Novels-to-Movies

[Oldposts]

Topic started by venKat (@ kraken.fw-sj.sony.com) on Tue Oct 24 15:13:09 .


Before I have seen the Jurassic Park, the movie, I happened to read the novel of Chricton and felt the terror with Zero-Graphics. Kudos to Chricton.
There are tons of novels made to movies almost all of Chricton and old ones like Schindler's List, Gone with the wind, Howard's End.......
My personal opinion is that the novels made a great impact on me than the movies. I am not blaming the actors or directors. I believe novels gives more imagination to one than the movies.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

[Oldposts]

I completely agree with you. Novels definitely have something better in them. I find that watching a movie after reading the book completely spoils it for me.

My husband says the only exception is 'Contact'. He says the movie is better than the book. But I can't bring myself to see it yet!

[Oldposts]

silence of the lambs - the movie equals the novel

[Oldposts]

Contact! sorry thanga. imo, the movie is a pathetic piece of hollywood sht. the movie contact was a jingoist piece of junk unlike the book which was very balanced. hollywood has this uncanny ability to adopt great books and skrew them up. non-hollywood movies do better in this regard. i remember watching 1984 a couple of years ago. forgot the name of the producer, director, actor ... . it was a british make. it was a very good, true to the book production.

[Oldposts]

censorship!! this site doesn't allow one to write the word s c r e w. i had to use skrew! hope we would grow up someday.

:-(

[Oldposts]

I have seen Silence of the lambs - but then I've never read the book!

I haven't read any George Orwell either. But I will get to it as soon as finish my current book. And maybe I will see the movie too.

I am almost irrationally afraid of watching a book I've read - especially one where I love the charachters. They have a peculiar charm and are very personal when I read a book. I guess I am afraid that they would look and feel and be so impersonal in the movie!

And thank you aruLaracan. I will not watch 'Contact'

[Oldposts]

How about Shawshenk Redemption and The Green Mile? Both were excellent adoptions of the books by Stephen King. I'd say the same about The Rainmaker(John Grisham/Coppolla). Though the movie was slow moving, it was indeed a good one.

[Oldposts]

thanga :-) (but please don't blame me if you ever happened to watch that movie and, god forbid, you liked it! :-)) ). george orwell is a great author. his animal farm is another classic. one of his not so widely read book is "down and out in london and paris".

how was MASH? i tried reading the book but couldn't go beyond a few pages :-(

[Oldposts]

Vikram B Kumar.... Alive and kicking;-))

[Oldposts]

Under most circumstances, the novels have great
advantage over movies.

1. Length limitation. Movies have to be 90-100 mimutes long in the West and may be 150 minutes
in India. Novels can be shorter or longer depending on the material.

2. You set the pace while reading the novels,
the director sets it in the movies.

3. Your imagination is better than the director's
for you. I am not saying directors are cluless.
They are very perceptive but they dont know you
as much as you know yourself. For example, when
you read the sentence, "A strikingly beautiful
girl entered the room", you imagine a girl who
will be strikingly beautiful to you. The actress
cast by the director may or may not be "strikingly
beautiful" to you. When it comes to subtler
emotions and grand descriptions, the novel will
beat the movie.

When movies are better than novels:

4. The movies will beat novels in describing
undescribable things. Things beyond your
imagination. The death-star sets in
Star wars or the flight through asteroid field,
etc.

5. The movies will beat the novels when they
create a sense of anticipation and then force
you to wait for the suspence. Cant flip to the
next page quickly in a movie. That is why
science-fiction movies and hitchcock thrillers
are better as movies than novels.

[Oldposts]

Hello aruLaracan,

I have read Animal Farm and enjoyed it thoroughly. But I would not dare see the movie version of it.

Ravi Sundaram, you say it perfectly. When you read a novel - especially something descriptive like Thomas Hardy or DH Lawrence, you seep in the story. You get really involved with the charachters, you think about them, you feel for them, you wonder about them and they become your good friends. I've even dreamed about a lot of charachters. And then you see them in the movie and it is such a let down.

First of all, they don't even look like your friends. Second, the movie is so short and you don't get to know them - very impersonal - like it is happening to somebody else. In the book it is all happening to you!

I do agree that the exceptions are science fictions and other "action" stories. John Grisham and the like.

[Oldposts]

Hello
In some situations movies come out better in portraying emotions.The background score,the sets contribute to the happiness or Pathos in the story.
The deep intensity of emotions affect us physically and psychologically when described in detail by a writer.

The narration helps us draw a picture in the mind which may look very disapointing once seen on the screen.

Both media are important in their own way in communicating to the reader or a celluloid lover of the message in Question.

[Oldposts]

Has anyone read the book Pay it Forward? I think this is an excellent book, but for some reason I enjoyed the movie more than I did the book. Also, does anybody have any suggestions on books I should read that have been made into movies? Thank you.

[Oldposts]

(1) the bridges of madison county!!! (i haven't seen the movie yet :-) ).
(2) the exorcist. ( i have read only a part of the book tho' i have seen the movie twice).
(3) of mice and men - the movie was (surprisingly) well made.
(4) ...

[Oldposts]

Gone with the Wind.

I could not move beyond 50 pages of the book. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.

[Oldposts]

Now I want to p*ss and moan and generally b*tch about making "The Lord of the Rings" into a movie. I mean, Sam Raimi already tried with animation and look where that went? Goo-goo eyed Hobbits freakish Elves. The only saving grace of that dismality was the song "where there's a whip, there's a way!" There's a novel that shouldn't be touched. The Dune movie was heinous as well!

[Oldposts]

Thanga et al

I agree that film as an audiovisual medium
needs a different approach for presentation.
But,Gosh,how much (too much) liberty the
Directors take in distorting the original
writing !

Years back,I saw 'The Hound of Baskervilles',
the immortal Holmes classic shot as a film.
thescariest scene being just a poisonous
spider climbing on the hand of Sherlock Holmes!
To add insult to injury,even the criminal was
changed from the original!

And see what they have done to several versions
of 'Lost World',the Sci-Fi masterpiece of
Professor Challenger Stories ,probably the
source of inspiration for Crichton-Spielberg-
Dinosaur syndrome which shook the world at the
turn of the twentieth cetury.Read the original
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and you may feel he is
turning in his grave!

[Oldposts]

Hi Ladies and Gentlemen,

Have you all forgotten the yester years Great Movies which are all from Novels by Alister MacLean?

ICE STATION ZEBRA
WHERE EAGLES DARE
GUNS OF NAVARONE
FORCE TEN FROM NAVARONE
BEAR ISLAND
CARAVAN TO VACCARES

What about Henry Sharriere's PAPPILLON (PATTAAM POOCHI NOVEL PUBLISHED IN KUMUDHAM)

wHAT ABOUT APPOLLO 13??

pLEASE SAY SOME THING..

[Oldposts]

tshankar

I have seen many of the movies you have mentioned and enjoyed them. Alistair MacLean
revelled in sudden twists in the plot and they were well presented in the films.Remember the final scene in 'Where The Eagles Dare' ?

'Papillone'was noted for photographing the swamps
of Guyanas.

Farther down the memory lane,I remember 'The
Three Musketeers' of Alexandre Dumas ,the film
being even more exciting than the novel.The role
of swashbuckler D'Artagnan was played by Gene
Kelly,known till then only as a dancer in MGM films, but he did even better than Errol Flynn or
Douglas Fairbanks !

[Oldposts]

How about John Grisham?

[Oldposts]

go home you sore losers!!!!!!!

[Oldposts]

i am doing a presentation in school for this very subject. does anyone have any recommendations as to where i could find some interesting facts about novels made into movies??? if so, please respond. thanks

[Oldposts]

Dear venKat (@ kraken.fw-sj.sony.com:
"Train to Pakistan" - movie by Pamela Rooks was better than the novel by the same name written by Kushwant Singh. And he himself admitted the fact. "English August" by Dev Benegal was as good as the novel by Upamanyu Chatterjee whereas "The Inscrutable Americans" by Anurag Mathur was a better book than the movie made on it recently. So, there seems to be no general rule. I think reading the novel after seeing the movie gives a bette sense of fulfilment in the sense you feel like filling in the left out spaces in apperciation !

[Oldposts]

Why hasn't Sphere been mentioned anywhere out here. I think it's an excellent picturisation of the book, except that damn thing (I dont wanna give it away) flying off in the last scene.

And, ravi sundaram said:
5. The movies will beat the novels when they
create a sense of anticipation and then force
you to wait for the suspence. Cant flip to the
next page quickly in a movie. That is why
science-fiction movies and hitchcock thrillers
are better as movies than novels

But yes, if you do give a good build up of suspense, you are making the fella turn to the next page faster. Has happened to me with Crichton and King. Anyway sci-fi flick Lost World sucked. And J.Park came nowhere close to the bk.

[Oldposts]

I got a movie version of the novel Women in Love, by D.H.Lawrence, from a public library. (Man, these libraries always amaze me with their collections of some of the finest movies ever made and which you get free of cost). It was a nice experience to go through the movie version of one of the greatest novels. Lawrence is a difficult writer and can easily be misinterpreted. What struck me in the movie was that there was a fine attempt to grasp at the Lawrencian sense of emotional relations as they arise from physical relations between men and women and between men among themselves too. It is told far better in a flowing narrative so charactarestic of Lawrence, in the novel, but then it wasn’t at least misinterpreted in the movie. Lawrence has been considered to be the greatest novelist of this century by many well reputed critics for his analysis of human relations in relation to the mental development it has had through the long years of civilized history, and this movie did justice at least to the extent that it could arise a curiosity in knowing more about the writer.

[Oldposts]

Novels let the reader explore the mind of the main character, you just simply can't do that in a film. Because all of a movie is what the characters are expressing through talking.

[Oldposts]

tShankar,

I agree with u MacLean's novels were made into good movies. But not so with Papillion. The book is a great one! But the movie is a mockery of it. I read in an article that the director of the movie had to cut it short becos of lack of funds.

Come any day " Novels are the best"

[Oldposts]

How do u rate the work BenHur, the winner of several oscars?

[Oldposts]

it is not fair what u are trying to say..... i agree, most books dont come within miles of the original book........ but all of u say about crichton, king etc. we should remember that these authors are some of the best in the profession..... the actors and the directors ,they just cannot compete with crichton ..... his books picturise everything much better than the movies.......... but what about 'silence of the lambs' and 'hannibal' and 'exorcist'? all of these books are superb... but the movies seem to grab you much more than the books........ i am not saying that blatty and harris are not good authors, but the movoies seem somewhat different and better........

[Oldposts]

Probably, it's also got to do with what u see first: the movie or the novel. If you saw the movie first, the novel might seem a drag.

Any experiences?

[Oldposts]

"If you saw the movie first, the novel might seem
a drag." Tell me about it! I remember being absolutely mesmerized by Ben-Hur and his celluloid escapades in my childhood. And so, when I got hold of the Lew Wallace's opus (calf-bound vellum copy, no less) I was all set to read up a storm. But alas! The written lines were so positively insipid that it seemed as though Charlton Heston and William Wyler had paid a greater tribute to our hero than Mr.Wallace himself.
On the other hand, watching "The Man in the Iron Mask" hardly satisfied my appetite for swash-buckling adventure despite the considerable box-office clout of all its stars (even the suspiciously effeminate Leonardo). The movie was simply no match for Dumas's masterpiece.
And I was as engrossed by Peter O'Toole do his stuff in 'Lawrence of Arabia' as I was while turning the pages of "Seven Pillars of Wisdom", the real Lawrence's memoirs.
As for the others:
Silence of the Lambs: Better Movie
Hannibal: Book rules!
River runs through it: Book wins.
Emma: Book (despite Ms.Paltrow's excellent effort)
Pride and Prejudice: Book (despite my mania for Colin Firth)
One flew over the cuckoo's nest: Movie (Jack was too good)
To kill a Mocking Bird: Hmmm.Tough one.
Little Women: The Book.

This list could go on and on. But to spare myself the effort and spare you the grief, I'll just say that this book-to-movie transition can only be as good as who's making the movie and who's in it. (Imagine Joel Schumacher trying to remake Ben-Hur with Mark Wahlberg in the lead).
So all those Potter and Tolkien fans out there, keep your fingers crossed.

[Oldposts]

Topclone, the "Iron Mask" is a shame of a movie. Full of holes, and definitley not well visualized. By itself, it a !@$@% movie.

David, I disagree that the characters don't get to show in a movie. Indian movies employ dialogues to move the plot, while Hollywood emplys dialogues to reflect the character (Thanks: Rajiv Menon). Yeah, they can't do it as good as in a book, true.

Hanzel, I think it'll be interesting to watch 'Coma' and 'The Great Train Robbery', where Crichton is a director. Have ya?

[Oldposts]

I believe it iz tru dat novels provide more imagination for the story than the film but sometimes watchin da movie first can b quite that much beta>.. as it is easier 2 understand who everyone iz..wen relating to the film to kill a mocking bird i believe it woz easier to understand, and more enjoyable to c characters come to life on screen!

[Oldposts]

It's very simple. Novels are not movies and visa-versa. Movies are BASED on novels, thus they are not the novel directly. For example. Anne Rice's "Interview with the Vampire" or "Queen of the Dammed" They both do not follow the book exactly, but are there own adaptation. As a writer, I can honestly say that movies, though can't express emotion like novels can, convey it in a differnt way, with music and so forth.
We also have to consider various peoples attempts to portray a novel as a movie, and readers imagination and patience to read books...
It is difficult to compare both movies and novels to each other because they are so different.
Basically, it depends on peoples opinions.

[Oldposts]

My question is that I will like to know if the novel The Bluest Eye has a film, and if you guys have it.

Thank you

[Oldposts]

What public domain novel or novels would make a great film? (That haven't been filmed already)

[Oldposts]

hey...i've read all your comments and they are all quiet enjoyable. To my amusement all the books you talked about are books that my classmates from grade 11 english class chose to read and watch the video to be able to compare them in an essay format. I do not know much about them myself but now i am really excited to hear their presentations about the books and their adaptations to the movies. Yet, im still wondering about the book i chose and since you seem the right people to ask (sounding so smart and all) i am going to ask you. What do you personally think of the great novel, A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess? I do believe that the novel is better than the movie, although the movie is quiet good by itself and very detailed. thx and ciao!

[Oldposts]

Misery the movie says it all. The book was superb.

[Oldposts]

picturization is always commercial,so see movie for entertainment and not for a true version of novel.Bapsi Sidhwa's Ice Candy Man has been made in to a film in the same way-The Earth 1947 .

[Oldposts]

I was wondering. I read this really awesome book by Fern Michaels. The name of the book is called "Captive Splendors" I was wondering if ANYONE--ANYONE at all could tell me where I can find the movie that was made from this novel. My e-main is big_swole_19_70515@yahoo.com I would really appreciate any help anyone can give me.
<a name="last"></a>

[Querida]

I have yet to find a movie that does justice to the book...with the exception of LOTR...

[Surya]

What about Harry Potter?




If anyone's ever seen the Movie "Kiss The Girls", Please!! Read the Book!! It's infinitly better!

[Querida]

well Surya i never read Harry Potter but had to take the siblings to watch it...so that was enjoyable and still i got most of the story and all...but many of the hard-core fans swear by the book....so yeah... :D

[Surya]

I don't think that movies are ever going to meet the picturaisations (did i spell that right?) of a reader. I'm sure there were many people who were disappointed by LOTR also.

[Querida]

of course Surya each to his/her own imagination...but i have to admit i only knew clearly what was going on with the battle scenes after i saw the lotr movies...

[aravindhan]

of course Surya each to his/her own imagination...but i have to admit i only knew clearly what was going on with the battle scenes after i saw the lotr movies...

Peter Jackson did a brilliant job of visuals and special effects in the movie, I'll grant you that. However, he more or less destroyed most of the underlying themes of the book. The idea of nobility, of trust, faith aand wisdom, of pity and mercifulness, of justice and idealism, which are central to the books have been removed; to the extent that these qualities become signs of weakness and those who exhibit them are degraded by it, rather than being ennobled. Instead, the movies glorify power and the heroes who possess it and can use it to their advantage and, consequently, turn the story into yet another tale of swords and sorcery. The result is certainly entertaining, but extremely far removed from the book.

[Querida]

ok i agree with you but then how would you have conveyed these crucial themes in this movie?...never have i pitied such a wretched character as gollum...and this was not conveyed fully in the movie...nor was the strength of friendship and devotion but i thought that the people who would go to see the movies would already have read the far-greater novels or atleast be inspired to...if not then that is a shame they really are missing out.

[Mad Max]

I have yet to find a movie that does justice to the book...with the exception of LOTR...The Godfather:
Book was great and the movie was even better. Actually the novel was filmed in two parts Godfather 1 & 2. Both were great movies.

The Exorcist:
Good book. Great movie.

The Omen:
OK novel. Movie was far superior.

The day of the Jackal:
Great novel. Great movie. This movie ran house-full in Chennai for a whole year in the 70s.

The hunt for red october:
Nice book. Good movie.

The shining:
Extremely well made movie by Stanley Kubrick from one of Stephen King's best novels.

2001: A apace Odyssey:
Good book. Great movie.

The guns of Navarone:
Good novel by Alistair Maclean. Was a smash-hit blockbuster movie in it's time.

I could go on and on, but have to cut short due to time constraints.

The Harry Potter movies were terrible adaptations of very well written and extremely entertaining novels. They were nowhere as entertaining as the books. On their own they are good movies, but pale in comparison to the books.

[Mad Max]

of course Surya each to his/her own imagination...but i have to admit i only knew clearly what was going on with the battle scenes after i saw the lotr movies...

Peter Jackson did a brilliant job of visuals and special effects in the movie, I'll grant you that. However, he more or less destroyed most of the underlying themes of the book. The idea of nobility, of trust, faith aand wisdom, of pity and mercifulness, of justice and idealism, which are central to the books have been removed; to the extent that these qualities become signs of weakness and those who exhibit them are degraded by it, rather than being ennobled. Instead, the movies glorify power and the heroes who possess it and can use it to their advantage and, consequently, turn the story into yet another tale of swords and sorcery. The result is certainly entertaining, but extremely far removed from the book.What I really hated was the way they butchered Faramir's character.

In the book Faramir is a noble soul who does not even have the slightest temptation to acquire the ring. In the movie he wants to take the ring from Frodo and has a sudden change of heart towards the end of LOTR:TTT.

I watched the interview with Philippa Boyens in the Extended Edition DVD where she explains that she made that change because no one will believe Faramir if he said "I wouldn't touch this thing even if it lay abandoned on the roadside". She fails to understand that it is this very character that sets Faramir apart from his weaker willed brother Boromir who succumbed to the lust for the ring so easily.

BTW, if you love the LOTR trilogy, get the EE DVD editions. They are simply great. I have all three of them. ROTK has an extra hour of aditional footage, TTT has 45 minutes and FOTR has more than thirty minutes of extra footage. Scenes from the book that were left out of the theatrical versions due to time constraints were included in the extended editions.

[Mad Max]

Here are some more good movie adaptations of books:

The shawshank redemption (short story by Stephen King)
The Odessa File (Novel by F. Forsythe)
Where Eagles Dare
Jurassic Park
Papillon
Carrie (Stephen King)

[Querida]

wow thanx for meeting the challenge Daffy...will surely look into those movies...will agree with you about Godfather...i loved the movies but haven't read many of the novel-turned-movies... :D

[P_R]

John Grisham writes in a way that makes life pleasant for screenwriters. Not too many psychological insights, cute passer-by observartions which are highly amenable by voice-overs and almost always gripping plots. The Grisham movie I recall is 'Rainmaker' (Matt Damon). I haven't seen 'Client' :shock: Yeah I haven't , how was it ?
Rainmaker managed to carry the book with very little loss. Perhaps one of the reasons was, it was directed by Francis Ford Coppola 8)

[Querida]

I saw Pelican Brief and A Time to Kill...but all the law jargon and procedures kinda dampened the movie...is this the general view or is this my fault for not properly knowing about court proceedings?

[P_R]

Perhaps this is off topic, perhaps this isn't !

Denzel Washington argued the director out of an out an inter-racial kiss scene with Julia Roberts because he felt the audience was not 'ready' for it. As inane as that sounds it highlights how the dramatized action and written word may evoke different responses, as thought of by Washington.

I say so because, Pelican Brief was already a bestseller before the movie was made. So the kiss was 'accepted' by the public in a book, still Washington jad reservations. Either that or the book-reading public and the film watching public are entirely different.

I used to think that the overlap between the two groups is small (and thus felt smug 8) ). But look at ForumHub !, I think that was a patently wrong notion.

[P_R]

Heard from unreliable sources that Tom Hanks has replaced Russell Crowe in Da Vinci Code. And the girl who played lead in 'Amelie' is going to play Sophie Noveau. Is it true ? Informed hubbers, plaese throw light.

[Cygnus]

Heard from unreliable sources that Tom Hanks has replaced Russell Crowe in Da Vinci Code. And the girl who played lead in 'Amelie' is going to play Sophie Noveau. Is it true ? Informed hubbers, plaese throw light.

Yes that is true Prabhu Ram! I can't think of a better Langdon than Hanks, but that's my personal bias for Hanks :wink:

I haven't watched Amelie but seen the pictures of the French actress. She didn't strike me as particularly 'Sophie'ish, got to wait and see..

I would really like to see 'Angels and Demons' made into a movie as well. It's got all the elements bordering on controversies and a weighty plot that would easily translate into a Hollywood blockbuster.

[Alchemist]

Well, even the author Paulo Coelho, famous for novels such as "The Alchemist" resisted himself for a long time to have his bestselling novels filmed.

Now it seams like several of his books will be filmed in Hollywood, starring actors such as Fishman and Madonna... !!!!

Lately I started to content myself and find joy with short stories that I find on the web. Films and reading lenghty books doesn´t fit with my job right now.

A top site with short stories is the Literary Online Magazine by the above cited Paulo Coelho: http://www.warriorofthelight.com
I guess you will agree with me that this is awesome!!!

Best,
Devi

[ramsri]

thats right, tom hanks seems to have bagged the langdon part. strange, because i remember reading initially about russell crowe getting the role and thinking how right he was for the part, if only he managed to look a little older. anyway, should be interesting to watch how hanks plays it.

[ramsri]

happened to read a post a couple of pages back, on Anthony Burgess' "A Clockwork Orange" - one of the very few books whose adaptation to screen did not dilute the effect of the book itself. the film is still widely considered to be one of Kubrick's best, and that's saying a lot !!
another highly effective book-to-screen adaptation was Puzo's "The Godfather". interestingly, Puzo mentions in his "The Godfather Papers" that he had originally offered to collaborate with Francis Ford Coppola on the screenplay, but Coppola apparently refused the offer ! so they ended up dividing the screenwriting work, with puzo rewriting one half of the film, and coppola the other !

[ramsri]

another interesting piece of insight on the making of "The Godfather" - apparently the makers of the film had huge problems with the casting.
- mario puzo wanted marlon brando for the role of vito corleone, but the producers were hesitant because brando had a reputation for being hard to get along with
- james caan had tested well for the role of michael, but he had also looked good to play sonny, the other godfather son, AND he also looked good to play hagen, the lawyer !!
- apparently, rod steiger had wanted the part of michael, but puzo had laughed at the suggestion, saying whoever played michael had to look no older than 25, while there was no way steiger could look under 40 ! (interestingly, al pacino, who eventually played michael was 30 when the film was made.)
- when the producers finally tested pacino, they almost rejected him because he was "too short and too italian-looking". it was francis ford coppola who insisted on giving him the part, saying pacino was the right man for the job
- anyway, after the film was released, puzo went on record to say that he loved the acting of brando and robert duvall (who ended up playing hagen) - but the real bonus was pacino's performance as michael, which he called a "work of art"

[P_R]

Some more godfather trivia:

Recall the last scene where the baptism and killings are shown simultaneously. You all know that's not how it is in the book. Coppola didn't want the book ending and neither Coppola nor Puzo could come up with a satisfactory alternative. Coppola went ahead and shot it , because he didn't have time to wait. But he was unhappy about the bland ending for such a grand film.

The mixing was editor Peter Zinner's idea (he was nominated but lost to the 'cabaret' editor I think). He mixed the two sequences and played it as a surprise to Coppola .....and the rest is history !

[Querida]

[tscii:760fc28dad]Hey i have heard all this Da Vinci Code hubbub has caused our Mona more fans and publicity that she has her own exhibit grounds:

"Looking a lot more cheerful than she did before, the world's best-known painting moved yesterday to smart new lodgings that it is hoped will allow more of the 6.6 million people who visit the Louvre each year to see her.
After four years in temporary accommodation down the hall, the Mona Lisa, Leonardo da Vinci's famously enigmatic 500-year-old masterpiece, was placed in an airtight, unbreakable glass case on her own mottled beige wall in the museum's splendidly refurbished Salle des Etats.
The portrait's new setting in the middle of the 850 sq metre gallery - renovated with the help of €4.8m (£3m) provided by the Japanese television network NTV - gives it a lot more space than it had in the smaller Salle Rosa.
"This painting is venerated like no other," said Aggy Lerolle, a Louvre spokeswoman. "There's a permanent traffic jam in front of it. The move will ease that: the gallery is bigger, and also it isn't a cul de sac. If there is a crowd, people can move on and come back later."

Designed by the Peruvian architect Lorenzo Piqueras, the revamp of the Salle des Etats puts the Mona Lisa in the company of some 50 other 16th-century works from Venice by the likes of Titian, Tintoretto and Bassano, and opposite the largest painting in the Louvre's collection: Veronese's magnificent 7 metre by 10 metre Wedding Feast at Cana.

The 53cm by 76cm Mona Lisa, painted between 1503 and 1506 and thought to show Lisa Gherardini, the wife of an obscure Florentine merchant, looks tiny by comparison. But there is no doubting which is the more popular painting.

Over the past five centuries Leonardo's masterpiece has survived transfers between various French kings' palaces, a wartime tour de France to escape German troops and, more recently, visits to the US and Japan. She went missing for two years in 1911, when a patriotic Italian tried to smuggle her back to her native land.

Yesterday she seemed delighted with her latest move. A new glazed ceiling illuminates her from above with a carefully controlled mixture of natural and artificial light, while from below a specially designed, seven-colour LED lamp throws up a glow that closely resembles daylight.

"There are no more reflections," said Marc Fontoynont, who designed the lighting. "Also, the daylight effect restores a great deal of her original appearance. "


[/tscii:760fc28dad]

[Querida]

Another Failure in novel to movie: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe has reinforced the idea that sometimes imagination of the reader is more convincing than one director's....

[nilavupriyan]

Some more godfather trivia:

Recall the last scene where the baptism and killings are shown simultaneously. You all know that's not how it is in the book. Coppola didn't want the book ending and neither Coppola nor Puzo could come up with a satisfactory alternative. Coppola went ahead and shot it , because he didn't have time to wait. But he was unhappy about the bland ending for such a grand film.

The mixing was editor Peter Zinner's idea (he was nominated but lost to the 'cabaret' editor I think). He mixed the two sequences and played it as a surprise to Coppola .....and the rest is history !

may i knw how was the ending in novel

[malligai]

heyy, this is such a good thread...

post more people... :)

[Anoushka]

About a boy - movie which was as good as the book :)

[Querida]

of the movies i've seen about books i think "Joy Luck Club" is the only one that was really accurate...even though they totally left out one whole vignette...still it was like the author always had an intention to make it a movie....anyone agree/disagree...have better examples? :D

[rain]

i found cinematic adaptation of 'invisible man' and 'jane eyre' faithful to the book(and the reader's imagination)

one disappointment was'bridges of madison county'.i felt the movie cud'nt capture the soul of the book.tho its a eastwood -streep oscar winning combo.silence of the lambs......neutral.

that comes to,can anyone say how are the film adaptations of gone with the wind and vanity fair.i have thoroughly enjoyed reading them.'kabuliwallah'the movie and the story by tagore was both enjoyable.

films that actually complemented books,that made u want to read the book again was i felt godfather and the eminently enjoyable sherlock holmes(star. jeremy brett(?)) and hercule poirot (does anyone remember his name,he was brilliant,this short pudgy man)series and of course swami and his friends!!!

i am taking lot of cues from this thread as to what to watch AND read so please post more impressions. :)

[Querida]

Hello Rain..nice to meet you!
i applaud you on reading Jane Eyre i would have sooner watched the movie...i found it utterly dragging and was totally fed-up after the break up of the wedding ceremony...as for wuthering heights i have read it but i have heard that the earlier vesion (with laurence olivier) was liked much better by critics than the later ralph fiennes version...i will confirm this as soon as i have time to watch it....

If i allow myself one author who verges on the "harlenquinesque" it is Nicholas Sparks...alot of people loved the movie adaptation of "A walk to remember" i felt satified with the book...as for "Message in a bottle" i very abhorred the movie version

[abbydoss1969]

The two upcoming novel to movies:

Davinci code and memoirs of a geisha both of them scripted by Akiva Goldsman who won the academy award for "the beautiful mind".
The davinci code is going to be diappointing becos, most of the fun was in the conspiracy theory and history lessons via the conversations in the novel.
Otherwise the plot itself is very cliched:and they leave out conversation and concentrate only on action part it is going to be very boring.

[rain]

hi querida,

same here. sorry that u did'nt find jane interesting.but u did reach her wedding that's more than half way!ya,the book can be bogging....few characters and they all have one purpose ....to build jane's character....even the hero rochester. i liked it because i believe all jane really wanted was to feel beautiful....she earned lot of respect....but only thru rochester's eyes was she actually beautiful.probably u wud'nt enjoy the movie also.

wuthering heights is a fav.maybe as u say i shud watch the older version if i get a chance.
wat is "harlenquinesque"?pardon my doubt i am not familiar with this usage.is it the same as chaplinesque....or like in mime?i will try checking the movie or book if i get a chance.

"a beautiful mind" is a nice movie too becoz of crowe tho not faithful to the book on personal details of john nash.of course the book deals in length about his madness(sorry scizophrenia---difficult to pronounce)and his recovery.either way u can't help marvel this man who is a genius by 30 lives his next 30 years stark mad recovers his genius, sanity and a nobel prize at 60 and is still living to tell the tale!

well thanks to all of u,fellow hubbers,have got quite a few books and movies lined up,now.

regards,
rain

[Querida]

wat is "harlenquinesque"?pardon my doubt i am not familiar with this usage.is it the same as chaplinesque....or like in mime?i will try checking the movie or book if i get a chance.


:mrgreen: sorry rain just made up a word :P
by "harlenquinesque" i was talking about those cheap thrill passion stories which is massively produced by Harlequin here and USofA...i detest them but can stand Sparks' love stories which seem to do the same thing but much less smarm more story...

[rain]

:) no,never read one of these.

[malligai]

Hi Rain,

its nice to know u have read some of the books i have, and watched the movies too... :)

I somehow found that 'jane eyre' was a better read, than the movie... I somehow dint like that 'here' :( he dint fit the description in the book... :wink:

same with "bridges of madison county'...the novel is no match to the movie... [i forgot the author.. :roll:]

Reg "Gone with the Wind"---my all time favoriteeee book....the book is no match to the movie...but the movie is a MUST watch...it captures the 'essence' of Rhett Butler, Scarlet O' Hara and TARA... :)

I wish that they had taken 'Scarlett' as a movie too....i know there was a movie adaptation, but not sure if it was the same 'Scarlet' ....





i found cinematic adaptation of 'invisible man' and 'jane eyre' faithful to the book(and the reader's imagination)

one disappointment was'bridges of madison county'.i felt the movie cud'nt capture the soul of the book.tho its a eastwood -streep oscar winning combo.silence of the lambs......neutral.

that comes to,can anyone say how are the film adaptations of gone with the wind and vanity fair.i have thoroughly enjoyed reading them.'kabuliwallah'the movie and the story by tagore was both enjoyable.

films that actually complemented books,that made u want to read the book again was i felt godfather and the eminently enjoyable sherlock holmes(star. jeremy brett(?)) and hercule poirot (does anyone remember his name,he was brilliant,this short pudgy man)series and of course swami and his friends!!!

i am taking lot of cues from this thread as to what to watch AND read so please post more impressions. :)

[malligai]

...as for wuthering heights i have read it but i have heard that the earlier vesion (with laurence olivier) was liked much better by critics than the later ralph fiennes version...i will confirm this as soon as i have time to watch it....
..as for "Message in a bottle" i very abhorred the movie version

Hi Q,

How r u?? :)

i think directors get too ambitious in trying to make movies out of novels like "Wuthering Heights"...in my opinion no one capture the 'intensity' of love between Kathy and Heathcliff in a 2 hr movie... :)

i watched "Message in a bottle" ...but dint read the book...

[sivajayan]

Hi Rain,

its nice to know u have read some of the books i have, and watched the movies too... :)


Did you lend Rain your books and movies? :lol:

Don't kill me, am just kidding.

[Querida]

Hi Q,

How r u?? :)

i think directors get too ambitious in trying to make movies out of novels like "Wuthering Heights"...in my opinion no one capture the 'intensity' of love between Kathy and Heathcliff in a 2 hr movie... :)


Hi Malligai!
good and hope it is the same with you :D

so very true Malligai they could never capture such a raw intense feelings that the author described in action and atmosphere rather than feelings portrayed by characters...I have just handed in an essay based on the repetitive diction used by Bronte it's amazing how the power of single words can intensify meaning...especially when there are so many words to choose from and are not used:

in my research i found that this is how many times these words appear in "Wuthering Heights"

dark 41
devil 39
hate 40
love 78
soul 34
God 44
Wicked 32
Wild 43

Sivajayan you have nothing to worry about...you're already a ghost! :P

[sivajayan]

Sivajayan you have nothing to worry about...you're already a ghost! :P

I am well aware of Ghostbusters (and don't let it out: Moderators :lol:)

[malligai]

Hi Rain,

its nice to know u have read some of the books i have, and watched the movies too... :)


Did you lend Rain your books and movies? :lol:

Don't kill me, am just kidding.

Q is exactly right..

How can I kill an already 'dead ghost'?? :lol:

So continue ur good deeds siva... :lol:

[malligai]

[quote="Querida
in my research i found that this is how many times these words appear in "Wuthering Heights"

dark 41
devil 39
hate 40
love 78
soul 34
God 44
Wicked 32
Wild 43

[/quote]

Q, i have always felt that the novel was somehow 'very powerful'...emotions expressed in an extreme way..it was either 'love' or 'hate'..nothing in between..now i know why the whole love affair remains indelible in the mind of a reader..

unfortunately that is the only Emily bronte i have read.. :)

[Querida]

unfortunately that is the only Emily bronte i have read.. :)

I'm on the same page as you on that one :P :D

[sivajayan]

Ladies,

what is the purpose of reading books? The letters remain there anyway :lol:
I like my nursery books only - less letters much pictures.

:wave:

[Querida]

The letters remain there so that my imagination may draw the pictures for me. :smile2:

[abbydoss1969]

Nice article on time magazine on the making of Geisha;

<a href="http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501051121/story.html"target ="blank"><http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501051121/story.html/a>

[Querida]

Hey Abbydoss thanks for the article :D

Expecting quite alot from this movie having read the novel coupla years back...i seriously could have done without the author's note in the end...but yeah hoping to see it after exams....i'm surprised no actual Japanese actresses are in it...especially since the Chinese are not portrayed oh so nicely :twisted: there is alot of unspoken emotion and taut silences in the story...hopefully the changes they have made are not too cliche or damaging to the story, there are places where the heroine is petty and i think it's important not to gloss over such things to portray her as an ideal heroine.

[abbydoss1969]

Hey Abbydoss thanks for the article :D

Expecting quite alot from this movie having read the novel coupla years back...i seriously could have done without the author's note in the end...but yeah hoping to see it after exams....i'm surprised no actual Japanese actresses are in it...especially since the Chinese are not portrayed oh so nicely :twisted: there is alot of unspoken emotion and taut silences in the story...hopefully the changes they have made are not too cliche or damaging to the story, there are places where the heroine is petty and i think it's important not to gloss over such things to portray her as an ideal heroine.

It is mentioned in the article that they didn't get japanese actors :!:
Purists may complain that the three main geishas are played by Chinese women speaking English, which they were taught to intone in a lightly Japanese accent. It is a shame that a film with so specific a setting could not have leading ladies steeped in that culture. But there's a bald fact that is evident to anyone familiar with today's East Asian films: China is rich in top actresses, and Japan isn't

[Querida]

Ummm yeah...but i knew that before i read the article...that doesn't change my surprise at such a decision...i mean they're missing out on a real accent(not just practiced) and manners and connection with culture over popularity...and that of a distinct Japanese culture..you'd think they'd get the real deal... :roll: :)

[pooja.shankar]

WHAT ABOUT JOHN GRISHAMS

THE RUNAWAY JURY ....

and even THE DA VINCI CODE IS GOING TO BE OUT AS A MOVIE

[a.ratchasi]

Memoirs of a Geisha

Enthralled non readers, while leaving its fans disappointed!

[Surya]

Da Vinci Code.

As usual, the Novel is much better.

The movie still rocks my socks though! :thumbsup:

[VENKIRAJA]

anniyan from tell me ur dreams.(main theme etc mixed with shankar's(a ba***** of tamil cinema) gentlemen,indian,muthalvan)

[atomhouse]

Recently,I saw this film,'Paycheck' (Ben affleck, Uma thurman).Its said be an adaptation of one of PhillipK Dick's sci-fi short stories.Is there any online resource for reading his short stories?

[Surya]

anniyan from tell me ur dreams.(main theme etc mixed with shankar's(a ba***** of tamil cinema) gentlemen,indian,muthalvan)

:shock:


What is the main theme Venki?

[tfmlover]

anniyan mixture of many surya from story fight scenes hair style
including ' dawn of the dead scenes
tell me ur dreams about series of brutal murders involving 3 girls surya

[VENKIRAJA]

no,tell me ur dreams explained mpd(multiple ....)n the heroine would kill those who'd abused and threatened her.anniyan had it in indian n shankar once again cloned his own babe.

[sangeetha_me]

"All around town" by Mary Higgins Clark also on similar lines to Anniyan and "Tell me your Dreams" by Sheldon. Especially towards the end..where one of the bad personalities is back to kill even after several years of treatment..that part..is similar to the end in "All around town".

[Surya]

Was "Psycho" a Novel First? :huh: