“The book is a film that takes place in the mind of the reader.” (Paulo Coelho)

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that the film version of a book is never as good as the original text.  Except I don’t think that’s true.  This week I’m going to look at two books where I think the film was better, but the novels are still worth reading.  Slightly odd tack for a book blog to take, and I may end up regretting this, but let’s crash ever onwards!

Firstly, The Commitments by Roddy Doyle (1987).  Here’s the trailer for the 1991 film, with a brilliant script by the author, in collaboration with the long-term writing partnership of Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais.

The Commitments is Roddy Doyle’s first novel, detailing how a group of white, working class Dubliners set up a soul band together.  I think in this novel Doyle is really learning his craft, and his writing gets progressively stronger as he goes along.  The Commitments is a far from terrible book, but it’s a bit slight, and filled with so much dialogue it reads more like a script than a novel for much of it.  Still, if you’re going to have a novel filled with dialogue it may as well be written by Roddy Doyle, who has a great ear for how people speak and seems to take real joy in capturing it on the page:

“-Grow a pair o’ tits, pal, an’ then yeh can sing with them, said Billy.

– Are you startin’ somethin’?

-Don’t annoy me.

– Here! Said Jimmy. –None o’ tha’.

The time was right for a bit of laying down the law.

-No rows or scraps, righ’.

-Well said, Jim.

– An’ annyway, said Jimmy. –The girls are the best lookin’ part o’ the group.

– Dirty bastard, said Natalie.

-Thanks very much, Jimmy, said Imelda.

-No sweat ‘melda, said Jimmy.

-What’ll we sing? Bernie asked Joey The Lips.

-You know Walking in the Rain?


– I WANT HIM, Imelda sang.

– It doesn’t exactly have a strong feminist lyric, does it? said James.

– Soul isn’t words, Brother, said Joey The Lips. – Soul is feeling. Soul is getting out of yourself.”

You can see that this is writing really stripped back: minimal punctuation, not always clear who is speaking.  The style suits the tale of a bunch of people with very little creating music with only their voices and few instruments.  It makes The Commitments a quick read, and the characters are evoked with warmth through minimal authorial intervention. By writing in such a sparse way, Doyle allows the characters to speak for themselves. At other times he uses scant detail, rarely embellished with imagery, to portray the lives of the band:

“’Joey The Lips got one of his dress suits dry-cleaned. Dean crawled in under his bed and found the one he’d flung under there. He soaked the jacket till the muck was nearly all gone. Then he brought it down to the cleaners.

Black shoes were polished or bought or borrowed.”

The Commitments is a well-observed story, evocative and humorous. However, a novel about music will always have much to gain from being filmed; hearing the talented cast of the film give their voice to soul classics brings the characters into being in a way that is nearly impossible in print.

Secondly, The Princess Bride by William Goldman (1973).  Here’s the trailer for the 1987 film adaptation, screenplay by the author:

One of my favourite films from childhood that I still love to watch today – a definite winner on a rainy Sunday afternoon.  Again, it’s not that the book is bad (the film is scripted by Goldman after all so you wouldn’t expect a great deal of difference) but the film is better.  It takes all the best bits of the book and distils them into a fast-paced, funny narrative; the book can be a bit flabby at times by comparison.  The film also offers some of the best cameos ever: Billy Crystal as Miracle Max, Mel Smith as the torturer, comic genius Peter Cook as the Impressive Clergyman, as well as a perfectly cast set of main characters.  But if you like the film, you’ll like the book.  The same dry, silly humour runs through it, and who wouldn’t love a tale of: “Fencing. Fighting. Torture. Poison. True love. Hate. Revenge. Giants. Hunters. Bad men. Good men. Beautifulest ladies. Snakes. Spiders. Beasts of all natures and descriptions. Pain. Death. Brave men. Coward men. Strongest men. Chases. Escapes. Lies. Truths. Passion. Miracles.”

The tale is one of Princess Buttercup, who falls in love with the stable boy Westley.  He goes off to seek his fortune, and is captured by the Dread Pirate Roberts, who famously leaves no survivors.  Believing her One True Love to be dead, Buttercup agrees to marry the hunting-obsessed Prince Humperdink.  Before they can marry she is kidnapped by a gang comprising the cunning Vizzini (“never start a land war in Asia, [… and] never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line”), the giant Fezzik , and genius-swordsman-with-a-vendetta Montoya (“my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die!”) They are followed by the mysterious Man in Black, who seeks to foil their plans… Will goodness triumph? Will true love conquer all? Yes, of course, to both.  This is a lovely escapist fantasy, but at the same time it is a  satire on established rule and its abuses, which gives the story a more serious dimension. Prince Humperdink has arranged the kidnap of Buttercup in order to blame a neighbouring country and start a war.  (Fill in your own contemporary analogy here.)  He tells his henchmen to seek the “villains” in the thieves quarter:

““My men are not always too happy at the thought of entering the Thieves Quarter.  Many of the thieves resist change.”

“Root them out. Form a brute squad.  But get it done.”

“It takes at least a week to get a decent brute squad going,” Yellin said. “But that is time enough.


The conquest of the Thieves Quarter began immediately.  Yellin worked long and hard each day […] Most of the criminals had been through illegal roundups before, so they offered little resistance.””

Goldman is also able to extend his humour in the novel towards the processes around writing, which he couldn’t do in the film; for example his editor querying his translation of the “original” story by S. Morgenstern:

“this chapter is totally intact. My intrusion here is because of the way Morgenstern uses parentheses.  The copy editor at Harcourt kept filling the margins of the galley proofs with questions: […] “I am going crazy. What am I to make of these parentheses? When does this book take place? I don’t understand anything. Hellllppppp!!!” Denise, the copy editor, has done all my books since Boys and Girls and she had never been as emotional in the margins with me before.”

So there we go: two film recommendations as well as two book recommendations in the same post – call it a late Hogmany present from me to you, dear reader. Enjoy!


37 thoughts on ““The book is a film that takes place in the mind of the reader.” (Paulo Coelho)

  1. LOVE your topic this week and agree with your choices. Dare I add a few more?
    1. Election by Tom Perrotta, movie starring Matthew Broderick and Reese Witherspoon
    2. Dangerous Liaisons by Choderlos de Laclos; movie starring Glenn Close and John Malkovich
    3. White Mischief by James Fox, movie starring Greta Scacchi and Charles Dance

    and my very favourite…

    4. A Room with a View by E.M. Forster – I love the book. And equally, I love the Merchant Ivory production. One of the only times that I can honestly say they made the film EXACTLY the way I imagined it.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thank you for some excellent suggestions! I’ve not read Dangerous Liaisons but I think the film is great. I’ve not heard of White Mischief, I will check it out. I agree A Room with a View was a fantastic adaptation. Its lovely when film makers create something just how you saw it in your mind.


  2. What I notice is that in both these cases the screenplay was written by the original author. I think that makes a huge difference if the original author has an executive role in the production of the film. If the author is not involved the artistic integrity of the work so easily gets sacrificed for the sake of commercial gain (the Hobbit-trilogy being a case in point – I like the films, but unlike LOTR they’re nowhere near Tolkien’s original work).

    The movie of Forrest Gump was also way better than the book. The novel really starts to stretch credulity with Gump’s adventures and doesn’t quite convey the same innocent humour of the film. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone can write as well as Tom Hanks acts…

    Liked by 1 person

    • I think you’re right, authorial involvement has a big part to play to ensure the original vision is realised. I love Harold Pinter, but he did an appalling job adapting The Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood’s original ideas were almost entirely lost. If the author stays involved they can try & limit the damage, but its no guarantee. I know Bruce Robinson started directing because he said he was sick of seeing his stories ruined and wanted more control over Withnail and I. I think the film making process is always a bit of a gamble, because so many people are involved.

      Its interesting that the same team behind LOTR took such a different approach to The Hobbit – I wonder why they felt the need to move away from the books with the latter?

      Liked by 1 person

      • The common theory as concerns The Hobbit is that it was a commercial decision – you make more money with a three-part action epic than a children’s tale in one, maybe two parts. Thus they have sacrificed plot and characterisation for mind-blowing action sequences and special effects. Another blogger the other day described Desolation of Smaug as an action video game, and he has a point.

        I enjoyed the first two Hobbit films and am looking forward to the third, but I have to agree that Jackson isn’t making the story that Tolkien wrote.


        • As Peter Jackson is obviously a huge Tolkien fan, I think that’s a real shame that he’s making that sort of film rather than something more faithful to the original story. But I guess that’s just me being idealistic, and not business-minded!


  3. I agree about The Commitments, haven’t seen The Princess Bride though. Re. Tolkein, I think the best thing to do is go and see the film and forget the storyline in the book! I do get depressed by the quantity of ‘video game’ effects in films these days, usually at the expense of story [but I would think that as a writer!]. SD


  4. The Tolkien fans at my house have decided that The Hobbit movies are PJ fanfics, and so we can enjoy them on their own terms.
    I thought the movie of The Perks of Being a Wallflower was better than the book. Also the movie made from Grisham’s novel The Firm (it had a better ending).
    Since the authorial asides are my favorite part of The Princess Bride, I’ve never understood how anyone could like the movie better. Even though it’s a great movie.


    • I think enjoying films on their own terms is probably the key! But when you really love a book & they make a terrible film, it can be really hard to let it go… I’ve heard that the film of The Perks of being a Wallflower is better than the book, but I’ve not read/seen either, I think I’ll give the film a go first seeing as how that’s what seems to be preferred. It is a sad loss to the film to lose authorial asides in The Princess Bride, but I thought the self reverential humour was kept in the film as far as possible. But if they’re your favourite parts I appreciate the film will never measure up!


  5. (I’m having to send these thoughts in two halves as my original comment crashed and I’m having to remember all I said.)

    I seem to think that J. K. Rowling was executive producer on the last two HP films, which I thought were the weakest of the lot, so I’m not sure author involvement being a good thing necessarily follows.

    I absolutely loved The Lord of the Rings films, bought the extended box sets and watched them over and over. I think there is a bit of a red flag in Return of the King though as far as the Hobbit is concerned.

    I’ve only seen the Hobbit via YouTube clips but my impressions are that Jackson’s hand isn’t as firmly on the tiller; that a lot of the actors are merely coasting (apart from the excellent Cate Blanchett); and that more of the attention is on set piece effects rather than plot or character. There’s also a streak of irritating whimsy (Radagast stands out here) which I attribute, perhaps unfairly, to the involvement of Andy Serkis as second unit director, that makes you feel they’re just not taking either the books, or the films, seriously. The whole thing just seems like a wasted opportunity.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I agree about the Harry Potter films – both the books and the films got baggier as they went on, I think. Not that they were terrible, but definitely could have had a heavier edit.

      The Hobbit films…well, apparently I saw the second one but I have no memory of it all, and relied on the person I saw it with assuring me I was there with them, so I think that speaks volumes about my experience 😉

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.