Golden Age of Hollywood Book Club discussion

Gentleman's Agreement
To Kill a Mockingbird

Are you a new moderator, Morgan? In the past, only Felix, as the moderator can add a topic as far as I know or at least must approve it. It's a good topic but I am surprised.

Jill wrote: "Are you a new moderator, Morgan? In the past, only Felix, as the moderator can add a topic as far as I know or at least must approve it. It's a good topic but I am surprised."

No, I am not a moderator. I saw an option to add a topic and so I did. If I am not supposed to do so then I apologize, please let me know how to delete it. Thanks.

That is really a question for Felix, not me.

There's never been any setting on my moderator panel, which blocks creation of new posts. I've never enacted such a thing.

An entire group can be set to 'restricted' --aka, "forbid new members joining" --there's settings like that. But users could always create new topics if they wished to.

It's just that in the early days (when I first joined Jaime as mod) there was a lot of cleaning/organizing which had to be done. I asked people to, "just tell me what they wanted" so that I could sort it all out and keep everything straight.

If the existing chats were suddenly bombarded with new discussions, it'd mean extra work for me to keep it all sorted out again so in general I ask that members consult with me before making a whole new discussion. But: if someone acts on impulse and plunges in, I don't mind.

If the topic clearly duplicates an existing discussion, I'll squelch it. If it explores territory we haven't thought of before, if it's something innocuous and useful, I'll let it stand.

"Book-to-Movie" is an example of the latter. Perfectly okay. It can remain.

Jill wrote: "That is really a question for Felix, not me."

Thank you. Felix has kindly provided a response here.

Feliks wrote: "There's never been any setting on my moderator panel, which blocks creation of new posts. I've never enacted such a thing.

An entire group can be set to 'restricted' --aka, "forbid new members jo..."

Thank you Felix. I would gladly delete the topic if you said so.

Thank you for the clarification, Felix. I was mistaken.

Morgan wrote: "Gentleman's Agreement
To Kill a Mockingbird"

Morgan, it's a great subject to discuss. Thanks for adding.
I'm sure everyone will add their own comments.
I'll throw in as mentioning the WORST adaptation I can think of immediately.
ENDLESS LOVE - superb novel by Scott Spencer. Adapted into trashy, terrible movie by Franco Zefferelli (1981). (Tom Cruise made his debut in this garbage, listed #18 in the cast credits)

Must be stacks of others good and bad.

btw I think this topic is sort of under the category of Books and Reads, but it's all good....

Anthony wrote: "Morgan wrote: "Gentleman's Agreement
To Kill a Mockingbird"

Morgan, it's a great subject to discuss. Thanks for adding.
I'm sure everyone will add their own comments.
I'll throw in as mentioning t..."

I would have to agree with you regarding "Endless Love". There are so many great books that were made into trash movies. I have to applaud the ones that did a good job. Can't be an easy thing to do. Thanks for the comments Anthony.

I recently read an article posted by LITERARY HUB - 13 (FILM) ADAPTATIONS BETTER THAN THE BOOKS THEY'RE BASED ON.
(Edited by Emily Temple)

In no way do these selections denigrate the original books but the editors just thought the film/TV adaptations were that wee bit better!

ADAPTATION (2002) based on 1998 "The Orchid Thief" by Susan Orlean.
ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN (1976) based on 1974 book by Bernstein and Woodward.
THE HANDMAIDEN (2016) based on 2002 "Fingersmith" by Sarah Waters.
THE MALTESE FALCON (1941) based on Dashiell Hammett's 1930 novel.
STATION ELEVEN (2021/22) based on Emily St. John Mandel's 2014 book.
AMERICAN GODS (2017-21) based on the 2001 book by Neil Gaiman.
A SIMPLE FAVOR (2018) based on the 2017 novel by Darcey Bell.
JAWS (1975) based on the 1974 novel by Peter Benchley.
THE LEFTOVERS (2014-17) from the 2011 book by Tom Perrotta.
THE GODFATHER (1972) from Mario Puzo's 1969 novel.
CRUISING (1980) based on the 1970 Gerald Walker novel.
DIE HARD (1988) based on 1979's "Nothing Lasts Forever" by Roderick Thorp.
BIG FISH (2003) based on the 1998 novel by Daniel Wallace.

Any thoughts? Opinions?
I agree with "Godfather"/ "Jaws"/"The Maltese Falcon"/"All the President's Men" which were all adapted into classic movies. And whilst "Cruising" couldn't be considered in that league, it's an underrated movie and better than the original material.
Can't judge the others as I have neither read the books nor seen the adaptations.

But as mentioned above, the LitHub selections were not made to belittle the source material of the films - in fact they were in high praise of the vast majority.

That's a great subject, Anthony. From that list I'm can't comment on too many of the titles, though I liked Sarah Waters' book 'Fingersmith' at least as much as the Korean adaptation.
Perhaps I'd add 'Taking of Pelham 1 2 3' - great book and even greater film.

Come to think of it (and I'll probably think of others in the future), Hitch's 'Stranger on the Train' is heaps better than the Patricia Highsmith book.

Magnus wrote: "Come to think of it (and I'll probably think of others in the future), Hitch's 'Stranger on the Train' is heaps better than the Patricia Highsmith book."

The ending of Highsmith's book was totally different from the film and much darker. Hitch probably made the right decision as to how he ended the film.

Yeah. I’m divided on which is better. Both are very different, and both are excellent. I can see how a close adaptation wouldn’t have passed as a Hollywood film back then. Maybe as a French film, since there was the French film, Plein Soleil (Purple Noon), based on Talented Mr Ripley.

Bruce wrote: "Yeah. I’m divided on which is better. Both are very different, and both are excellent. I can see how a close adaptation wouldn’t have passed as a Hollywood film back then. Maybe as a French film, s..."

That one was great.

Not sure how many have read "Heidi" Johanna Spyri’s 19th-century novel, but it's sure been adapted extensively. Enjoyed the book but have managed to see only the one screen adaptation, by Paul Marcus, starring Max Von Sydow, 11-year-old Emma Bolger, Diana Rigg and Geraldine Chaplin. Has anyone seen this screen adaptation? Or others?

I saw one version in the 80’s, but I don’t know if it was actually made in the 80’s, or if it was an older one. I never got around to the book though. I vaguely remember the story. I remember they take her away from her uncle, and I remember there’s a boy who’s naughty or something, and they spank him (I think the uncle does), but he’s really good, or turns out to be good, I think(?). I’m guessing in the one you mentioned, Von Sydow is the uncle, and either Rigg or Chaplin is the bad lady who takes Heidi away.

I grew up with the 70s Japanese cartoon series though I of course didn't know it was Japanese until I discovered about 20 years ago that some of the faces from the Ghibli Studio films looked like Heidi.

Rudolph Lambert Fernandez wrote: "Not sure how many have read "Heidi" Johanna Spyri’s 19th-century novel, but it's sure been adapted extensively. Enjoyed the book but have managed to see only the one screen adaptation, by Paul Marc..."

Rudolph, I haven't read "Heidi" and I can't recall seeing the film. During my childhood, I recall the book being mentioned many times.
Surprised it only reached the screen once as it such an iconic story.
There was a highly regarded production (with stellar ratings and excellent reviews) which aired on NBC-TV in 1968. That production was filmed on location in Germany and Switzerland in conjunction with German company Studio Hamburg which was to release it as a theatrical feature in Europe.

Directed by Oscar winner ("Marty") Delbert Mann, the show starred Maximilian Schell (Herr Sessemann), Jean Simmons (Fraulein Rottenmeire), Walter Slezak (Father Richter), Michael Redgrave (the grandfather, and narrator), Peter Van Eyck (Dr. Reboux), Zufeika Robson (Klara), John Moulder-Brown (Peter) and introduced Jennifer Edwards (daughter of Blake Edwards) as Heidi.

Adapted from the book by Earl Hamner Jr. who later created the long running series "The Waltons" and produced by Frederick Brogger and James Franciscus for their company Omnibus Productions. With Mann as director, Omnibus would produce further literary classics including "David Copperfield," "Jane Eyre" and "Kidnapped."

"Heidi" received an Emmy nomination for Outstanding Dramatic Program 1968-69. It won John Williams (listed in the awards as John T. Williams) his first Emmy Award for "Outstanding Achievement in Musical Composition."
Williams recorded the score at the Deutsche Grammophon Studio in Hamburg.*
Jerry Goldsmith was originally slated to write the music score but was unavailable due to other commitments.

A strange piece of trivia. The programming of "Heidi" created havoc for sports fans when it was shown on November 17, 1968.
The football game between the Oakland Raiders and New York Jets had only minutes to go when NBC and its affiliates switched to "Heidi" which was scheduled for the 7 PM timeslot.
Angry fans jammed the switchboards in protest but to no avail and they subsequently missed the Jets' winning touchdown. The game became known as "the Heidi Bowl"! The outcry led to permanent changes in how sporting events were broadcast.
Who would have thought "Heidi" would play such a significant role in American sports!!

* Capitol Records released the music score (with narration by Redgrave and Edwards) as an LP in 1968. That album combined with the complete Williams score can now be heard on 2013 CD produced by Spanish label Quartet. (Some of the notes from this post have their source in the music notes from the CD by John Takis.)

Thanks Anthony. Heidi Bowl - what hilarity! Thanks also for your trivia; most interesting. It seems there've been several screen (film and TV) adaptations over the years, but the 2005 version with Max Von Sydow's the only one I've seen, and I enjoyed it. Schell is always watchable!

You're right Magnus. Heidi, Girl of the Alps was a 1970s TV series from one of the Japanese studios, and very much anime mode.

Yes, Bruce. In the 2005 film version, Rigg is the wealthy and benign aunt and Chaplin is the haughty governess. Sydow is Grandpa in the hills. At least in this one, the naughty goatherd boy doesn't get spanked, but he may well have in earlier TV/film versions.

Simply to expand the subject, I'll point out that I grew up on the Shirley Temple version, which occasionally was shown on television in the late '50s and '60s (and perhaps is still today). Later, when my wife and I were parents in the early '80s, we had VHS tapes of a couple of Shirley Temple films including Heidi. I don't think that version of Heidi will be of much interest to anyone except Shirley Temple fans. The only other aspect of that film that may be of interest to other film fans is that Jean Herscholt plays the grandfather, an actor who is best known as the namesake for the annual Jean Herscholt Humanitarian Award that just went to Michael J. Fox. In the Temple version of Heidi you can actually see Herscholt as a character actor.

I've seen that version. It's not too bad, a bit syrupy but certainly watchable especially if you have children. You're right though about Herscholt being remembered more for that award although I have seen him in a few things.

Betsy wrote: "I've seen that version. It's not too bad, a bit syrupy but certainly watchable especially if you have children. You're right though about Herscholt being remembered more for that award although I h..."

Betsy: I may be getting a little "off topic," but I have to mention: Only recently, I discovered the 1923 silent film "Souls for Sale" (not to be confused with a later Vincent Price movie). It's an absolutely delightful "take" on the Hollywood star-making machine as it stood in the silent era. It was on TCM months ago, but I wound up seeing it on a DVD and I can see it's streaming on Amazon for a fee. Hersholt appears in one of the "real people" cameos in that film, which is a lot of fun.

I saw Hersholt recently in 'The Beast of the City' where he was miscast as an Italian mafioso. Can you imagine? I mean, it wasn't even a silent film. His Danish accent was noticeable.

Magnus wrote: "I saw Hersholt recently in 'The Beast of the City' where he was miscast as an Italian mafioso. Can you imagine? I mean, it wasn't even a silent film. His Danish accent was noticeable."

I'm laughing because there's so much else in "Beast" to make your eyes pop that poor old Jean Hersholt doesn't have much of a chance to shine, which is probably a good thing. "Beast" is one of my early '30s favorites that I rewatch every year or two. If others haven't seen it, it's ... well, I don't want to add spoilers, but it's one vivid slice of early '30s style!

I just looked up Hersholt. Apart from Greed, which I distinctly remembered him in, and Phantom of Paris, I’ve actually seen him in a number of films, but somehow forgot about him in them.

His humanitarian work was establishing the Motion Picture Relief Fund, which helped down on their luck members of the film industry, and led to the retirement home.

I had no idea he was Leslie Nielsen’s uncle!

I’m thinking the version of Heidi I saw was one of the 60’s versions. It definitely wasn’t the Shirley Temple version.

You're probably right, David. I haven't seen the Shirley Temple one, but most Temple films especially later on were more Temple vehicles; more about Temple than about storytelling with varied, fleshed out characters.

Another article from those folks at LIT HUB to contemplate!

10 SCREEN ADAPTATIONS MUCH, MUCH WORSE THAN THE BOOKS THEY'RE BASED ON. (So many to choose from!)

THE HOBBIT (JRR Tolkien, 1937) --- 3 Peter Jackson films (2012-14)

REBECCA (Daphne Du Maurier, 1938) --- the 2020 version with Lily James and Armie Hammer.

UNDER THE VOLCANO (Malcolm Lowry, 1947) --- the 1984 John Huston adaptation.

SEVENTH SIN (based on Joseph Delaney's 2004 "The Spook's Apprentice") --- 2014 film.

THE GREAT GATSBY (F. Scott Fitzgerald, 1925) --- Baz Luhrmann's 2013 version.

THE SCARLETT LETTER (Nathaniel Hawthorne, 1850) --- 1995 Demi Moore film.

GREAT EXPECTATIONS (Charles Dickens, 1861) --- 2023 film adaptation.

THE BLACK DAHLIA (James Ellroy, 1987) --- 2006 Brian De Palma film.

ELLA ENCHANTED (Gail Carson Levine, 1997) --- 2004 film.

SOMMERSBY (based on the French film "THE RETURN OF MARTIN GUERRE" which was an adaptation of the 1982 book by Natalie Zemon Davis) --- 1993 film starring Richard Gere & Jodie Foster).

Can't argue much with that list although I did like Luhrman's Gatsby. And Huston's 'Under the Volcano' was received quite well back in 1984 if my memory doesn't betray me. I haven't read the book or seen it though.

Magnus wrote: "Can't argue much with that list although I did like Luhrman's Gatsby. And Huston's 'Under the Volcano' was received quite well back in 1984 if my memory doesn't betray me. I haven't read the book o..."

Only read "Rebecca" and only seen "Under the Volcano" as a film. Saw the original French "The Return of Martin Guerre" and the originals of "Rebecca" and "Great Expectations." The latter two are GREAT films - why anyone would want to see later versions is beyond my comprehension. But I suppose modern audiences like to watch new interpretations and films in color.

We film buffs take ourselves somewhat too seriously when we discuss great movies. I was recently talking to my young neighbors and I mentioned that VARIETY had voted "Psycho" has the best ever - they thought I meant "American Psycho" and BFI/Sight & Sound had voted a French film as the best ever and they immediately thought I was talking about "Amelie."!

Bit dispiriting to realize that I live in a time warp. But quite astonishing how so many young people know so little about film.

Great discussion, folks. We mentioned Hitchcock's adaptation of Strangers on a Train in which he changed the book's ending which was a good decision.

But he also changed the ending of a mystery classic, Before the Fact which, IMO, was not such a good idea. The book is more a character study than a mystery and is beautifully written and makes you reflect on the situation presented. It has an ending that is not exactly shocking but still a bit of a twist. Hitchcock adapted it for Suspicion (1941) and changed the whole feel of the story and the ending.. I guess if you had read the book first (I did) you would be very disappointed.

I may have brought this up before, but there's a story that Faulkner bet Hemingway that he could wite a great screenplay for his worst story. That would, of course, be To Have and Have Not.

I have heard that before, Spencer. I have not read the book so I don't know if the story was changed for the screen since we know that Hollywood loves to do that!

Oh yeah. The book is just the Bogart character, the Brennan character, and the tourist fisherman that doesn't want to pay. It's been awhile, but I don't think the Bacall character is in it at all or the Hoagy Carmichael character or the refugees. Somewhere between a short story and a novella. Really, just a character study.

I have a little project going (well, not so little) to read novels that were adapted into films. Not always for purposes of making comparisons, in some cases I haven’t even seen the movies. But of course, the comparisons can be eye-opening. As Pauline Kael pointed out eons ago, novels generally are more complex than the films made from them; adaptation for a mass audience inherently involves streamlining and simplification. And watering down, due to the Production Code, commercial considerations, or other pressures. For example, The Manchurian Candidate was an envelope-pushing film, but the book goes farther.

Here are some of the other relevant titles I’ve read, not including pre-20th Century classics.

Edward Anderson, Thieves Like Us
Peter Bowman, Beach Red
Harry Brown, A Walk in the Sun
James Dickey, Deliverance
Joan Didion, Play It as It Lays
David Dodge, Plunder of the Sun
Edna Ferber, Come and Get It
E. M. Forster, Howards End
Stephen Geller, She Let Him Continue [Pretty Poison]
Davis Grubb, The Night of the Hunter
John Haase, Me and the Arch-Kook Petulia [Petulia]
James Hilton, Random Harvest
MacKinlay Kantor, Glory for Me [The Best Years of Our Lives]
Nikos Kazantzakis, Zorba the Greek
Thomas McGuane, The Sporting Club
Arkady and Boris Strugatsky, Roadside Picnic [Stalker]
William Styron, Sophie’s Choice
Booth Tarkington, The Magnificent Ambersons
Michael Tolkin, The Player
B. Traven, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre

Having greatly enjoyed the 1936 movie version of Edna Ferber’s Come and Get It, I took up the novel and was interested to discover that it is very different in many respects and covers a much longer time-span than even the two generations of the movie. A rich and wonderful reading experience, completely absorbing. One startling development that is not in the film knocked me right off my chair.

Another novel that was made into a movie with significant differences is James Hilton’s excellent Random Harvest, which is hard to discuss without getting spoiler-ish.

An obscure one - I always thought the plot of Gloria Swanson
early talker "Indiscreet" (1931) - was very similar to Edith
Wharton's "The Mother's Recompense". In the Wharton
book, a woman who had abandoned her husband and child
to chase after a wild fling returns years later, chastened, to
be with her daughter - who unbeknownst to her is about to
marry the rake she wrecked her life for. Swanson's film has a
similar theme of a mother trying to stop her daughter's
infatuation with the man she had loved and lost many years before.

^ That is very interesting! That’s one of the Wharton novels that I haven’t gotten to yet; I’m currently reading Hudson River Bracketed.

Patrick wrote: "^ That is very interesting! That’s one of the Wharton novels that I haven’t gotten to yet; I’m currently reading Hudson River Bracketed."To be honest it's not one of her good ones. I just ordered "The Fruit of the Tree" - looks very interesting, sort of like Wharton Goes Rural lol

^ I’m a completist whenever possible!

To pick just one title from your list, I'll go with 'Deliverance'. A very good book, but the film is arguably better. It has more subtext among other things. I can really recommend the chapter Quentin Tarantino (I know - he's not everybody's cup of tea, but please hear me out on this) dedicates both book and film in his new book on 70s cinema. He really delivers a very insightful appreciation of both media, and he's discussed it with some of the people who were involved in the making of it (Burt Reynolds to name but one). It's really worth reading.

Deliverance is an interesting case. Reading the novel, one has more time * to realize just how stupid the men are are from the get-go, undertaking a river without maps or navigation information.

Burt Reynolds’ character Lewis in Deliverance positions himself as an early survivalist, yet seems to think that survival is a matter of attitude, failing to do the most basic research about the environment he’s heading (and leading others) into. Even his attitude is all wrong for the people in rural Georgia that he’ll be dealing with.

So for me, anyway, both the book and film come across as studies in bad, arrogant leadership; everything that happens can be laid at Lewis’s door, because no one would be out there without his prodding. There is also a linkage with the tragedy of Christopher McCandless (Into The Wild): You don’t just waltz into alien environments and expect things to go well! No amount of prep could be too much.

* Books are read sentence by sentence, so are inherently slow and give you time to think. Movies generally just rush along.

Okay - adaptations. Really loved the movie "In This Our Life" - and please no tar and feathering but I loved Bette Davis as the psychotic Sidney. Couldn't wait to read the book but what a disappointment. The Sidney character was really on the periphery. Her character precipitated the big scenes but she herself had about half a page of dialogue. I was looking forward to reading of those marriage scenes between Sidney and the husband she stole off her sister but it was only mentioned in passing. The main characters were the father and the nice sister Roy - the books most underwhelming characters, in my opinion. I thought the father had possibilities in Chapter One but he was completely swamped by his neurotic wife. And I've mentioned my thoughts to other people who have felt the same way I do. Ellen Glasgow won the Pulitzer Prize for it - I think her best book was "Virginia".

I will also share the tar and feathers, Diane. I truly enjoyed that film but I thought the Davis character's name was Stanley, not Sidney. (I will check that out as I may be wrong). Regardless, Davis played her to the hilt, as only Davis can do. Charles Coburn, as the uncle, was truly creepy and I thought it was obvious that he had incestuous thoughts about Davis.

I have not read the book but don't think I will based on your opinion.

Jill wrote: "I will also share the tar and feathers, Diane. I truly enjoyed that film but I thought the Davis character's name was Stanley, not Sidney. (I will check that out as I may be wrong). Regardless, Dav..."
You're right it was Stanley - I was wrong.