Ooh, let me know if the nuns book is good, Susan--that sounds interesting.

And Breakfast at Tiffany's - mediocre book, mediocre movie, or mediocre both? (Personally, I think it is a very good book and a very good movie. "Great" may be a word reserved for things that are less fun. At least that's how I've always seen it interpreted.)

If nothing else, Breakfast at Tiffany's is prevented from being great by the horrible racial caricature. But I do love the rest of the movie.

Ooh, let me know if the nuns book is good, Susan--that sounds interesting.

I will. I can't even remember where I heard about it, a review, a blog comment, or what, but the title pinged my inner historian.

Were there any good film adaptations of Austen books before 1990?

Laurence Olivier played Mr. Darcy in a 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice. Which won an Oscar for Art Direction. So even though I haven't seen it, I can't dismiss it out of hand.

I'll go so far as to say that different qualities make a good book as opposed to a good movie. For example, a book can take a dozen pages to perform blatant exposition without it necessarily being a fault. A movie taking 10 minutes, less so.

Laurence Olivier played Mr. Darcy in a 1940 version of Pride and Prejudice. Which won an Oscar for Art Direction. So even though I haven't seen it, I can't dismiss it out of hand.

It gets mixed reviews. It tends to appall Austen purists because the costumes are Victorian and Lady Catherine de Burgh is defanged, but there are those who love it, too. I fall on the purist side of the fence, but that may be at least partly because I saw the Firth/Ehle version first and just can't imagine P&P being done better.

The Risky Regencies blog discussed the Oliver adaptation here: [link]

I also use he French Lieutenant's Woman as an example of why in translation from book to film preserving the spirit often requires significant alterations in the letter.

I'm guessing Jane Eyre maybe doesn't count as a "great" book (although I think it has a lot of historical significance), but the 1940s Orson Welles version was really faithful, and nicely done.

I also think Rosemary's Baby is overlooked as pretty pointed social commentary, and the film adaptation was so faithful it was almost eerie. Also, a really good movie.

I'll go so far as to say that different qualities make a good book as opposed to a good movie.

In my own writing, I've learned that the more strongly I visualize a scene, the more difficult it is to write. I don't spend a lot of time daydreaming that anything I write will ever be a movie, but with those scenes, I do, because they're usually just so cinematic--the kind of thing you can convey beautifully with a few visuals, the right music in the background, the expression on a good actor's face, but are hard to get across with the same subtle emotional impact when I have to try to write down the amazing evocative picture in my head.

Susan, it looks like Risky Regencies liked it better as a movie than an Austen adaptation, if that makes sense. And yeah, Greer Garson doesn't make sense as a young unmarried woman. She made Mrs. Miniver only two years later -- she's one of those stars that I can't believe was ever a child.

While I can't say Peyton Place is Great Art either as book or movie, it's certainly first-rate trashiness as both. (And speaking of the controversial, read Forever Amber but skip the movie -- it should have been made about 10 years later, when the censors would probably have allowed more stuff in.)