Anthony Hodgson on his three greatest book to movie adaptations…
American Psycho
Author, Bret Easton Ellis.
Screenplay, Mary Harron & Guinevere Turner.
Upon its original publication in 1991, American Psycho was marred by controversy, and it’s no surprise considering one of the chapters is called ‘Killing Child at Zoo’, which was sensibly not included in the film. The satire focuses on Patrick Bateman, a cold blooded narcissistic ‘yuppie’ who spends his days listening to Phil Collins in his plush Wall Street office, but spends his nights brutally murdering prostitutes and homeless people. Harron & Turner were set with the tough task of portraying the comedic elements of the book whilst keeping it’s gruesome themes.
And they nailed it. From the opening credits of blood-like condiments dripping across the screen, to the famously ambiguous ending, it is easy to tell that they truly understood what Ellis was trying to say. And through clever use of original scenes and effective dialogue they managed to put that message across in an incredibly entertaining way. This is of course, in no small part, thanks to some superb performances, namely from Willem Defoe as Detective Donald Kimball, the privately-hired investigator who is searching for one of Bateman’s victims. Then there’s Christian Bale, who plays the psycho in question to absolute perfection. Many believe this to be his greatest performance and it’s not hard to see why, his dark, soulless execution mirrors the book in every sense. A feat he achieved apparently after seeing an interview with Tom Cruise, in whom he saw “a very intense friendliness with nothing behind the eyes”. Hopefully, not the direction he’s taken Moses in this years Exodus: Gods & Kings.
No Country for Old Men
Author, Cormac McCarthy.
Screenplay, Joel & Ethan Coen.
Cormac McCarthy is known for his lack of grammar and punctuation, making his stories flow seamlessly from one set piece to the next. A lot of his work seems ideal for the silver screen and No Country for Old Men is not an exception. Set around the US-Mexico Border in 1980, it tells the tale of Llewelyn Moss, a man being chased by a psychotic hired gun, after stealing a suitcase of money from a drug deal gone wrong. It’s the classic thriller setup, good guy being chased by the bad guy. So what have the Coen Brothers done so well in their adaptation? They kept everything else.
It’s an annoying but necessary problem that movies often miss a lot of the elements from the book on which they are taken. In this case though, the two are so similar that they almost completely transcend each other to become one. After experiencing both it’s hard to remember a moment, a theme, or even a feeling that isn’t represented in both versions. Whether it’s the sharp whipping sound of a sociopath’s suppressed shotgun or the panic in a shop clerk’s eyes as he watches his life decided by the flip of a coin, everything feels the same. The characters have the same ambience, especially Javier Bardem’s Oscar-winning portrayal of Anton Chigurh, a role in which he brings a very relatable fear – impending death. At points, the movie looks better than the book feels, surely credit to cinematographer Roger Deakins who takes great advantage of the sprawling desert landscapes, a feat he would repeat in 2010’s True Grit.
Fight Club
Author, Chuck Palahniuk.
Screenplay, Jim Uhls.
Fight Club is the story of one man, the Narrator, who meets Tyler Durden, an eccentric, free living anarchist. After the Narrator’s apartment explodes they become friends, and create a fight club, which is pretty much exactly what it sounds like. Look deeper and it is the story of mental illness overriding a mans natural state. I watched the film before I read the book and I was amazed at how scattered the film was considering how easy it was to follow. It was only when I read the book that I realised how great of an accomplishment this was.
Although the book is as scattered as its cinema counterpart, I was amazed at how different it was. The only elements carried over seem to be the characters and basic plot outlines. A lot of the story is exclusive to either the book or the film and the parts that are shared, happen in a different way. A great example is the creation of Project Mayhem, a rebellion-style outfit organised against capitalism. In the film the Narrator (Ed Norton) voices concerns about the plans whereas in the book, his character is more than happy to go along with it. Changes like this completely alter the feeling you get from either iteration, all the way down to the relationships of the two main characters. Brad Pitt’s performance of Tyler Durden is fantastic and he really makes the character his own, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing a better job, especially in the second half when his and the Narrator’s relationship becomes strained. This seems to have it’s roots in betrayal whereas the book feels more motivated by jealousy. That’s why this is a great film adaptation, it doesn’t have to be a mirror of it’s source material, in the script Jim Uhls has taken the characters, their actions and their motivations and created his own vision of a fantastic story.
Anthony Hodgson
