Film Adaptations Better Than The Book
Number 5. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. The book by Ken Kesey is a controversial critique of institutions, conformity, and systems of oppression. Both versions cover similar themes, and the book is a memorable read, but the film adaptation overshadows its source material. Mainly the cast makes the film better. Not just Jack Nicholson, who makes the main character more complicated and complete. But more so the career-defining, Oscar-winning role of Louise Fletcher as Nurse Retched. One of the best movie villains of all time. Fletcher created a subtle, horrifying, and infuriating villain out of what was vaguely suggested on the page. That could not be predicted. Beyond that, the medium of film is simply a more powerful vehicle for the story. The chaos McMurphy causes on the ward, the electroshock therapy, and the heartbreaking ending. It means something when you can see these scenes instead of reading them.
Number 4. Mean Girls. The loosest adaptation on the list. But it is still fun to include. Tina Fey turned Queen Bees and Wannabees, a nonfiction self-help book about high school cliques and bullying into a cult classic comedy. The film addresses the same subject matter but its approach is obviously with humor and endlessly quotable lines. The self-help book gives truthful and informative explanations so parents can better understand their kids. While the movie plays those scenarios out to their ridiculous and yet somehow relatable ends. The movie then became a Broadway hit musical. So Fey has done a lot with the simple start.
Number 3. Shawshank Redemption. Stephen King’s novella does not reach a hundred pages. It was a simple short story King included in his collection Different Seasons as a fun step away from the horror and suspense genre. Director Frank Darabont saw something and bought the rights for $5000. King famously loved the movie so much that he mailed the check back as a joke for potential “bail money.” Darabont and actors Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman developed the short story into an expansive, contemplative masterpiece about friendship, justice, purpose, and hope.
Number 2. Forrest Gump. Can you imagine anyone but Tom Hanks playing Forrest Gump? No! Of course not. This role earned him his second Oscar, just a year after his win for Philadelphia. It was such a perfect fit, helped by superb supporting actors like Robin Wright, Gary Sinise, and Sally Field. (Did you know that Fields and Hanks played romantic interests only five years before playing Forrest and Mamma? That bothers me.) The film was such a well-suited vehicle for Hanks’s talent that it seems like it was created from scratch for him. But the book by Winston Groom offers a much different Forrest. Yes, he plays ping-pong and loves Jenny, but he is also a profane, hyper-sexual, violent, math savant who goes to space. The directors, writers, and Hanks himself smoothed the character's rough edges into the beloved character we got. The movie’s version of the character is better for the story’s plot, progress, and themes.
Number 1. Field of Dreams is based on W. P. Kinsella’s Shoeless Joe. Most people don’t know this was a book first. It is a strange story in both mediums. I can’t imagine Kinsella trying to pitch it (pun intended) to publishers let alone a studio picking it up for a movie. Not to mention stars like Kevin Costner, Burt Lancaster, and James Earl Jones. That weird story about building a heaven on earth through a baseball diamond in an Iowa cornfield. The movie is fairly faithful to the book, just as weird and magical, and unique. The only major shift is the creation of reclusive author Terrance Mann, a stand-in for JD Salinger who threatened to sue the production for using his name and likeness. And yet…it is undeniably better than the book. It is hard to say why. There is just something different, something special that the book did not quite reach. Field of Dreams has become a staple in American cinema and culture. It has that lightning-in-a-bottle feeling. An unexplainable X-factor kind of allure and mystique. It shouldn’t be a such good movie or be so engaging or have such a lasting legacy. There is no real plot. It’s difficult to categorize it strictly as a sports movie. But it doesn’t fit any genre cleanly. There is no villain. The story makes no real sense. And yet it is an undeniable classic. A truly unique story that uses baseball as a poetic allegory for America, dreams, and family.
