Literary Works Adapted into Films

Arguably the best play of the 20th century is also in the discussion of greatest films from that century. I can imagine dissenters out there might complain "that people don't act or talk like that in real life." But, there are two important points which I think need to be mentioned in response to such an imagined comment. First, it's presentation very much resembles a stage play. The movie unfolds in tight, cramped settings, plus Brando, Hunter, Malden, and Kazan were all part of the original Broadway stagings. Obviously, each of them knew what was needed to make the film version work. Secondly, Blanche Dubois is meant to be overwrought, and Vivian Leigh achieves this characterization marvelously. Brando has received most of the attention over the years, and he is great, but Leigh has the heftier role and decidely more screen time. What sticks with me is that all of the performers understood subtlety, and precisely how to convey personality without saying a word. The material was daring for its time, Tennessee Williams proved himself as one of the great American writers, the cast all gave performances that came to be recognized as their career highlights, and everything still holds up today.

Top-notch acting performances aptly convey the somber spirit of Eugene O'Neill's famous play, based on the playwright's dysfunctional family upbringing. Hepburn, Richardson, Robards, and Stockwell are all great in bringing to life his wonderfully written characters.

One infamously unsettling, often referenced scene seems to have overshadowed the rest of this movie since its release. That's a shame, too, because that perspective fails to reflect on the film's more salient meditations. Despite employing the jarring scene in question as one way of introducing its points, the movie's focus is on the moral choices men are confronted with, usually quite unpredictably, and how one?s loyalty to his friends affects the decisions that guide his resulting behavior. There's also a theme about two drastically separate cultures in unavoidable conflict with one another, as members from one societal background sets foot on the turf of the other, where perceptions of some consequence such as personal responsibility, sociability, and yes, sin, are regarded quite differently. But, as we see in the movie, it is not only man vs. man, but man vs. nature that forces him to compete for survival in a cruelly unfair world. Perhaps the most interesting legacy for "Deliverance" is the many films that have taken their inspiration from its basic premise. Of course I am talking about the dozens of horror movies that have featured outsiders lost in some backwoods, rural locale, then being stalked by the merciless natives. Interesting that a film not intended as a horror movie itself should become such a genre-shaping influence.

Unfortunately, I haven't read the novel, so I cannot compare the film to its source material. The praise I can offer takes into account how deftly Kubrick tackles such a risque subject matter without being explicit. True to his style, he even manages some subtle bits of dark humor. This is, in effect, a character-driven piece, as their sad desperation influences each pivotal decision they make. Mason shall always be the definitive Humbert in my opinion, and Sellers' mysterious Quilty represents one of the strangest movie characters I can recall seeing (caused me to think of his own turn as Dr. Strangelove, along with Janet Leigh's character in The Manchurian Candidate).

One of the most famous examples of a studio altering a director's vision in post-production. Huston's cut ran approx. 2 hrs. before being slashed down to the 69 min. version that was released, and still the director proclaimed this the best film he ever made. I don't concur, but it is difficult to argue against this being a pretty special film. Even in its compact form, the movie feels amazingly complete, with splendid-looking battle scenes and its extraordinary look at the existential concerns that individual soldiers encounter in the realm of savage warfare. No soldier wants to feel that he is the least brave member of his company, especially when everyone around him seems so intrepid and at the ready to charge into battle. This is a story about finding redemption, and how receiving that assurance then leads to the gaining of courage to face mortal uncertainties without crippling distress. I'm a fan of Crane's novel, and Huston was smart to use the book's text verbatim to unearth these observations. We'll never know how good the lost director's cut was, but what we are left with is far from the disaster that could have resulted from such studio tampering.

This is a movie about two selfish characters -- Ted and Marion -- separately exhibiting despicable behavior. Then, a naive young man -- that would be Eddie -- enters their world and unexpectedly becomes involved in their misdeeds. Sounds simple enough, if not for the painful memory that has affected the husband and wife in recognizably different ways. The film finds the right notes, alternating, when appropriate, between bits of hilarity and sobering moments of dour reality. Bridges and Basinger nail their roles as Ted and Marion, and Foster gives a memorable performance as well. The stand-out scene occurs late in the film when Bridges offers a detached, third-person account of the source of the couple's pain. On the basis of that scene alone, I began to view his character differently, as I imagine others seeing the film have as well. It's an intriguing work that examines some large, rather uncomfortable themes.

McCarthy wrote such a powerhouse novel that any film version was bound to underwhelm by comparison. That's not to suggest the film is bad by any means, only that it doesn't reach the epic heights of its source material. A few positives worth noting: 1) Henry Thomas is very good and steals the movie, playing the role of Cole's friend, Rawlins; 2) the Mexican jail sequences are probably the most faithfully rendered of any that appear in the book; 3) the cinematography captures the spectacular beauty of the American west. I have several complaints as well, mainly having to do with excised or truncated scenes (though I realize such decisions must always be made), but I'm also not sure that Damon and Black were appropriately cast in their roles. All-in-all it's a decent western that could have been done better, though I understand Billy Bob feuded with the studio to make a much different, longer film. What a shame.

I can appreciate the effort that went into this adaptation of Fielding's comic masterpiece, but I don't feel that everything comes together in the end. This is a tremendously uneven production, largely due to its questionable editing -- some scenes are much too brief, while others plod along inexplicably. I also don't prefer how the unnamed narrator was used in the film. He registers as an important character in the novel, spouting wryly humorous observations that add to the story, but here the narration is used only sparingly and that same effect is never achieved. There are some laughs and memorable performances, but mostly the film looks outdated and does not capture the spirit of the book. Perhaps it is time for a modern-day "Tom Jones" re-make?