As anyone who even occasionally reads this blog will know, I almost invariably prefer books to any film- or television- adaptations of them. But as is so often the case, there are some exceptions which prove the rule. One of these is C.S. Forester's novel Mr. Midshipman Hornblower. This is the first (chronologically, not the first one written) of his Hornblower series, published in 1950. Mr. Midshipman Hornblower tells the tale of Horatio Hornblower's early years in the British navy, when he was a young inexperienced midshipman. It's episodic; each chapter is essentially a short story relating an incident in Horatio's newly begun naval career. It is the stories in this book which are used as a basis for the first Horatio Hornblower miniseries, released in 1998 and starring Ioan Gruffudd as the titular character. Generally I read a book before I watch any adaptations of it, but in this case I was actually inspired to read Mr. Midshipman Hornblower after viewing the miniseries for the first time. And I really enjoyed it. But I do think that, concerning one chapter in particular, I preferred the changes they made for the miniseries to the actual source material. In both the book and the movie, Horatio challenges the cruel bully Mr. Simpson to a duel. It is here that liberties are taken with the plotline. In the novel, the rules of the duel are that only one of the two duelling pistols will be loaded and neither opponent knows which when they fire at each other at point blank range. Unbeknownst to either of them however, their captain has ordered the man loading the pistols to leave both of the weapons unloaded so that when Horatio and Simpson shoot, neither is hit and they assume that the (un)loaded gun just misfired, the end. It's much more dramatic and satisfying in the miniseries though, with both of the pistols loaded and both Horatio and Simpson getting a shot off, though not precisely when they were supposed to due to some last minute treachery from Simpson. So to sum up, I really do think that the duel scene was better written for the miniseries than it was in the novel- genuinely a rarity for me.
Comments
Yesterday morning two of my sisters and I went to see The Princess Bride which was playing in a local theater. It was an extremely fun event, with many viewers turning up in Princess Bride T-shirts. A couple wearing matching "I'm not a witch, I'm your wife!" tees asked us to take their picture in front of the movie poster before the movie started. It was also fun to see the film in the theater, having only watched it on the small screen before. Everyone knew the lines and scenes so well that every time that one was upcoming, there would be anticipatory titters, followed by outright laughs when it occurred. The movie The Princess Bride was released originally in 1987, and did okay but not great while in theaters. It really came into its own on home video and today is considered a classic movie, having last year been added to the National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant." The movie is based on William Goldman's novel The Princess Bride which was published in 1973. I've owned the book for a few years, but only got around to reading it about six months ago. I'm going to assume that most people are very familiar with the film and not relate the plot, but rather discuss the differences between the book and movie. To begin with, the plot and dialogue in the book and movie are remarkably similar, not surprising since Goldman wrote both the book and the screenplay. There are, however, a number of differences. In the film, the book is written by S. Morgenstern and read to a sick boy (played by Fred Savage) by his grandfather (Peter Falk). This is a little more complicated in the book; the novel, written by S. Morgenstern -in reality written by Goldman- is supposed to have been originally read to a young William Goldman by his father, and he finds it really boring. As an adult, William re-reads it and realizes that it would be an exciting book if all the boring parts were cut out. He takes it upon himself to abridge the book, which is supposedly the novel we now have. There are some minor plot differences, and some characters who are left out of the film- Buttercup's parents, for example, and Count Rugen's wife who is gaga for the young farm boy Westley. The book provides us with the back story of why the countries of Florin and Guilder are on the brink of war (it has something to do with Humperdinck's previous fiancee). We also find out how Fezzik ended up unemployed in Greenland, and we have a flashback to the event of Inigo's father's murder rather than having it merely related to Westley by Montoya. The plots of the book and movie proceed pretty similarly, as I said, though the pit of despair scene is changed quite a bit in the film. The novel- instead of the hidden pit- has a five level zoo of death which Humperdinck has filled with deadly animals for hunting. Westley is imprisoned on the fifth (lowest) level for a much longer period of time than in the film, and is tortured in a variety of ways before Rugen gets around to using his machine on him. Also, Humperdinck tries to implicate Westley in the "kidnapping" of Buttercup. In the book, Fezzik and Inigo find out about the zoo from the Albino and must fight off a bunch of the animals on the other levels before rescuing Westley. The other big difference is the ending; in the movie, they all get away but in the novel the fate of our four heroes is left very much up in the air. Inigo's wounds reopen, Fezzik takes a wrong turn, the effects of Miracle Max's pill are wearing off and Westley is weakening, and they are being pursued by Humperdinck's men. Goldman states that he thinks they got away, but doesn't know for sure. My copy of the book is the 25th anniversary edition and it includes a sample chapter which is supposedly from the sequel to The Princess Bride: Buttercup's Baby, which is about Waverly, the infant daughter of Westley and Buttercup. Goldman is apparently working on this sequel, which he has said will be released in 2023, the 50th anniversary of the original novel. So the question is, did I prefer the novel or the movie? This is an extremely rare occurrence for me, but I actually prefer the film. This isn't to say that the book was bad- it wasn't- but its primary interest for me was mostly to supply some extra information about events in the film, rather than as a novel in its own right. Part of the problem is, I suppose, that I know the film so well that it's almost impossible to judge the book on its own merits. Even when reading the dialogue, I heard it in the voices of the actors from the movie. It also has the advantage of childhood nostalgia, and let's face it: the real charm of The Princess Bride movie is not a brilliant plot, but the very quotable and amusing lines and the great performances. It's not possible now, for example, to separate Vizzini from Wallace Shawn's portrayal of that character. I think the book has been overtaken and overshadowed by the film. Also, as I think I mentioned in my review of The Giver, I don't really like endings which are left up in the air. Mostly- with a few exceptions- I like books and movies to come to a definite conclusion, for better or worse. And The Princess Bride novel doesn't. So in this case, if I had to choose between the book and the movie, I'd choose the movie.
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
January 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |