I've read the book much prior to watching the movie. It's one of my favorite books, and I really got "emotionally involved" while reading it. I was afraid that the movie will "ruin" the memories of the experiences I have from the book, but it didn't. Though, in my opinion the book is about 10 times better than the movie.
How do you turn a 400 pages book, with a plot that spans over about 40 years or so to a movie? You choose the most important highlight scenes of the story - and show them.
In that sense, the adaptation was right. The right moments to tell the story were chosen - but other things didn't work, in my opinion, the major of which is - the impression of a lack of understanding of the characters from the director and/or from the actors.
The story in the book is written in first person, alternating between the perspective of Henry and Claire. In that sense, the "inner thoughts", feelings and emotions of the protagonists are described in the book in length. That's one of the major things which builds the connection, emotionally, between the main characters and the reader.
Now, obviously, there are no such things as "inner thoughts" in movies, not per say. But, after reading the book and becoming so "close" and "intimate" with the characters, and having the feeling that I really know them and who and what they are - I did expect those things to somehow manifest in the characters of the movie, I did expect the "inner thoughts" to somehow "hold out" in the movie. But they didn't. And that was really disappointing for me, because I felt that in someway it is "disrespectful" for the original characters that Audrey Niffenegger had created.
I know it is pretentious of me to say so, but I think the script writer should have found better and more clever "script tricks" to encompass those "inner worlds" of the characters in the book (like for example, possibly show more of Claire working on her art works. This was a major instrument to deliver her inner emotions in some areas in the book and it can work in a movie).
Overall - I think the movie, in some ways, tried to be TOO loyal to the book - and when adapting a book for the cinema - in my opinion this is not the right way to go, more often than not.
I also, pretentiously, blame the director. In my opinion, there are many things he could have done to make the characters more alive and rich. The acting was very lukewarm. The passion between Henry and Claire which was very believable in the book - was not so in the movie (It might also has something to do with the fact that in the book it gets built in hundreds of pages and tens of events, but still). The two main actors also did no more than an okay job, in my opinion, and I think they were not the right casting for those characters. Especially Henry.
(I'm sticking with the characters that my imagination created for them when reading the book! They were way better! :P )
Ron Livingston was a good choice to play the role of Gomez, though Gomez importance in Henry's life was not emphasized enough in the movie, while it should have been. I also liked the little girl who played Claire as a kid, she was right for the role.
I think there should have been more interweaved scenes of "present" Claire and Henry scenes, with "past" Claire and Henry scenes (Henry as a man, Claire as a kid/girl) in the movie. In fact, I think most of the movie should have been like that - I think it would tell the story much better and will allow the understanding of the bonding between the couple, much like the book did. Instead, the bonding was not believable in the movie - again partly due to...
hmm... a deficient in sophistication in the acting and directing.
I also was disappointed that they didn't use the "down syndrome" thing with Dr. Kendrick (it was better).
I was also disappointed that the last scene of the book (very old Claire) was not in the movie - it would have been better then what they changed it to. I thought maybe they'll put it after the credits, but they didn't.
The whole relationship of Claire between her own family members were absent from the movie, and while that is understandable - in the book, a scene related to that relationship was the most powerful moment in the book, in my opinion, and one of those moments that greatly defined Claire and showed what she's about [I am talking about the part where Claire is searching through the locked drawer of her mother, after her mother died, and what she finds there...]
Overall, as a fan of the book, I thought the movie sometimes manages to "get close" to the powerfulness of the book, but it's still many miles away from it...
How do you turn a 400 pages book, with a plot that spans over about 40 years or so to a movie? You choose the most important highlight scenes of the story - and show them.
In that sense, the adaptation was right. The right moments to tell the story were chosen - but other things didn't work, in my opinion, the major of which is - the impression of a lack of understanding of the characters from the director and/or from the actors.
The story in the book is written in first person, alternating between the perspective of Henry and Claire. In that sense, the "inner thoughts", feelings and emotions of the protagonists are described in the book in length. That's one of the major things which builds the connection, emotionally, between the main characters and the reader.
Now, obviously, there are no such things as "inner thoughts" in movies, not per say. But, after reading the book and becoming so "close" and "intimate" with the characters, and having the feeling that I really know them and who and what they are - I did expect those things to somehow manifest in the characters of the movie, I did expect the "inner thoughts" to somehow "hold out" in the movie. But they didn't. And that was really disappointing for me, because I felt that in someway it is "disrespectful" for the original characters that Audrey Niffenegger had created.
I know it is pretentious of me to say so, but I think the script writer should have found better and more clever "script tricks" to encompass those "inner worlds" of the characters in the book (like for example, possibly show more of Claire working on her art works. This was a major instrument to deliver her inner emotions in some areas in the book and it can work in a movie).
Overall - I think the movie, in some ways, tried to be TOO loyal to the book - and when adapting a book for the cinema - in my opinion this is not the right way to go, more often than not.
I also, pretentiously, blame the director. In my opinion, there are many things he could have done to make the characters more alive and rich. The acting was very lukewarm. The passion between Henry and Claire which was very believable in the book - was not so in the movie (It might also has something to do with the fact that in the book it gets built in hundreds of pages and tens of events, but still). The two main actors also did no more than an okay job, in my opinion, and I think they were not the right casting for those characters. Especially Henry.
(I'm sticking with the characters that my imagination created for them when reading the book! They were way better! :P )
Ron Livingston was a good choice to play the role of Gomez, though Gomez importance in Henry's life was not emphasized enough in the movie, while it should have been. I also liked the little girl who played Claire as a kid, she was right for the role.
I think there should have been more interweaved scenes of "present" Claire and Henry scenes, with "past" Claire and Henry scenes (Henry as a man, Claire as a kid/girl) in the movie. In fact, I think most of the movie should have been like that - I think it would tell the story much better and will allow the understanding of the bonding between the couple, much like the book did. Instead, the bonding was not believable in the movie - again partly due to...
hmm... a deficient in sophistication in the acting and directing.
I also was disappointed that they didn't use the "down syndrome" thing with Dr. Kendrick (it was better).
I was also disappointed that the last scene of the book (very old Claire) was not in the movie - it would have been better then what they changed it to. I thought maybe they'll put it after the credits, but they didn't.
The whole relationship of Claire between her own family members were absent from the movie, and while that is understandable - in the book, a scene related to that relationship was the most powerful moment in the book, in my opinion, and one of those moments that greatly defined Claire and showed what she's about [I am talking about the part where Claire is searching through the locked drawer of her mother, after her mother died, and what she finds there...]
Overall, as a fan of the book, I thought the movie sometimes manages to "get close" to the powerfulness of the book, but it's still many miles away from it...
