Lit to Film: Angels and Demons

I think it's pretty safe to say that the books Hollywood turns into films are often...lacking. Whether it's missing character traits or thoughts, plot changes to make the story flow better on screen, certain scenes removed altogether...etc...we all know how badly a book can be destroyed while making its way to the silver screen. Last month D.F. Matthews gave an example about how The Shining was one of those films that wound up being better than the book. This time it's the opposite. The film Angels and Demons has nothing on the book by Dan Brown.

Before you go on though, I have to warn you:

*SPOILER ALERT*



Angels and Demons is actually the first book (not The DaVinci Code) from Dan Brown that introduces the character Robert Langdon. The novel opens with Langdon receiving a midnight phone call from Maximilian Kohler, the director of CERN, the world's largest scientific research facility in Geneva, Switzerland. One of their top physicists has been murdered and branded with the word Illuminati across his chest. As a symbologist, and expert on this ancient secret society, Langdon is asked to help solve the murder. Turns out that this dead guy was not just a physicist but also a Catholic priest who had been working in secret with his adopted daughter Vittoria (also a scientist) to create antimatter. Problem? This antimatter stuff is extremely delicate. As in it can destroy an entire city--Vatican City--which is where the canister containing it is hidden.

To make matters worse, the Pope has just died and the four priests being considered as replacements have been kidnapped. So now Langdon and Vittoria are in a race against time to try and decipher the clues left by this murderer, who claims to be Illuminati, before it's too late. This race leads them to sealed crypts, empty cathedrals, and into the greatly restricted vault of Vatican City itself to search for the trail of enlightenment which will lead to the location of the secret Illuminati meeting place that has been hidden for centuries.

Now here comes the film, directed by Ron Howard. To say the interpretation was okay would be putting it nicely. Those of you who have read the books and seen the film will probably agree with me. Those who haven't...let me explain.

While the plot pretty much remains the same....

Langdon must figure out the clues and what the Illuminati are saying before the murderer kills every one of the kidnapped priests.

...I was shocked to see how different the film interpretation of the book was right from the start. Not only was it not Kohler who calls Robert Langdon--but Kohler's character was completely erased from the film. The dead scientist was depicted as Vittoria's colleague and not her father. Even Vittoria seemed to be 'dummed' down in the film. From here it just gets worse. The Carmerlengo (a major part of the story) is missing so much of the backstory that made him the great character he should have stayed. There was no understanding from the audience as to why he would do the things he does and his relation to the Pope was also taken out. It made him seem more like master's pet and nothing more. One thing I did find very disappointing is the murderer himself. The Hassasin. There was nothing about his past to motivate him. He's merely a hire for kill. Truly saddening, considering he was very good at what he did. In fact...it was beautiful. (Though I'm no sadist)

Still, I don't have to point out the details to show how off mark the film was. In the end of the book, all four priests are killed. In the movie, however, Robert Langdon manages to save one--who later becomes the Pope.

For those who did read the book and saw the film, the plot changes made the thing hard to follow. Then again there was so much that the director assumed viewers knew that he left out things that would allow the non book readers to understand the story the way it was meant to. An epic battle between Science and Religion. The film played up the conspiracy of the Catholic Church more than explaining the reasons behind WHY characters behaved the way they did. It was typical bad guy vs good guy. So not what it should have been.

So for those of you who have read and watched Angels and Demons...which do you think was better?

Or if you've only watched one and not the other...would you consider reading/viewing the other?

I'm sure there will be some of you who disagree, but I wouldn't recommend watching the film until you've read the book. It will ruin things for you. Then again, I can't really say the book won't ruin the movie either. Guess that's just a decision y'all will have to make. :)

Lit To Film: The Shining

Wow, 2011 has been a strong year for books on film. I mean Water For Elephants, Red Riding Hood, I Am Number Four, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hollows part two, and Beastly have made their appearance known already and it’s only June!! Books are almost destined to take a shot at the silver screen. Some maintain the heart of their printed counterparts while others…uh, try. Then there are some who outshine the book (stop laughing it’s possible). That’s what this segment is about: Books that have been turned into movies and which is better. The long standing debate of ‘can a film ever capture what is on the page’ will be debated here. So grab the film and the book, a bowl of popcorn, and a pair of boxing gloves because it may get fierce. :P
Let’s start off fairly easier as this is a new segment. So no Harry Potter, Twilight, or Lord of the Rings this week. How about one that is certainly a classic film and book, both crafted by masters, and one I think is better than the book.
The Shining.
Let me start off by saying I am a huge Stephen King fan. The bulk of my bookshelf is his work, and he is one of the few people that I would be struck speechless to meet one day. This is not bashing him in anyway. Oh and if you haven’t seen or read The Shining by now, shame on you. LOL Okay but there will be spoilers to both so *SPOILER ALERT*
The story goes Jack Torrence becomes caretaker for The Overlook Hotel, and takes his wife Wendy and his son Danny with him. As he watches over this historical and quite vast hotel he convinces himself that he will write his novel, and that the change of scenery is just what he needs to get the creative juices flowing. (sound familiar?) The general part of the beginning is captured wonderfully by director Stanley Kubrick although he did miss the true reasons from the book as to why Jack had no choice but to take the job.
In the book Jack starts as a teacher in a university, but after a night of drinking he accidently kills a colleague and dumps his body in the river. After that travesty he can’t concentrate on his job, quits, and turns to writing for a living. His writing can’t pay the bills and this job is a few months of having a roof over his family’s head.
This was missed but it didn’t really matter as from this moment on every last thing is painted onto the screen. Kubrick didn’t miss a syllable of King’s words through the middle. You got the mental breakdown, the haunting of the hotel, Danny’s finger friend, Wendy’s passiveness to her husband’s murderous tendencies. It’s all there in all in sparkling Techno-color. You are totally wrapped up in the story now. This is one of the best horror movies of all time, if not the best after all.
Then comes the end and here is where I find the movie is better. Stephen King is great at what he does…but my gripe has always been with his endings. Most of them suck. Seriously. They lack the punch that managed to drag you in at the beginning. In the movie the ending is Danny calls out to the old hotel manager with his Shining power, bringing the old man to the hotel. His arrival is short lived as he gets an ax to the back. Then Wendy and Danny run out into the snowy hedge maze outside with Jack chasing after them. They find their way out while Jack freezes to death. Wow! Bravo! Encore!
Now the book. The end consists of the old hotel manager comes back, knocks out the ax wielding Jack, and then he proceeds to overload the furnace which causes it to explode. Epilogue: Wendy, Danny and the hotel manager are in the tropics and sipping drinks. Ugh, really. That’s it? Yawn. To me the book ended really weak and when you stack the whole experience up to the movie I was left wanting more from the print.
So pick up the movie and book, if you don’t remember already, and add your two cents to the discussion. Which do you think was better? The Lit or The Film?