Apologies for the slightly distracted manner of this review - I'm half watching How to Steal a Million, that old film with Audrey Hepburn. They're trying to recover a fake Cellini statue they presented to a museum before it comes out that it's fake. After my recent Cellini obsession (see my review of The Medusa Amulet) I kind of had to see it. But anyway, on to the film I should be talking about.
Don't worry, I haven't turned traitor - I'm still a book reviewer. But I'm taking part in Two Bibliomaniacs' Book to Movie Challenge and this is my second entry. My review of My Sister's Keeper BOOK is here.
So. The book (which I loved) and the film (which I did not) have some major, major differences. Most obviously, the entire tone of the story has been changed. The book focuses on Anna Fitzgerald - her trial and her heartbreak over what she's doing to her sister. The movie is more about Kate; Anna barely features. It's all about her battle with cancer, and her relationships and her childhood... it feels like a BBC Cancer documentary.
Then there's the ending, or lack thereof. I adored the book version and was overwhelmed when it happened as I never saw it coming. So naturally, that's a really great reason to COMPLETELY SCRAP IT FROM THE MOVIE. I've just been looking on various forums and most people are astounded and annoyed that they changed it. I'm not going to say what does happen, but it's again, so generic without it. I just don't understand why they'd do that - it destroys the entire point of the story. So between the Kate-centered story and the altered ending, it becomes a whole lot less unique - it's just another child-with-Cancer movie.
I'm not saying that all changes from the book are bad, but some of them just don't make any sense to me. They've cut out Julia completely, the guardian ad litem that's supposed to look out for Anna's best interests as an impartial observer, and massively chopped out Alexander Campbell's (the lawyer) scenes too. That's a shame because Alec Baldwin actually did very well. It really does seem like they tried to cut down the legal aspects, but then what's the point of the film?
When I first saw the posters I expected Cameron Diaz to be cast as Julia and could kind of accept it. But apparently someone decided to cast her as Sara Fitzgerald, the haggard, emotion mother who tries to force one child into giving up a kidney for the other. I'm not a fan of Ms Diaz - I never have been and I doubt I ever will be. But you know what? She really was excellent in this film. She wasn't afraid to go bald for the role and acts Sara with the perfect balance of compassion and belligerence. It's not easy to change my opinion when I already have an irriational hatred (as is so often the case), but she managed here.
Less impressive was Abigail Breslin as Anna Fitzgerald. I'd heard she was good, and it surprised me when she... well, wasn't. I
just don't see Anna being that chipper. Her sister's dying, she's facing a huge legal battle and her family's barely speaking to her, yet she still feels upbeat enough to act out Alexander Campbell's advert campaign in his office. She was way too happy and comes across as a petulant, whiny child throughout.
Finally, as a very minor irritation (here comes that irrational hatred thing...), all three siblings call each other 'sissy.' Why? Why!? I'm almost positive nobody actually does that in real life and it just sounds forced and fake.
*breathes slowly*
Obviously I'm not a massive fan. The casting choices were almost perfect, it's just the writers that needed to be shot. To me, it's not even the same story. With most of the legal aspects cut out, it defeats the entire purpose of Jodi Picoult's book.
First off, this is a review for the film version of The Reader, the book version can be found here. I don't normally review films here (hell, I don't usually watch films!), but this is for Two Bibliomaniacs' Book to Movie Challenge.
I'm terrible at watching the films after I've read the book. Terrible. I always mean to but reading other books always seems to take precedent over watching the film until I forget why I wanted to see it in the first place.
The Reader was an excellent one to begin with - it's easy to see why it won so many awards. It really captured the feel of the book, both during Michael and Hanna's affair and afterwards in the courtroom. The best way I can sum up the feeling of the film is to call it 'beige.' If you've ever seen a war film, I'm sure that will make sense. The atmosphere in the courtroom was intense, perhaps more so than in the book as the lengthy legal paragraphs that bogged down the story were broken up.
The legal principles were cleverly explained, as in the book they're simply explained in the narrative. Instead, they're discussed among the students back at the University, a place never actually seen in the book. It was explained very simply too, without assuming you have a prior knowledge of the law, a trap many legal films fall into.
The issue of German guilt was dealt with nicely too - how the generation born after the war blamed their parents and other adults for not stopping the horrors committed in the concentration camps. It's a central theme of the book that doesn't feature so much in the film, but it works nevertheless. It again takes the form of an argument that occurs in the seminar at University instead of Michael just pondering the moral issues to himself.
I'm not surprised Kate Winslet won an Oscar for her performance - this is easily her best film. She's just perfect as Hanna, from her brusqueness during the affair to her vulnerability after the trial. I couldn't find a single fault. Her subtle avoidance of books was artfully carried out and the look of betrayal on her face and the end was so moving I nearly cried.
Speaking of, that scene was amazing. It hurt me inside more than the book did, and the book was pretty powerful. Ralph Fiennes was good as a distant, apathetic carer but Kate Winslet was better. Its rare that a scene in the film can be better than the book but its true here nevertheless.
Unfortunately, the aspect of the book that I found so clever was the one thing the film-makers didn't quite manage to achieve. In the novel, Mr. Schlink manages to completely differentiate the sections of the book pre-trial and post-trial - the characters are different and the atmosphere just feels different. The film doesn't really seperate the two, perhaps because Michael's fifteen year old self isn't quite vulnerable or naive enough and the older Michael just stares moodily off into the distance a lot.
All in all, a great start to the Challenge. It leaves a few bits out, but not crucial ones, and it sticks to the book almost perfectly. It's well worth a watch, but I'm not sure how interesting it'd be without seeing the film first.
I read this first in 2009, but I picked it up again a few days ago to form part of the Books To Movie Challenge hosted by Two Bibliomaniacs. I've had the film on my shelf since reading it the first time but I figured the challenge was a sign from The Great Reader In The Sky to finally get round to watching it.
From Amazon - 'Michael Berg is 15 when he begins a long, obsessive affair with Hanna, an enigmatic older woman. He never learns very much about her and when she disappears one day, he expects never to see her again. But, to his horror, he does. Hanna is a defendant in a trial related to Germany's Nazi past and it soon becomes clear that she is guilty of an unspeakable crime. As Michael follows the trial, he struggles with an overwhelming question: what should his generation do with its knowledge of the Holocaust?'
Okay, so first of all - THIS BOOK HAS MY NAME IN IT. This is A Huge Deal when your name is as rare as mine and you've spent your entire life being asked why you spell your name wrong. Hardly a glowing recommendation if your name's not Hanna, but mine is and so I'm going to continue to irritate those around me by reading out passages that might even vaguely be read to mean me.
Just in case my excitement over the use of my name hasn't caught on... this is one of the most moving and emotional books I've ever read. Michael's feelings for Hanna are brutally exposed and Hanna's refusal to save herself during the trial for her crimes made me want to hug her and shake her all at the same time. Hanna and Michael are the only regularly occurring characters but I'd easily agree that they have the best described personalities of any book I've ever read. They seem so real - there is no attempt to hide their flaws and the reasons behind their motivations and desires are so obvious that they don't even need to be explained.
Part of the moving nature of the book comes from the different 'voices' of Michael. Part One details his affair with Hanna - his obsession with her body, youthful desires and complete acceptance of his awkward situation sets it apart completely from Part Two. Here Michael is much older and analyses meticulously the psychology behind his relation with Hanna in the past and the present. The vocabulary is more advanced and he examines her trial from legal and moral aspects, thoroughly and honestly attributing blame where it is due. This in particular is why The Reader is so clever - the 'Michael' in each part is different, yet still recognisably developed from the other.
The summary from Amazon asks how the generation born after the War are meant to deal with the Holocaust, but this wasn't the underlining issue for me in this book.
'Imagine someone is racing intentionally towards his own destruction and you can save him - do you go ahead and save him? Imagine there's an operation, and the patient is a drug user and the drugs are incompatible with the anaesthetic, but the patient is ashamed of being an addict and does not want to tell the anaesthetist - do you talk to the anaesthetist?'
Hanna could not possibly have committed the crimes for which she is on trial due to a secret shame she holds. Revealing this secret would drastically reduce her sentence in prison, but she holds firm and continues to guard herself. Michael must choose whether to enlighten the court or protect Hanna's secret and save her from a life-time in prison. I'm amazed this didn't feature in the summary, as for me this moral issue is the fundamental point of the book.
In addition to the moral issues, the legal principles also interested me - possibly because the glow from my recently acquired Law degree hasn't yet worn off. There's one thing I don't understand though - retroactive justice has always (since the 1700s) been seen as unjust and renders any action unindictable. When Hanna and the other women were guards at that camp, their actions were perfectly legal and were only defined as 'crimes' after the fact. This is 'Victor's Law' and so the whole trial would have been invalid.
I know, I know, it's fiction... but I had a morbid enthusiasm for war crimes during University :)
Two Bibliomaniacs is hosting a Book to Movie Challenge this year.
As you can probably guess from the title, the challenge is to read a novel and then watch the corresponding film adaptation.
This is wonderful for me, as I always mean to watch the film after I've read a book but it never happens. Never. There are always too many other books waiting to be read to bother with trivial things like movies!
I'm going for the Blockbuster level of participation - that's six books and their six films.
You can sign up here. The challenge begins on 1st June and ends on 31st December, but you can join up anytime after that apparently.
I really don't know where to begin. Any recommendations? I'm thinking Perfume by Patrick Suskind and Notes on a Scandal by Zoe Heller so far.
Wish me luck!
