It may be that the screenwriter wanted to be faithful to what he got out of the book, but maybe Sam Mendes vision was different. In evaluating an adapted film, we are evaluating such a film on its own terms first. We can enter into comparison if we want, but unless such comparisons seek to say something about the human condition or touch on some sociological topic (like the modus operendi of Hollywood directors), then such a comparison is really kind of a boring topic for all but the fanboi of the original work.

The Danes last blog post..20090417.teaParty

Quite often a movie says something different than the book or story that it’s based on, as everyone has said. Calling Clayton’s Gatsby failed says nothing of Fitzgerald’s work. Saying otherwise would lead to calling a five-minute Gatsby produced by a group of 9-year-olds a great work, simply because of its source material.

What seems unfair to an author would be to imply that a poorly thought out or executed adaptation reflected at all on the original work. Consider the Bourne Identity: the movie was fun, and fairly clever. But in comparison to Ludlum’s novel, it’s garbage. Should we call it great simply because it bore the same name and some similar plot elements? What about I, Robot or I am Legend or Batman Forever?

Rest assured that the review here addresses the movie as a separate work, and your disappointment seems to be shared.

That said, I have to go see Transformers tomorrow, and after reading quite a line of incredibly well written film reviews (and lamenting my own attempt at reviewing Star Trek), I want different movies to review here. This and G.I. Joe will probably ruin my credibility here. I’ve got dibs on 9, Burton’s always a good bet.

Charles Joness last blog post..…and Zombies

I guess that my point is this: Revolutionary Road as a movie was intended to be an adaptation of the film, so it just seems a little unfair to Yates to review the derivative instead of the original. It’s a lot like reviewing the 1974 Jack Clayton production of ‘The Great Gatsby’ and calling ‘The Great Gatsby’ a really inferior work and a ‘failed’ piece of art. Yeah, you could make the argument that they ought to be viewed independently as distinct art forms, but let’s be smart about how we do that. Dealing with topics like this, we need as much nuance as possible – nuance that films sometimes aren’t able to give us.

I’m probably sensitive about it because I’m so fond of Yates’ novel and was so terribly disappointed with the movie. To be sure, there is nothing inherent about suburbia that is inherently bad. We know that, and so did Yates (and I would venture, so does Mendes, if you’d press him). If you look closely at the book, I think you’d find that it agrees with you in lots of places that you don’t think that the movie does.

Sam Mendes has a new movie out. And guess what? It’s not about how family life in the suburbs sucks your soul out of you like most of his other movies. It’s about two young people worrying about whether family life in the suburbs will suck their soul out of them. A radical departure, eh?

I think she is unquestionably correct that the movie should be evaluated independently of the book. No true lover of Narnia would want C.S. Lewis evaluated in terms of Adamson or whatever his name is. And it would be unfair to evaluate Adamson in terms of Lewis (unfairly positive, that is).

One reason I assumed greater connection between book and movie is that I listened to an interview with the guy who did the Rev. Road screenwriting, and he strongly intended to communicate the same things as the book. I found myself in close agreement with much of what he said about the themes of the book that he tried to put in the movie script.

At the same time, Sam Mendes also directed American Beauty, which is (to my ear) a very different story. I wonder if he felt they are similar types of stories and directed Rev. Road poorly as a result?

Whatever the case, I appreciate you highlighting these issues. Looks like another case of failure to create solid parrallels between the book and movie versions of a story.

First of all, I think that the first poster hit the nail on the head. You seriously misread this one.

Second of all, have you read the book?

I hate to seem uncharitable here, but I can’t imagine how you could write such a negative review without reading the source material. The movie is, without a doubt, a cheap imitation of the original. There’s just certain things that you can do with words that you can’t express visually.

Thomas

Re: American Beauty, I’ve also read people claiming the exact opposite! (That American Beauty points to the internal soul-problems, while Revolutionary Road externalizes them.)

I haven’t seen the movie, but I recently read the book and that seems to be the purpose. It displays their perspectives on the world in a way that helps you realize how empty and wrongheaded those perspectives are, and asks you to look for other solutions to your struggles with discontent.

I’ve heard a lot of comparisons between American Beauty and Revolutionary Road, but the difference is that American Beauty seems to say suburbia is the problem, while Revolutionary Road says that the problem is essentially inside ourselves.