The movie is quite faithful to the novel, uses the same basic storyline and a lot of its dialog word for word, yet is by far the better version.
I can think of only four other examples where the movies made from the novels exceed the quality of the original material: PSYCHO, PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK, CARRIE and ANGEL HEART (Interestingly, all five examples are horror stories. I don't know whether that's a commentary on the genre of horror, the quality of horror novels, or simply on my personal preferences.)
In the movie's CD, some expert opines that the original novel was quite cinematic itself, and you could almost have created a shooting script by cutting and pasting from it. I disagree with this.
The book has quite a few good scenes. It certainly tells a terrific story. And the dialog seems quite realistic and is certainly colorful (as mentioned, Lawton used a lot of the original dialog in the movie). But in some ways it's poorly constructed technically.
The dialog is not separated by quotation marks, only by context. Grubb may have done this to make it seem more stream of consciousness. He wouldn't have been the first. But in my opinion it just makes the novel harder to read than necessary.
Scenes are just strung together without any real transitions, including switching from the viewpoint of one character to another. One moment you're in John's mind, the next in Preacher's, with no physical formatting or other guidance. To me, this just makes the novel seem amateurish.
So the novel tells the same basic story as the movie, though it has a more elaborate and rambling structure (Lawton tightened it for the movie).
The one advantage of the book over the movie that makes clear is John's behavior after reacher Rachel's house is the result of some kind of shock. In the movie he's shown as giving Rachel one of her own apples for Christmas, and for refusing to identify Preacher during the trial, but this is not explained.
However, it's not really explained in the book either, though it's clarified. Is it some kind of post traumatic stress disorder, before it was termed that? Maybe. The Christmas scene that ends both versions is supposed to be showing John as beginning to recover.
Also, in the book the lynch mob apparently succeeds. I say "apparently " because it's barely mentioned. Preacher recedes in importance after "the blue men" come for him in Rachel's barn.
Probably the biggest difference is the river sequence. This is what really sets the movie apart from other suspense thrillers.
In the book, to escape from Preacher, John and Pearl do set out on the Ohio River in their father's little skiff. Pearl even sings a song about a fly, but the book makes no effort to create the same effect. That is obviously Lawton's particular genius.
I think it's apparent that Grubb was using the suspense thriller format and storyline for some greater commentary on life and society. Preacher is a quite original villain, and Davis deserves full credit for creating him. He's a sexually repressed sociopathic serial killer long before they became a standard cliche.
I can think of only four other examples where the movies made from the novels exceed the quality of the original material: PSYCHO, PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK, CARRIE and ANGEL HEART (Interestingly, all five examples are horror stories. I don't know whether that's a commentary on the genre of horror, the quality of horror novels, or simply on my personal preferences.)
In the movie's CD, some expert opines that the original novel was quite cinematic itself, and you could almost have created a shooting script by cutting and pasting from it. I disagree with this.
The book has quite a few good scenes. It certainly tells a terrific story. And the dialog seems quite realistic and is certainly colorful (as mentioned, Lawton used a lot of the original dialog in the movie). But in some ways it's poorly constructed technically.
The dialog is not separated by quotation marks, only by context. Grubb may have done this to make it seem more stream of consciousness. He wouldn't have been the first. But in my opinion it just makes the novel harder to read than necessary.
Scenes are just strung together without any real transitions, including switching from the viewpoint of one character to another. One moment you're in John's mind, the next in Preacher's, with no physical formatting or other guidance. To me, this just makes the novel seem amateurish.
So the novel tells the same basic story as the movie, though it has a more elaborate and rambling structure (Lawton tightened it for the movie).
The one advantage of the book over the movie that makes clear is John's behavior after reacher Rachel's house is the result of some kind of shock. In the movie he's shown as giving Rachel one of her own apples for Christmas, and for refusing to identify Preacher during the trial, but this is not explained.
However, it's not really explained in the book either, though it's clarified. Is it some kind of post traumatic stress disorder, before it was termed that? Maybe. The Christmas scene that ends both versions is supposed to be showing John as beginning to recover.
Also, in the book the lynch mob apparently succeeds. I say "apparently " because it's barely mentioned. Preacher recedes in importance after "the blue men" come for him in Rachel's barn.
Probably the biggest difference is the river sequence. This is what really sets the movie apart from other suspense thrillers.
In the book, to escape from Preacher, John and Pearl do set out on the Ohio River in their father's little skiff. Pearl even sings a song about a fly, but the book makes no effort to create the same effect. That is obviously Lawton's particular genius.
I think it's apparent that Grubb was using the suspense thriller format and storyline for some greater commentary on life and society. Preacher is a quite original villain, and Davis deserves full credit for creating him. He's a sexually repressed sociopathic serial killer long before they became a standard cliche.
No comments:
Post a Comment