Book vs. Adaptation | Dark Places by Gillian Flynn

Dark Places is Gillian Flynn's second novel and was published in 2009, the film adaptation followed in 2015 after the success of the 2014 adaptation of Gone Girl. You can check out my review of the book here!

After Gone Girl pretty much took over the world it seemed only natural that filmmakers would be quick to snap another of Gillian Flynn's novels to adapt. Dark Places was the novel of choice - though I believe Sharp Objects is getting a television adaptation - and honestly I'm surprised I didn't see this advertised everywhere. Either I just wasn't looking for it, because at the time of its release I'd never read any of Flynn's work, or the marketing was kind of poor.

This year I finally dove into Flynn's work. So far I've read Dark Places and Sharp Objects, which I've also reviewed here, and I still haven't decided if I'm going to pick up Gone Girl. I think it's inevitable that I will at some point, but I think I need a bit of a break from Flynn's worryingly dark brain before I do.

While I wasn't a fan of Sharp Objects, I did really enjoy Dark Places - in fact after I read it I realised I'd actually enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I had - and because I think we can all agree that Charlize Theron is basically a goddess I was eager to check out the film adaptation. I love watching a good crime drama, I watch a lot more crime fiction than I read, and I enjoyed watching this one, too. Is it as good as the book? No. Is it still pretty good all the same? Yes.

First thing's first: if you have read the book (and personally I think you should read the book first because there's a lot more to get out of it) don't go into the adaptation expecting the characters to look at all like they're described. Charlize Theron looks like... well, Charlize Theron, but she's still a great actress. Actually I forget how good an actress she is until I see her in something and I'm reminded that she's hella talented, and she's brilliant as Libby.

Most of the changes between the book and the film, and there are changes as there always are when it comes to adapting a story into a different medium, involved cutting things out that would have made the film too long. The basics are there and a lot of it's done well; Charlize Theron is a very good Libby, but I think the cast as a whole played their parts well, even Chloe Grace Moretz made a character I wasn't entirely sure I believed in the book a lot more plausible. That being said, I'm not sure I would have understood the film as well as I did if I hadn't read the book first. Obviously I can't know for certain that that's true - I can't erase the book from my memory and watch the film again - but something about the film felt a little... lacking compared to the book. It's not a bad film at all, but there's no doubt that the book is better.

Ultimately if you're a fan of the book I think this is a decent adaptation and one that you'll enjoy. If you haven't read the book I recommend you do simply because you're missing out on a very good book, but this is still a great film if you just want to curl up with some popcorn and try to figure out whether the butler did it or not.

Book vs. Adaptation | If I Stay by Gayle Forman

Today I'm back with yet another Book vs. Adaptation post - woohoo!

If I Stay was published in 2009 and adapted for the big screen in 2014 by R. J. Cutler who, as one of the directors of Nashville, is no stranger to a bit of music-centred drama. I read If I Stay in 2014, and if you'd like to see my thoughts on the book you can check out my review here!

If I Stay is around 106 minutes long and stars Chloë Grace Moretz and Jamie Blackley as our romantic leads, Mia and Adam. Watching this was the first time I'd seen Blackley in anything, though he has one of those faces that makes me think I've seen him somewhere before, but at this point Moretz is something of an adaptation veteran. She's been in Diary of a Wimpy Kid, Let Me In, Hugo and Carrie, and has since returned to our screens as Cassie in J Blakeson's adaptation of The 5th Wave. She was even considered for the part of Katniss in The Hunger Games franchise.

I've mentioned before how little I tend to stray into YA contemporary, but how much I enjoy it when I do. If I Stay is most definitely one of my favourite YA contemporaries; I flew through it in one sitting, so I was pretty excited to watch the adaptation. I'm sure other readers and film buffs would disagree, but I've always found that books that don't fall into the speculative fiction category at all are much easier to adapt than those that do. You can't get the world wrong or the magic system wrong because there is no magic system and the world's our own, but the adaptation could still quickly go south if it isn't done well.

Thankfully, this one is. 

Much like Coraline, I think this may be one of those rare instances when I enjoy the film more than the book. Don't get me wrong, the book's great, but the film made me a little teary-eyed where the book didn't, and I just love watching it; I've watched it so many times since it was released on DVD, it's the kind of film I like to put on if I have a few hours to myself and I want something on in the background while I tinker away at whatever it is I'm doing. That might not sound like much praise, but it's only films that I really, really enjoy that I use as 'background music'.

I wasn't sure how I was going to feel about Moretz; before this the only films I'd watched that she was in were Hugo and Dark Shadows, and I didn't enjoy either of them that much. That's not her fault, by any means, but it did mean she got slightly tainted by association. Now, though, I think she's a brilliant young actress; she captures Mia beautifully.

In fact I thought everyone was cast well. Blackley is a very charming Adam, Liana Liberato makes for a very fun Kim, and Mireille Enos and Joshua Leanord are wonderful as Kat and Denny. Nobody felt miscast or unnatural, which is always a plus.

It's definitely a very close adaptation - there are the odd tweaks here and there, mainly just tiny sections of the book that they missed out, but I didn't really notice them not being there, and I think I actually preferred the story without them. Everything flowed nicely from one section to the next, despite the back and forth narrative to the story.

One of my favourite things about this film, though, is the soundtrack. Or one song in particular on the soundtrack. Norwegian songwriter Ane Brun did an absolutely beautiful cover of Beyonce's 'Halo', accompanied by cellist Linnea Olsson, and it's so lovely - I think I prefer it to the original!

Basically If I Stay is one of those lucky books that's managed to land itself a very good adaptation. If you're a lover of the book and you've been wary about watching this, you needn't worry - I think you'll love it!

Book vs. Adaptation | Carrie by Stephen King

Today I'm back with another Book vs. Adaptation post! So far I've done Sarah Waters' Fingersmith (here!), Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey (here!), Neil Gaiman's Coraline (here!) and Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca (here and here!), and today I'm going to be talking about the 2013 adaptation of Stephen King's debut novel, Carrie.

I read Carrie for the first time last month - it was one of the books on my Halloween TBR - and you can check out my book review here. I'd never seen any adaptations of Carrie before, I wanted to read the book first, and once I'd read the book I decided to seek out the most recent adaptation.

Carrie was published in 1974, and is the novel that started Stephen King's impressive career. The most famous adaptation is the one that followed two years later, in 1976, starring Sissy Spacek, but when I sought out an adaptation I immediately gravitated towards Kimberly Peirce's 2013 adaptation, starring Chloë Grace Moretz as Carrie White and Julianne Moore as her mother, Margaret. Why? Purely because I really like Julianne Moore and Chloë Grace Moretz, neither of whom are strangers to book adaptations.

Chloë Grace Moretz is something of an adaptation veteran; she's been in Let Me In (2010), Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2011), Hugo (2011), and If I Stay, and she'll soon be hitting our cinemas in the starring role of J Blakeson's adaptation of The 5th Wave. She was even considered for the part of Katniss - speaking of The Hunger Games, Julianne Moore is well-known for playing the part of President Coin in the franchise, and she also played Clarice Starling in Ridley Scott's adaptation of Hannibal. Both of them are pretty great actresses, so I was eager to see their portrayals of Carrie and Margaret White.

My dad and I sat down and watched this on Halloween - what's Halloween without a fitting film after all? - and the two of us enjoyed it!

Honestly? I actually enjoyed this more than the book, though if you've seen my review you'll know I found the latter half of the book to be a bit of a shambles. This film is a lot more concise, and I loved the extra scenes that were added; in the book the story is interspersed with pieces of 'non-fiction' all about telekinesis, and I was wondering how that was going to be included in this film. Unlike the book, which is set in the '70s, this adaptation is set in our present day, meaning there's more technology; characters have iPhones and Carrie uses YouTube to research telekinesis, which I thought was a really nice touch. In the book she does practice her own gifts, but she doesn't seem to wonder if anyone else is like her which I thought was a little odd.

I think this adaptation is acted very well, too. Moretz is a heart-breaking and believable Carrie and, after her portrayal of Mia in If I Stay, has cemented herself in my list of brilliant young actors. Naturally Julianne Moore is a fantastic Margaret White, and I thought the other cast members were great; Ansel Elgort was a charming Tommy, which I wasn't expecting if I'm perfectly honest, and I loved Judy Greer as Miss Desjardin and Portia Doubleday as Chris Hargensen.

I know quite a lot of Carrie fans were disappointed with this adaptation because they felt that too much was cut, but I don't think this film lost anything; I love a good disaster sequence as much as anyone else, but there's only so much I can watch before a film starts to get boring and repetitive, and for me this adaptation is a perfect balance of the horrifically sublime and the tensely subdued.

Whether you've read the book or not I recommend this adaptation! It's a particularly good film for people out there who don't like horror films - I guarantee this won't scare you.

Book vs. Adaptation | Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier (Part Two)

On Monday I discussed Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 adaptation of Rebecca (you can check that post out here!), and today I'm back to talk about the 1997 miniseries.

This adaptation was first broadcast on ITV in the UK and PBS in the US; it's around 180 minutes long and is split into two episodes. Emilia Fox stars as Mrs. de Winter in her very first leading role. Opposite her are Charles Dance as Maxim de Winter and Dame Diana Rigg as Mrs. Danvers; two actors who would later also star opposite each other in HBO's Game of Thrones.

That's it. That's the show.

Unlike the previous film, Daphne du Maurier never saw this adaptation; she passed away in 1989 at the ripe old age of 81 - in fact this adaptation was broadcast 90 years after her birth! I think she would have been pleased with this adaptation, though; luckily for us, Rebecca is one of those rare novels which doesn't have a lack of decent adaptations for us to seek out, whether you're interested in a radio production, a film, a television series, a play or even an opera!

What I loved most about this adaptation is little Emilia Fox, whose portrayal of Mrs. de Winter is practically perfect. The cast as a whole is wonderful in this adaptation - it's not a bad adaptation at all - and I think both Charles Dance and Diana Rigg are wonderful. For me, though, I prefer Laurence Olivier and Judith Anderson's portrayals of these characters; I think Charles Dance is a brilliant Maxim, I particularly like how much older than Emilia Clarke he looks because there is definitely a peculiar paternal relationship between Maxim and his second wife as much as a romantic one, but in my head Laurence Olivier looks a lot more like Maxim than Charles Dance does.

Similarly, as much as I love Diana Rigg, and as much as I think her portrayal of Mrs. Danvers is fantastic, there's just no competition with Judith Anderson. Anderson's Mrs. Danvers is perfection and her shoes are awfully big ones to fill, though they do both bring something different to the role; Diana Rigg's portrayal is more vulnerable than Judith Anderson's - not softer, because nothing about Mrs. Danvers is soft - but she feels more human and more beatable. Perhaps that's why, if I had to pick, I'd rather watch Hitchcock's adaptation; villains are a lot more fun when they seem invincible.

Unlike the 1940 adaptation, however, I do think this adaptation's version of Mrs. de Winter is much more similar to the book, in fact the adaptation as a whole is a perfect adaptation whereas the 1940 adaptation makes tiny tweaks here and there. To say Emilia Fox is a 'better' Mrs. de Winter than Joan Fontaine is some praise to give to a woman in her very first leading role, but Emilia Fox's Mrs. de Winter has none of the glamour that an actress like Joan Fontaine can't not have. I think being very new to acting onscreen - before this her first screen appearance was in the 1995 adaptation of Pride and Prejudice - aided her in portraying that child-like, innocent and nervous way Mrs. de Winter carries herself throughout the majority of Rebecca; she even looks like a child dressing up as an adult.

Emilia Fox as Mrs. de Winter and Dame Diana Rigg as Mrs. Danvers.

In fact I can't help wondering if they based Mrs. de Winter's appearance off Daphne du Maurier's own appearance in her younger years.

Daphne du Maurier in her youth.

It wouldn't surprise me if they had based Mrs. de Winter on du Maurier herself; it's believed that Manderley is based on Menabilly, the house du Maurier restored and lived in for a while, and her husband Frederick Browning was nine years her senior.

Daphne du Maurier with her husband, Frederick Browning, and their three children.

So if you're after a decent adaptation of Rebecca, both the 1940 adaptation and the 1997 adaptation are worth checking out. I won't say one is better than the other because I think whichever adaptation you prefer is all down to personal taste, but in my opinion neither of them are poor adaptations. If you're in the mood for a direct adaptation, for a period drama, then I recommend the 1997 adaptation, but if you want to watch something that totally captures the atmosphere of the novel I recommend Hitchcock's adaptation - it's a brilliant film to watch as Halloween approaches!

Book vs. Adaptation | Rebecca by Daphne du Maurier (Part One)

I'm back today with another Book vs. Adaptation post, and the second Halloween-themed adaptation chat this month. If you want to see me chat about Henry Selick's adaptation of Neil Gaiman's Coraline, you can check it out here!

Today, however, I'm going to be talking about Alfred Hitchcock's adaptation of Daphne du Maurier's masterpiece, Rebecca.

Rebecca was published in 1938, and Hitchcock's adaptation followed two years later in 1940. The film is 130 minutes long and stars Joan Fontaine, Laurence Olivier and Judith Anderson.

After I finished reading Rebecca - a book I read around this time last year, and one I've thought about a lot since - I wasn't all that surprised to discover Hitchcock had adapted it; if anyone could adapt an exquisitely psychologically book that creeps under your skin and takes root there the way Rebecca does, it'd be this man. However, Daphne du Maurier considered withholding the film rights to Rebecca after seeing Hitchcock's 1939 adaptation of Jamaica Inn which, despite making an awful lot of money upon its release, was disliked by critics, by du Maurier and even by Hitchcock himself for completely lacking any of the suspense the novel has and turning the story into something of a comic romp. Luckily for us it seems du Maurier trusted Hitchcock to get her masterpiece right.

And did he? Yes, I'd say he did.

My mum and I are both fans of du Maurier, it's one of the few things we have in common, so one gloomy summer night we decided to watch it together and the two of us really enjoyed it!

This adaptation isn't without its faults by any means. There are the odd tweaks to the plot, but for the most part it's a very faithful and very atmospheric adaptation. Laurence Olivier makes for a tortured yet charming Maxim de Winter and Joan Fontaine, though a little too beautiful for Mrs. de Winter for me - she's a character I've always pictured as very plain, and Joan Fontaine is anything but that - certainly acts the part of Mrs. de Winter beautifully.

The star of this film for me, however, is Judith Anderson whose portrayal of the villainous Mrs. Danvers is just perfect. The woman's terrifying! She's quiet, still and so threatening, but threatening in the same way that voice in the back of your mind is when you're having a rough day; Mrs. Danvers is that part of our subconscious who makes us feel ashamed when we treat ourselves to that extra slice of cake or feel stupid when we introduce ourselves to new people. Perhaps it's just the English student in me, but there are times when, to me, Mrs. Danvers is the perfect personification of anxiety.

Something else I really loved about this adaptation is that we never see Rebecca. Some adaptations have her appear in flashbacks, but in this adaptation she doesn't appear at all and it makes her presence even more keenly felt because of it. We don't need to see her, we just need to see her 'R' emblazoned on almost everything Mrs. de Winter touches. 

(I promise that isn't a spoiler. Maxim de Winter is introduced as a widow very early on in the book, something I imagine most people can guess from the blurb anyway!)

Yes this film's old and yes it's in black and white, but I recommend checking it out. I was so surprised when I discovered it was made in 1940 because for such an early film I think it's pretty fantastic, and if black and white films bother you I promise that, after a while, you won't even notice it - in fact it really suits the mood of the film. I highly, highly suggest only watching this after you've read the book, though; it's one of those books which, whatever your tastes, I think everyone should read. It's that good.

Hitchcock's adaptation of du Maurier's work didn't stop here, either. The Birds (1963), probably his most famous film next to Psycho, is based off one of du Maurier's short stories. I think it's safe to say Hitchcock was a du Maurier fan, just stay away from his adaptation of Jamaica Inn!

I'll be back to discuss the 1997 miniseries soon!