Home theater: Movies that live up to the books that inspired them

Liffey Films/Newscom
Anjelica Huston stars as a wife who pines for a lost love in “The Dead” (1987), derived from a short story by James Joyce.

At a time when many of us are trying to tame that tottering pile of novels we’ve been meaning to read or reread, this might also be a good time to highlight some of the terrific films derived from great literature.

Standout examples are relatively few. Great fiction is an intimate expression of a writer’s way of seeing, and this vision is extremely difficult for a filmmaker to duplicate. When William Faulkner, for example, describes the “wan hemorrhage” of a rising moon, it won’t do to show us a close-up of a moon, no matter how artfully framed.

Editor’s note: As a public service, all our coronavirus coverage is free. No paywall.

Why We Wrote This

When movies based on books succeed, it is often because they complement what’s on the page, rather than trying to replicate it. ”Great fiction is an intimate expression of a writer’s way of seeing, and this vision is extremely difficult for a filmmaker to duplicate,” says film critic Peter Rainer. Here, he shares some of his favorite adaptations.

For the filmmaker who seeks to make a movie similar in stature to its fictional source, an even greater problem is that most first-rate literature does a deep dive into the psychology of its characters. While it’s true that movies can portray exceedingly well a great many things, the richness of interior lives, except in rare cases, is not one of them. (This is why second-rate books often make for better movies. They’re less intimidating.) A remarkable actor can sometimes compensate for the deficiency but this only takes us so far. In movie adaptations of great literature, we are most often left with its least interesting aspect – the plot.

Still, there are movie adaptations of great literature that, while wisely not pretending to measure up to their sources, are nevertheless fine achievements in their own right. They complement our experience of reading the book. And, if you’re like me, you’ll always try to read the book first. 

Most recently, there was Autumn de Wilde’s “Emma” (2020), a sparkling surprise, especially given how many Jane Austen adaptations preceded it. Greta Gerwig’s “Little Women” (2019), despite its lurching narrative structure, was another success. 

Going back a ways, we have Henry James’ “Washington Square,” about a lovelorn spinster and the cad who romances her. It was eventually adapted for the stage and then for the screen as “The Heiress” (1949), starring Olivia de Havilland and Montgomery Clift at their peak. James’ haunting novella “The Turn of the Screw” became “The Innocents” (1961), a marvelously evocative chiller starring Deborah Kerr and Michael Redgrave and co-written by Truman Capote. Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa’s epic novel “The Leopard” was transferred to the screen with its glory intact by director Luchino Visconti and Burt Lancaster, in his best performance, as an aging aristocrat in 1860s Sicily. One of Chekhov’s finest short stories, “The Lady with the Dog” (1960), became, under the direction of Iosif Kheifits, perhaps the most perfect of all literary adaptations. 

If you’re looking for a good place to start, I recommend the following worthies, all fine examples of the adapter’s art.

“The Namesake”

Jhumpa Lahiri’s 2003 novel about an intergenerational Indian family in America, adapted by director Mira Nair and screenwriter Sooni Taraporevala into “The Namesake” (2006), delicately renders the immigrant experience in its many complexities and features the finest performance of the late great Irrfan Khan as a father trying to reconcile his new life with the one he left behind. (Rated PG-13)

“The Dead”

John Huston’s entrancing and deeply melancholy final film, “The Dead” (1987), stars his daughter Anjelica as a wife who pines for a lost love. Derived from the peerless James Joyce short story, it’s a movie Huston had long wanted to make and a fitting valedictory. (Rated PG) 

“The Member of the Wedding”

Carson McCullers adapted her 1946 novel for Broadway, and a version of that play was remade by Hollywood as “The Member of the Wedding” (1952), under the expert direction of Fred Zinnemann, fresh from making “High Noon.” Repeating their legendary stage performances are Julie Harris as the ferociously lonely tomboy Frankie and Ethel Waters as Berenice, her de facto surrogate mother. Waters singing the gospel hymn “His Eye Is on the Sparrow” to her young charge is one of the most moving moments in all cinema. (Unrated)

“Great Expectations”

David Lean’s “Great Expectations” (1946) is not only the best of the many Dickens adaptations, it’s one of the best British movies ever made. It has visual grandeur, wit, literacy, and thrills. Look for the young Jean Simmons as the imperious Estella and, in his first important role, Alec Guinness as the foppish Herbert Pocket. (Unrated)

Peter Rainer is the Monitor’s film critic. 

“The Namesake,” “The Dead,” “The Member of the Wedding,” and “Great Expectations” are available on at least one of these platforms: Amazon Prime Video, YouTube, Google Play, iTunes. 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.