Golden Age of Hollywood Book Club discussion

Sometimes great books can be made to bad movies. Then there are bad books into bad movies. I read a bad book this summer that has been made into a film. I have not seen the film. Once is not enough by Jacqueline Susann.

I'd agree that there are some poor books which ought not have been adapted. But it's usually the other-way-around.

Books in general usually agreed to make for a richer, deeper, longer, and more impacting experience.

To get made into a film, a novel has to pass so many hurdles that --if it is trash --someone red flags it before CEOs waste any money.

But it still sometimes happens. Unsurprisingly, its usually sex-love-marriage stories which turn out the worst.

Jacqueline Susann, yes but there's also stuff from Gore Vidal; Gay Talese; Rex Reed, Sidney Sheldon, Xaviera Hollander, etc etc etc

AKA 'beach reads' or 'airport reads'.

Here's a great story: Faulkner once told Hemingway that he could make his lousiest story or book into a great screenplay. The result? To Have and Have Not. I've read it. Faulkner definitely worked a miracle. Though, obviously, you have to give a lot of credit to Hawks, Bogie, Bacall, and Walter Brennan. And I guess Hoagy Carmichael, though that Hong Kong song is probably his corniest.

I had heard the To Have And Have Nor was one of Hemingway's lesser works (never read it) but it sure made a great film. But I think, as you say, the casting was the key to its success And one of my favorite supporting actors, Marcel Dalio,, plays the owner of the club/hotel. He was another major actor (and a favorite of the great Jean Renoir) who had to flee from Hitler and had many supporting roles in American films.

The character Bogie plays in Hemingway's story is pretty uncharismatic, if not an out and out villain. The story is close to plotless--the only real relation with the film is the story of the tourist fisherman. Faulkner built the whole refugee story himself. I think Lauren Bacall's character was also built from scratch. Funny, because as much as I love Faulkner's screenplays, I find his fiction headscratching. Hemingway's writing, I'm mixed on. I like his journalism.

Faulkner and Fitzgerald both were considered weak screenwriters by the industry; they struggled to adapt to the format. Whereas someone like Ben Hecht (newspaper background) made the transition easily.

My favorite adaptation of EH is 'Islands in the Stream' with George C. Scott. Similar story.

I was already too burned out on E.H. and Scott F. by the time I got around to Faulkner, couldn't must up the interest in his dense novels. I liked his short stories okay enough.

Same thing with Steinbeck. I was already maxxed out; I never tackled 'East of Eden' or 'Grapes of Wrath'. Gobbled up all of his shorter works instead like the Monterrey and Sausalito novels.

Interestingly, I am right at the opening of East of Eden in my Kazan memoir. Kazan loved Brando but he never quite warmed up to Dean. But both him and Steinbeck agreed that he was the perfect Cal. I've read the book. It's good. The film only covers a few episodes. The book goes through several generations.

I forgot Kazan was the director for that. Strikes me as a George Stevens film.

I need to rewatch Wild River with Monty Clift, Lee Remick, and Jo Van Fleet. Underrated Kazan flick.

Informative comments, Feliks and Spencer. These are not films in my window of film.....but still interesting to me.

Trying to restrain myself from floating all the Kazan trivia I've been learning. All I will say is that he's one helluva complex figure. I will say that Streetcar, Waterfront, Eden, Baby Doll, Face in the Crowd, and Splendor in the Grass are some of my all-time faves, and Wild River, Sea of Grass, and Gentleman's Agreement are all pretty good. The book is certainly making me curious about some of his lesser known work that I haven't seen.

it all starts with a good script!

Being friends with Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller, and William Inge certainly didn't hurt his career.

how about 'The Arrangement' with Kirk Douglas and Faye Dunaway? I kinda liked the premise but then it seemed to lose its key idea halfway through

Feliks wrote: "how about 'The Arrangement' with Kirk Douglas and Faye Dunaway? I kinda liked the premise but then it seemed to lose its key idea halfway through"

Definitely on my "to watch" list.

I think I started accidentally posting about Kazan in the wrong thread. He generally made good films from good books.

weird energy --weird sexual energy --in 'the arrangement'. but I truly cannot recall how anything was resolved.

it seems a risky, daring film for Kazan (shot in color, for example, and with action stunts) and autobiographical too.

and I know there was a lurid sex scene with faye (not shown directly) which was racy but didn't seem to further the plot. The story needed just ONE main idea which we could get a handle on.

Okay, the main character is disturbed yes ...unpredictable ...volatile ...a powderkeg ....but a story should always show the lead character (and show us at the same time) some "clear way out of the mess".

Figure out what the problem is first, then solve it. Even if it means the hero kills himself in grief ..get on with it!

Maybe that's just how western minds like things.

Back on subject. Saw The Story of Mankind on TCM. What an amazing cast. What an amazing piece of crap.

Re-watched Browning's Dracula. Much better than Stoker's book, which is full of religious hogwash and absurd melodrama. Browning's movie is pretty amazing.

Uh? Nothing's better than Stoker's work. One of the best of all epistolary novels ever.

I'd even argue that the religious claptrap --being authentic to the time --helps to 'put you in' the mindset of that timeperiod.

The glory of it is how modern sounding a voice he writes with; as if he was still authoring prose today. if he was alive now he'd be toe-to-toe with the best of Stephen King. You can pick up Stoker's Dracula and get f-r-e-a-k-e-d out; like seriously spooked so much you need to get up and walk around the room. It's that good; and its something you can't get from any other medium as deeply. A movie is over in 90 minutes, whereas Stoker's novel haunts you for weeks, or even months. You get the inner thoughts of the characters opened up to your own brain, nothing can top that.

I'm a firm believer in the immersive power of the screen, for sure. But ultimately you know you can always turn your eyes away; duck your head down, or shut your eyes. A powerful novel, is something you can't shake as easy. I've actually walked out of a room where I was reading that book, until I got hold of myself.

Feliks wrote: "Uh? Nothing's better than Stoker's work. One of the best of all epistolary novels ever.

I'd even argue that the religious claptrap --being authentic to the time --helps to 'put you in' the mindse..."

I hear you on that, though it wasn't made into a movie the last book I read that I had to do that, stop reading for a few days, was Jonathan Littell's "The Kindly Ones".

Well, to be fair, I haven't attempted Stoker's book in many, many years. Maybe worth re-investigating.

Seems as if this might be a good opportunity while you're under house-arrest in that Motel 6 out there on the interstate

I was actually wondering where you get the time to watch all these films. Dang. Get yourself a better lawyer son!