcellus’ character arc from that of the book, but I am not fan of his performance at all. I find Marcellus goofy, stoic, and unsympathetic in the film, and that has a lot to do with Burton’s performance. When all is said and done, I think reading the book is time better spent than watching the film.
THE ROBE by Lloyd C. Douglas (1942). This novel tells the story of Tribute Marcellus Lucan Gallio, son of respected Senator Marcus Lucan Gallio of Rome, during the time of Tiberius Caesar’s reign. Having offended Prince Gaius (a relative of Tiberius Caesar’s) at a party, Marcellus (accompanied by his very loyal personal slave Demetrius) is sent to command a Roman fort garrison in Minoa. He and his men are enlisted by the authorities in Jerusalem to carry out the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth; toward the end of Jesus’ life the soldiers cast lots for His clothing (Matthew 26:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23), and Marcellus wins His robe. But at a post-crucifixion banquet Marcellus is forced to put Jesus’ robe on and afterward becomes suddenly emotionally/mentally sick and suicidal. Upon his return home he is dispatched by an ailing Tiberius Caesar to find out more about this Galilean holy man. Marcellus leaves behind his family and Diana (his romantic interest) and sets off on his quest, only to find much more than he could have ever imagined possible.
That is an extremely basic summary of the overall narrative of this long and detailed novel of over 500 pages; the amount of side stories, plots, and characters in the book are too numerous to mention. THE ROBE is a work of historical fiction based on the Christian gospels as well as Acts of the Apostles up through (and a little beyond) the stoning of Stephen. Most of the book describes Marcellus’ search for information about Jesus (his guide is Barsabbas, also known as Justus who was one of the two disciples who were in the running to replace Judas Iscariot among the eleven [Acts 1:21-26]), his interaction with the early Christian communities, and his faith journey. Marcellus’ personal slave Demetrius also plays a significant role in the story, for in a way he kind of “disciples” Marcellus on his journey at crucial points. Douglas weaves in several gospel stories of Jesus’ healings and miracles as well as adds his own fictional stories in the spirit of what Jesus did (for example, the healing of Jonathan’s foot, Miriam’s miracle, and Peter’s healing of Demetrius). Douglas takes his time in telling the story; he is in no rush to get to the end but invites you as the reader to go on the journey with Marcellus every step of the way.
There were many things I liked about the book; I will only mention a few. First, I really liked the way in which Douglas handled the passing down of the stories of Jesus. Since THE ROBE takes place from around the time of Jesus’ crucifixion (somewhere around 30 or 33 AD) while Tiberius was Caesar up to the early period of Caligula’s reign as Caesar (37–41 AD), the gospels had not yet been written down and circulated. Thus the stories of Jesus mainly circulated in the context of oral tradition, something many Christian scholars (like Richard Bauckham) have written about. Thus one does not get a word-for-word statement of the gospels as they are (i.e. straight from a Christian Bible), but you get the feel of an eyewitness telling Marcellus his or her testimony as he or she remembered it. For me it brought a feeling of believability to the story (as no one at that time would have been able to recite word-for-word what I can read out of, for example, Mark 5:21ff. concerning Jairus’ daughter and the woman with the issue of blood).
Second, I thought it was a very interesting choice by Douglas to set Marcellus up as a type of Paul. In the book, having believed in Christ Jesus, Marcellus feels compelled to go to Rome. There he is arrested, stands trial before Caligula, and testifies to whom he will be loyal. In Acts of the Apostles Paul feels compelled to go to Jerusalem, gets arrested, gives his testimony before Felix, Festus, and King Agrippa, and then is taken to Rome (where Jesus had told him he would have to go) to stand trial before Caesar (Nero) on Paul’s appeal. It was a nice touch and an interesting parallel. Third, I really liked that Douglas took time to give the reader some personal moments with Marcellus’ thoughts as he struggled with what he was being told (especially about the resurrection) in the process of coming to a decision. His character is so real and believable which makes his journey that much more authentic.
I tried really hard to turn off my brain when it came to the historical aspects of the novel, as I preferred to get lost in the overall story and its characters as opposed to getting hyper-critical. Having said that, there are a few of things I was critical of in the book. First, as far as I know Caligula did not issue a widespread policy of persecution against the Christians during his tenure as Caesar (as he seems to do in the book). Emperor Nero did in the 60s AD, but not Caligula (though I may very well be wrong on that). Since Judaism was an accepted religion in the Roman Empire, Christianity would have been seen more often than not as an offshoot or branch of Judaism (see Gallio’s decree in Acts 18:12–17 which would have been made around 52 AD or thereabouts). So Douglas’ Caligula behaved in a way that was more Neronian than anything else. Second, the persecution of Christians in the early period after Jesus’ death, resurrection, and ascension seemed to me to come more from the Jewish leadership and Jewish groups than from the Romans or Greeks; Douglas’ book makes very little mention of the Jewish leadership and in turn makes the conflict seem more between the Romans and the Christians. Again, that was more historically accurate later (starting with Nero), but not in this particular period of time (before 41 AD)…generally speaking.
In the end, despite some minor complaints here and there, I did thoroughly enjoy THE ROBE. There is a great deal more I could go on and on about other aspects of the book, such as Demetrius and his journey, the story of Marcellus’ and Diana’s romance, the most chilling part of the novel for me (when Marcellus brings Jesus’ robe toward the ailing Tiberius Caesar), some of the other side stories, and how the ending reminded me of some of the early Christian writings on the saints (especially Polycarp). But this is getting too long and I have to get to the movie. THE ROBE is not preachy or weighed down with complex theology; it is not the gospels but it is an imaginative and encouraging story rooted in historical fact about the challenges, struggle, and integrity of the Christian faith journey.
Henry Koster directed the film version of THE ROBE for 20th Century Fox in 1953, and it was a huge success. Its subtext included a message of tolerance and defiance in the context of the Blacklist, among other things. Filmed in a new process (Cinemascope), THE ROBE influenced many Biblical epic films that came after it (including the Charlton Heston classic BEN–HUR in 1959). The visuals and scope of the film are astounding, the colors are vibrant, and Alfred Newman’s score is to me some of the best work he has ever done. I remember watching this film a long time ago (around the time Varese Sarabande released their two-disc expanded version of the score) and generally enjoying it. But seeing it now after having read the book, I do not like it very much at all where the story and characters are concerned.
First, the book is over 500 pages (and it is a dense 500+ pages in length). It would be impossible to film a true representation of the book unless one did it through the medium of a TV mini-series. I totally get taking material out; to be honest, the book does drag in a few places. But what the filmmakers did was make a hyper-dramatized version of the book. It is full of epic action, romance, and adventure which puts the spectacle over the substance. In order to do that characters and situations have to be changed, relationships have to be changed, and people in the book have to be jettisoned for a larger purpose. When you change characters, situations, and relationships, it makes for a different experience, and between the two I found that I had a more profound and satisfying reaction to the book. Some examples of changes between the book and the film:
-In the book Marcellus’ main antagonist for most of the story is Gaius. In the film it is Caligula.
-In the book Demetrius is completely loyal to Marcellus. Demetrius was bought by Marcellus’ father and given to Marcellus. They are a team in the book despite being master and slave, and Demetrius is given his freedom by both Marcus Gallio and Marcellus. In the movie Marcellus buys Demetrius in order to upstage Caligula. Demetrius is hardly loyal but very rebellious. Demetrius and Marcellus have a very tense relationship; Demetrius abandons Marcellus after the crucifixion (see below). Only later do the two unite and become a team when Marcellus goes in pursuit of the robe in order to destroy it, yet neither Marcus Gallio nor Marcellus releases Demetrius from slavery.
-In the movie Marcellus is characterized as a rich, irresponsible playboy type who has to grow up and mature. He is only concerned with “dice and women.” To the best of my recollection Marcellus is never characterized that way in the book. He may be a bit aimless and without purpose, and he may need to grow up some, but he is not the rich irresponsible playboy the movie makes him out to be.
-In the movie, Demetrius’ abandonment of Marcellus is a key moment. They are walking back from the crucifixion and it starts to rain. Marcellus demands that Demetrius give him the robe so he can cover himself. Demetrius hesitates; Marcellus grabs the robe from him and freaks out, yelling for Demetrius to take it off him. Demetrius rips it off him and then goes into a speech in which he states he will not serve Marcellus. This takes the place of the scene in the book where, in a post-crucifixion party where everyone is drinking (and Pilate is present), Marcellus is forced to put on the robe by one of the men he commands from the garrison at Minoa. This makes Marcellus sick and sends him into an emotional spiral downward. This is a very powerful scene in the book; the movie’s substitute seems much more silly and hyper-dramatic.
-In something not found in the book at all, later in the movie Marcellus sets out to rescue Demetrius who has been captured by Caligula’s forces. They break into the Imperial palace in a Robin Hood/Sea Hawk swashbuckling adventure moment with music that even sounds like it could have been written by Erich Wolfgang Korngold himself as they all escape.
-Early in the novel, in order to establish his authority at Minoa, Marcellus has to battle Paulus (the temporary commander of the fort) and wins his friendship. In the movie, Paulus and Marcellus battle when Marcellus has to defend the Christians from Caligula’s program of persecution.
There are tons of changes between the movie and the book like this (including Diana’s role and her relationship with Marcellus, Tiberius’ motives, who tells whom to do what, etc.). The point is that the changes between book and movie are so significant as to make the movie a much different experience in its message and journey. The movie is even more religiously generic than the book, for none of the specific gospel miracle stories in the book are included in detail in the movie except for a couple that Douglas himself made up. In addition, the Jewish leadership is nowhere to be found at all in the film so it is purely Romans versus Christians. And I will be honest – Richard Burton is an absolute bore in this film. He may be a great stage actor/Shakespearean actor but his performance in THE ROBE is just awful. The filmmakers did change Marcellus’ character arc from that of the book, but I am not fan of his performance at all. I find Marcellus goofy, stoic, and unsympathetic in the film, and that has a lot to do with Burton’s performance. When all is said and done, I think reading the book is time better spent than watching the film.
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Since everyone else seems to be watching DIE HARD this season…
NOTHING LASTS FOREVER by Roderick Thorp (1979). Joe Leland, an ex-cop and now a security specialist, is on a flight to California to meet up with his daughter Stephanie Leland Gennaro on December 24. Leland has had a rough past – a one-time soldier whose relationship with his daughter is distant; a one-time hero on the force who made a huge mistake; a one-time husband to Karen which ended in divorce; and a one-time alcoholic who managed to get clean. Upon his arrival in California he is taken to the Klaxon Oil Corporation building where his daughter and her co-workers Ellis, Rivers, and Mark Fisher are celebrating the closure of their biggest deal ever with the Chilean government ($150 million). While settling in the building is overtaken by terrorists led by Anton Gruber. The terrorists round up everyone as hostages…except for Leland, who manages to escape. With the outside help of youthful LAPD officer Al Powell, Leland attempts to thwart the terrorists’ plans from within and rescue the hostages – especially his daughter and her two kids.
NLF is Thorp’s sequel to THE DETECTIVE, a book I have not read. Events from THE DETECTIVE are mentioned in flashback style early in NLF, and in–between all the action and cat–and–mouse games between Leland and the terrorists Thorp uses flashbacks to fill in gaps in Leland’s story so that we get to know him as a character. Leland is very hardened…so much so that by the end of the book, despite all the action, I felt extremely sad and “heavy.” He is a tragic character, disenchanted and somewhat lost. His moments of triumph are overshadowed by his moments of defeat in the past – his battle with the terrorists in the Klaxon building in a weird way came across to me as symbolic of his battle with himself and life…the ups and downs, the highs and lows, the victories and defeats, and the rays of light snuffed out by oppressive darkness. The book comes off as a very dark detective noir story with a couple of twists at the end; at times I felt the writing was rather jumbled and confusing, and there is a side plot involving Leland’s chatting up and getting a phone number of an airline stewardess named Kathi Logan that I found clunky as it played out (though she is a lifeline for him in the story and a chance to get away from his demons). Overall this was a very dark book (in my opinion) and its title is very appropriate.
John McTiernan made this book into a little film called DIE HARD in 1988 starring Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman. It remains one of the best action films of the 80s and, I would argue, one of the most entertaining action films Hollywood has ever made. Aside from the spectacle of the whole thing (which remains very true to the book’s action sequences), the genius and success of this film falls significantly in the laps of writers Steven E. de Souza and Jeb Stuart. They took the dark, depressing character of Leland from the book and changed him into John McClane, a roughish, streetwise NY cop who goes from being something of an unsympathetic character in the beginning to one you root and cheer for throughout his ordeal. Credit goes to Bruce Willis for his performance, and credit goes to Alan Rickman for his ridiculously entertaining performance as Hans Gruber. The characters in the film have so much more personality and color to them; the difference is night and day.
I respect that the film was so faithful to the book in many ways. The air conditioning shaft sequence is in the book and movie as well as Ellis’ death, Karl’s surprise appearance at the end, an antagonistic deputy chief Dwight Robinson, and much more. The rooftop firehose sequence is different between the book and film; in the book Leland is set to battle the terrorists who then shoot down an incoming helicopter which forces Leland to jump off the roof using the firehose to prevent him from falling all the way to the ground. The movie made some good changes from the book: for example, instead of going to meet his daughter McClane goes to meet his estranged wife Holly McClane Gennaro. The filmmakers also got rid of the Kathi Logan side story which, for the film, would have been unnecessary. The ending of the film is also different in a couple of significant ways from the book (I won’t say how so as not to spoil anything). Watching DIE HARD again, I was struck by how the film kind of has this three ring “terrorist” circus playiong out with McClane and Powell caught in the middle: you have Gruber’s terrorists, government terrorism (as represented by the FBI), and media “terrorism” (as represented by Thornton). All the “terrorist” elements use threats and are very duplicitous.
The reason why DIE HARD was so successful is because the filmmakers took source material, remained faithful to most of it, but made significant changes in character to make the story more entertaining and embraceable. DIE HARD is about the dude who gets put in a bad situation, has to use his wits and expertise to survive, gets to sneak around in stealth mode, is vulnerable yet strong, beats the bad guys in the end, wins the girl, and is the big hero…lol…what is not appealing about that?? I loved the references to cowboys in the film, because DIE HARD is action film, love story, cop buddy movie, and Western all rolled into one. AND it is legitimately moving too…heck, when McClane and Powell meet each other in the end I actually cry (nice bit of scoring by Michael Kamen there too)…it is a genuinely touching moment and just so well done all–around. As a viewer, you feel the emotion there (and the emotion of McClane’s vulnerable confession to Powell about his failures as a husband). DIE HARD is a much, much more satisfying experience than the dour source material that inspired it. Kudos to all involved with the film…it is a great classic that transcends its source material into something so much better and entertaining.
NOTHING LASTS FOREVER by Roderick Thorp (1979). Joe Leland, an ex-cop and now a security specialist, is on a flight to California to meet up with his daughter Stephanie Leland Gennaro on December 24. Leland has had a rough past – a one-time soldier whose relationship with his daughter is distant; a one-time hero on the force who made a huge mistake; a one-time husband to Karen which ended in divorce; and a one-time alcoholic who managed to get clean. Upon his arrival in California he is taken to the Klaxon Oil Corporation building where his daughter and her co-workers Ellis, Rivers, and Mark Fisher are celebrating the closure of their biggest deal ever with the Chilean government ($150 million). While settling in the building is overtaken by terrorists led by Anton Gruber. The terrorists round up everyone as hostages…except for Leland, who manages to escape. With the outside help of youthful LAPD officer Al Powell, Leland attempts to thwart the terrorists’ plans from within and rescue the hostages – especially his daughter and her two kids.
NLF is Thorp’s sequel to THE DETECTIVE, a book I have not read. Events from THE DETECTIVE are mentioned in flashback style early in NLF, and in–between all the action and cat–and–mouse games between Leland and the terrorists Thorp uses flashbacks to fill in gaps in Leland’s story so that we get to know him as a character. Leland is very hardened…so much so that by the end of the book, despite all the action, I felt extremely sad and “heavy.” He is a tragic character, disenchanted and somewhat lost. His moments of triumph are overshadowed by his moments of defeat in the past – his battle with the terrorists in the Klaxon building in a weird way came across to me as symbolic of his battle with himself and life…the ups and downs, the highs and lows, the victories and defeats, and the rays of light snuffed out by oppressive darkness. The book comes off as a very dark detective noir story with a couple of twists at the end; at times I felt the writing was rather jumbled and confusing, and there is a side plot involving Leland’s chatting up and getting a phone number of an airline stewardess named Kathi Logan that I found clunky as it played out (though she is a lifeline for him in the story and a chance to get away from his demons). Overall this was a very dark book (in my opinion) and its title is very appropriate.
John McTiernan made this book into a little film called DIE HARD in 1988 starring Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman. It remains one of the best action films of the 80s and, I would argue, one of the most entertaining action films Hollywood has ever made. Aside from the spectacle of the whole thing (which remains very true to the book’s action sequences), the genius and success of this film falls significantly in the laps of writers Steven E. de Souza and Jeb Stuart. They took the dark, depressing character of Leland from the book and changed him into John McClane, a roughish, streetwise NY cop who goes from being something of an unsympathetic character in the beginning to one you root and cheer for throughout his ordeal. Credit goes to Bruce Willis for his performance, and credit goes to Alan Rickman for his ridiculously entertaining performance as Hans Gruber. The characters in the film have so much more personality and color to them; the difference is night and day.
I respect that the film was so faithful to the book in many ways. The air conditioning shaft sequence is in the book and movie as well as Ellis’ death, Karl’s surprise appearance at the end, an antagonistic deputy chief Dwight Robinson, and much more. The rooftop firehose sequence is different between the book and film; in the book Leland is set to battle the terrorists who then shoot down an incoming helicopter which forces Leland to jump off the roof using the firehose to prevent him from falling all the way to the ground. The movie made some good changes from the book: for example, instead of going to meet his daughter McClane goes to meet his estranged wife Holly McClane Gennaro. The filmmakers also got rid of the Kathi Logan side story which, for the film, would have been unnecessary. The ending of the film is also different in a couple of significant ways from the book (I won’t say how so as not to spoil anything). Watching DIE HARD again, I was struck by how the film kind of has this three ring “terrorist” circus playiong out with McClane and Powell caught in the middle: you have Gruber’s terrorists, government terrorism (as represented by the FBI), and media “terrorism” (as represented by Thornton). All the “terrorist” elements use threats and are very duplicitous.
The reason why DIE HARD was so successful is because the filmmakers took source material, remained faithful to most of it, but made significant changes in character to make the story more entertaining and embraceable. DIE HARD is about the dude who gets put in a bad situation, has to use his wits and expertise to survive, gets to sneak around in stealth mode, is vulnerable yet strong, beats the bad guys in the end, wins the girl, and is the big hero…lol…what is not appealing about that?? I loved the references to cowboys in the film, because DIE HARD is action film, love story, cop buddy movie, and Western all rolled into one. AND it is legitimately moving too…heck, when McClane and Powell meet each other in the end I actually cry (nice bit of scoring by Michael Kamen there too)…it is a genuinely touching moment and just so well done all–around. As a viewer, you feel the emotion there (and the emotion of McClane’s vulnerable confession to Powell about his failures as a husband). DIE HARD is a much, much more satisfying experience than the dour source material that inspired it. Kudos to all involved with the film…it is a great classic that transcends its source material into something so much better and entertaining.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9811
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Actually, the music cue when McClane and Powell embrace outside the Nakatomi building was written by John Scott for the 1986 movie Man On Fire, and was tracked into Die Hard. Same thing with the James Horner "Resolution & Hyperspace" cue from Aliens when Karl makes his surprise re-appearance and gets blown away by Powell (which, ironically, was not used in that film!).
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Thanks MJ - I did not know that!
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
SPHERE by Michael Crichton (1987). Fifty-three year old psychologist Dr. Norman Johnson, who specializes in helping survivors of civilian air disasters cope, has been called up by the Navy to join a team of people (including astrophysicist Ted Fielding, zoologist Beth Halpern, and mathematician Harold Adams) in the South Pacific. Johnson believes he is going to an airplane crash site in the middle of the Pacific, but he soon discovers that there is no airplane crash. Instead there is a very large spaceship one thousand or so feet underwater on the bottom of the ocean floor; it has been there for about three hundred years. Johnson finds out from Captain Barnes (the leader of the expedition) that the Navy believes they have found an alien vessel, and Norman, Ted, Beth, and Harry are all part of the team who will spend the next few days underwater exploring the ship in order to make first contact. The team ventures into the ship and discovers a large, mysterious perfect sphere thirty feet in diameter, though they are unable to open it…at first. When the team is temporarily left behind by the Navy in their underwater habitat due to a violent storm on the surface, the team is trapped with each other, the sphere, and a mysterious alien presence named Jerry and its “manifestations”…or are Jerry and its “manifestations” really something else?
Crichton’s book is very entertaining; it does get a little ridiculous at times (especially toward the end), but that is a minor criticism. SPHERE is at times science–fiction/science–fact, a psychological thriller (with an emphasis on Jungian psychology), a pseudo-Stephen King thriller, and a mystery/whodunit that might keep you guessing up to the last minute. The novel is good at building suspense and keeping the reader interested in finding out what happens next; the majority of the story takes place in the naval habitat, and one can feel the claustrophobia and danger the team is in throughout. Ultimately the book is a deep character study of sorts: what different people fear, how they react under stress, what motivates them, and what lurks far beneath the depths of a person’s exterior being. I would love to say more but I would end up giving away the narrative’s twists and turns, and I do not want to spoil it for anyone who chooses to read it. Well worth reading.
Barry Levinson made the movie based on this book in 1998. I know you can only do so much with a film, but I found this movie so…dull and flat. It seemed so…”unnatural” in the sense that I was watching actors act and not seeing characters come to life on screen (if that makes any sense at all). The filmmakers changed character motivations which affected the psychology of the characters (for example, in the film Dr. Johnson had an inappropriate relationship with Beth many years ago. She is also outwardly suicidal in the film…neither of those things are in the book). A few events that occur later in the book occur earlier in the film; the film also jettisons the major confrontations with “the monster” (likely due to the inability to film the special effects as they needed to be filmed), and the film excises a great deal of the dialogue and character development that occurs between Dr. Johnson and Jerry the alien presence. In the book this development adds a sense of mystery, confusion, and suspense as the novel moves to its conclusion and Dr. Johnson starts to figure things out. The film takes a shortcut and so this dialogue comes off as goofy and artificial, not terrifying as it is in the book (and should have been for the film). Elliot Goldenthal’s score does not help the film much either; I used to be a big fan of his, and there are some scores of his I really like, but I find it hard to listen to many of his offerings now, including SPHERE. The music for this film, for quieter and more reflective moments, is good. The action stuff is noise – it worked better in ALIEN 3 (which I unapologetically like).
Furthermore, the acting in this film is awful. Queen Latifah’s death scene is laughable, not terrifying. I am not a fan of Sharon Stone; I feel she is overrated. But to be honest, the filmmakers gave her nothing to work with here which was unfair for her. In the book Beth Halpern is a complex character, an intelligent woman who has been unfairly treated and misused by men in a male dominated industry; her character and reactions to stress reflect that. The film’s Beth is extremely dull and uncompelling; she is hardly on screen much and is almost a secondary character until the end of the film. I found Dustin Hoffman extremely annoying, mumbling much of his dialogue and adding no dimensionality to the character of Dr. Johnson at all. He is, in Hoffman’s hands, extremely dry and lifeless. Samuel L. Jackson was okay, but the move never gives the viewer insight into his character at all. Liev Schreiber is forgettable. There is more I could say but I will sum it up like this: the whole movie is a B-movie (or worse) trying to be an A-movie event with A-list actors. While the film does remain faithful to the general structure arc of the book, ultimately it is more laughable, less imaginative, and far less compelling than the book. Read the book, skip the poorly executed and conceived movie.
Crichton’s book is very entertaining; it does get a little ridiculous at times (especially toward the end), but that is a minor criticism. SPHERE is at times science–fiction/science–fact, a psychological thriller (with an emphasis on Jungian psychology), a pseudo-Stephen King thriller, and a mystery/whodunit that might keep you guessing up to the last minute. The novel is good at building suspense and keeping the reader interested in finding out what happens next; the majority of the story takes place in the naval habitat, and one can feel the claustrophobia and danger the team is in throughout. Ultimately the book is a deep character study of sorts: what different people fear, how they react under stress, what motivates them, and what lurks far beneath the depths of a person’s exterior being. I would love to say more but I would end up giving away the narrative’s twists and turns, and I do not want to spoil it for anyone who chooses to read it. Well worth reading.
Barry Levinson made the movie based on this book in 1998. I know you can only do so much with a film, but I found this movie so…dull and flat. It seemed so…”unnatural” in the sense that I was watching actors act and not seeing characters come to life on screen (if that makes any sense at all). The filmmakers changed character motivations which affected the psychology of the characters (for example, in the film Dr. Johnson had an inappropriate relationship with Beth many years ago. She is also outwardly suicidal in the film…neither of those things are in the book). A few events that occur later in the book occur earlier in the film; the film also jettisons the major confrontations with “the monster” (likely due to the inability to film the special effects as they needed to be filmed), and the film excises a great deal of the dialogue and character development that occurs between Dr. Johnson and Jerry the alien presence. In the book this development adds a sense of mystery, confusion, and suspense as the novel moves to its conclusion and Dr. Johnson starts to figure things out. The film takes a shortcut and so this dialogue comes off as goofy and artificial, not terrifying as it is in the book (and should have been for the film). Elliot Goldenthal’s score does not help the film much either; I used to be a big fan of his, and there are some scores of his I really like, but I find it hard to listen to many of his offerings now, including SPHERE. The music for this film, for quieter and more reflective moments, is good. The action stuff is noise – it worked better in ALIEN 3 (which I unapologetically like).
Furthermore, the acting in this film is awful. Queen Latifah’s death scene is laughable, not terrifying. I am not a fan of Sharon Stone; I feel she is overrated. But to be honest, the filmmakers gave her nothing to work with here which was unfair for her. In the book Beth Halpern is a complex character, an intelligent woman who has been unfairly treated and misused by men in a male dominated industry; her character and reactions to stress reflect that. The film’s Beth is extremely dull and uncompelling; she is hardly on screen much and is almost a secondary character until the end of the film. I found Dustin Hoffman extremely annoying, mumbling much of his dialogue and adding no dimensionality to the character of Dr. Johnson at all. He is, in Hoffman’s hands, extremely dry and lifeless. Samuel L. Jackson was okay, but the move never gives the viewer insight into his character at all. Liev Schreiber is forgettable. There is more I could say but I will sum it up like this: the whole movie is a B-movie (or worse) trying to be an A-movie event with A-list actors. While the film does remain faithful to the general structure arc of the book, ultimately it is more laughable, less imaginative, and far less compelling than the book. Read the book, skip the poorly executed and conceived movie.
Last edited by mkaroly on Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34443
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
It's funny how actors like Hoffman and Pacino basically spent most of the 1990s repeating the one big, Oscar-winning performance of theirs (Hoffman's RAIN MAIN, Pacino's SCENT OF A WOMAN) in nearly every film they appeared in for years afterwards...I mean, Hoffman was "Raymond" in movie after movie (HERO, this film, etc.)I found Dustin Hoffman extremely annoying, mumbling much of his dialogue and adding no dimensionality to the character of Dr. Johnson at all.
SPHERE was a big disappointment at the time of its release. It's watchable but it could've been much better, and I know they had refilmed the ending at least once. I always found Barry Levinson's movies extremely hit-and-miss (and occasionally very overrated too). Goldenthal's music also felt like a cold fish, and I could never get into it, even when people were onboard the wagon during his ALIEN3-era heyday. A lot of it IS "noisy" (especially his scores for Joel Schumacher's movies).
Great analysis and insight Michael as always! I had never really examined the connection between DIE HARD and THE DETECTIVE so that especially was fascinating...I know DIE HARD 2 was based on a book that had nothing to do with either, leading to the bizarre "Based on Characters Created By" and totally separate "Based on the Book By" credits.
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Thanks Andy!
I did not know the SPHERE ending was refilmed...which then makes me wonder how awful the ending was the first time around! Lol...the end of the film is very silly (IMO). I am not a huge fan of Dustin Hoffman, but this has to be one of his all-time worst performances in a film. I wonder how much influence he had on the script - maybe the filmmakers would have been better off giving the roles to less well known actors.
I did not know the SPHERE ending was refilmed...which then makes me wonder how awful the ending was the first time around! Lol...the end of the film is very silly (IMO). I am not a huge fan of Dustin Hoffman, but this has to be one of his all-time worst performances in a film. I wonder how much influence he had on the script - maybe the filmmakers would have been better off giving the roles to less well known actors.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9811
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Sphere was LAUGHABLY bad.
-
Eric Paddon
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:49 pm
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
Some belated thoughts on "The Robe" post. For some time I've felt that the movie has not stood up on repeated viewings and the chief reason for it is that the film has a lack of historical authenticity that isn't compensated for by a flawless storyline/acting as is the case with "Ben Hur". "Ben Hur", like "The Robe" totally omits the reality of the Jewish authorities and their being the prime forces behind the arrest of Christ and tries to make us think this is all a Roman matter ("King Of Kings" is guilty of the same) but because the story of the Crucifixion is more background than a primary part of the narrative and because the storyline there is so compelling I've always been able to turn off my historian's blinker when watching that. Unfortunately with "The Robe" that hasn't been possible because the performances just aren't as good and the narrative isn't as good.
I have always wondered how much the film was duplicating the novel and the review helps clarify that enormously. Douglas is responsible for the notion of giving us a Caligula that persecutes Christians (in fact, Caligula probably died without knowing what a Christian was; the earliest known case of a Roman emperor being aware of the sect is with Claudius in 54 AD. Caligula though *was* chummy with Herod Agrippa, whom he made king of Judea and who was responsible for the jailing of Peter and the murder of the Apostle James, so maybe he did know a little via the backdoor there, but in both novel and film, Caligula's attitude toward Christians is transposing Nero's behavior onto him). But the film was responsible for zapping the Jewish authorities out of the story altogether.
The film I have to confess is also guilty for the most awful line ever uttered in any religious epic that ostensibly purports to be a positive portrayal of Christianity. When Marcellus appears before Caligula and in referring to the Crucifixion calls it a "mistake" the scriptwriters reveal the most grotesque ignorance of basic Christian doctrine imaginable. No true Christian would ever call the Crucifxion a "mistake". The whole *point* of Christ's presence on Earth was to take up the martyrdom for humanity on the Cross. If anything, the film's narrative should have had Peter pointing out to Marcellus that his role in the Crucifixion represented the *fulfillment* of God's plan. The line Marcellus utters is the kind of line only someone who doesn't understand Christianity could come up with.
Someday if I have time, I should give the novel a try.
I have always wondered how much the film was duplicating the novel and the review helps clarify that enormously. Douglas is responsible for the notion of giving us a Caligula that persecutes Christians (in fact, Caligula probably died without knowing what a Christian was; the earliest known case of a Roman emperor being aware of the sect is with Claudius in 54 AD. Caligula though *was* chummy with Herod Agrippa, whom he made king of Judea and who was responsible for the jailing of Peter and the murder of the Apostle James, so maybe he did know a little via the backdoor there, but in both novel and film, Caligula's attitude toward Christians is transposing Nero's behavior onto him). But the film was responsible for zapping the Jewish authorities out of the story altogether.
The film I have to confess is also guilty for the most awful line ever uttered in any religious epic that ostensibly purports to be a positive portrayal of Christianity. When Marcellus appears before Caligula and in referring to the Crucifixion calls it a "mistake" the scriptwriters reveal the most grotesque ignorance of basic Christian doctrine imaginable. No true Christian would ever call the Crucifxion a "mistake". The whole *point* of Christ's presence on Earth was to take up the martyrdom for humanity on the Cross. If anything, the film's narrative should have had Peter pointing out to Marcellus that his role in the Crucifixion represented the *fulfillment* of God's plan. The line Marcellus utters is the kind of line only someone who doesn't understand Christianity could come up with.
Someday if I have time, I should give the novel a try.
Re: Read a Book, then Watch Its Movie!
I did not catch that line at the end of the film Eric (I was dying for it to be over...lol...). In the book Marcellus calls the crucifixion a crime - it was his crime in crucifying Jesus. When Caligula questions him on this point (is it a crime to obey orders from the Roman Empire?), Marcellus says this:
"The Empire, Your Majesty, is composed of fallible men who sometimes makes mistakes. And this, sire, was the greatest mistake that was ever made!" (p. 505).
I think, from Marcellus' point of view, he understood that Jesus was innocent and, from the perspective of a just governement, just laws, just leaders, and just rulership, what happened to Jesus was unjust (i.e. a mistake). His role in it was a crime against Jesus. Would Marcellus, as a Roman Gentile just learning the depths of the Jewish Scriptures, fully have understood "fulfillment" as Peter and the Jewish disciples/followers of Jesus would have (or at least would have been more clear about)? Did he have enough time to make the connection? I absolutely agree the crucifixion was fulfillment, but the question is would Marcellus have done so based on his background and his role in the crucifixion, despite knowing he is forgiven?
This is not to be argumentative but to facilitate discussion and sharing.
"The Empire, Your Majesty, is composed of fallible men who sometimes makes mistakes. And this, sire, was the greatest mistake that was ever made!" (p. 505).
I think, from Marcellus' point of view, he understood that Jesus was innocent and, from the perspective of a just governement, just laws, just leaders, and just rulership, what happened to Jesus was unjust (i.e. a mistake). His role in it was a crime against Jesus. Would Marcellus, as a Roman Gentile just learning the depths of the Jewish Scriptures, fully have understood "fulfillment" as Peter and the Jewish disciples/followers of Jesus would have (or at least would have been more clear about)? Did he have enough time to make the connection? I absolutely agree the crucifixion was fulfillment, but the question is would Marcellus have done so based on his background and his role in the crucifixion, despite knowing he is forgiven?
This is not to be argumentative but to facilitate discussion and sharing.