1994: Forrest Gump

Screenplay by Eric Roth
Adapted from the novel Forrest Gump by Winston Groom

Forrest Gump, a man with a low IQ, has many adventures in the mid-20th century, many of which impact the world in ways that he doesn't understand or care about. His main concern is his love for his childhood sweetheart, Jenny.

Apart from this basic premise and some of the character names, the novel and film versions of Forrest Gump are barely recognizable as the same story. Most of the events of the book are not in the movie, and vice versa. In the book, Forrest saves Chairman Mao from drowning, travels to outer space, becomes a professional wrestler, and acts in a movie with Raquel Welch, among other things that aren't in the movie. In the film, Forrest had to have braces on his legs as a child, instigates the Watergate scandal, and runs across the country multiple times. Granted, there are a few similarities. In both versions, Forrest plays college football, is wounded in the Vietnam war (which leads him to become a famous ping pong player), and later starts a shrimping business to carry out the dream of his fallen war buddy, Bubba. However, the details are so different that even the events the two stories have in common seem different. In the book, Forrest flunks out of college after one term, whereas in the movie he graduates after five years. In the movie, Forrest saves Lieutenant Dan's life against his will; in the book, he doesn't meet Lieutenant Dan until they're both in the hospital. And book Forrest doesn't get around to starting his shrimping business until toward the end, while movie Forrest does so toward the middle. Interestingly, in the movie, the only person we see working with Forrest is Lieutenant Dan, but in the book, Forrest hires almost everyone he's encountered throughout his adventures except Lieutenant Dan.

It's not just the events that were changed; the characters themselves are completely different, especially Forrest Gump. The book is written in first person from his perspective, and he's constantly referring to himself as an idiot, while movie Forrest doesn't think of himself as stupid. Book Forrest is crude and vulgar, and his narration is full of swearing, racial slurs, and toilet humor. Movie Forrest exudes a childlike innocence that makes him seem oblivious but almost charming, which is a word that could never be used to describe book Forrest. Similarly, the character of Jenny is very different. In the book she seems pretty normal, but in the movie she has a messed up childhood which leads to a messed up adulthood. Unsurprisingly, since the characters are so different, the nature of their relationship is also very different. In the book, they spend some time living together, then they break up for a while, then get back together until he refuses to stop wrestling, at which point she leaves for good. In the movie, they're mostly just friends, but they do spend one night together, after which she runs away. In both versions (spoiler alert) Forrest finds out later that Jenny has a son and he's the father, but in the movie Forrest marries her when he finds out, and in the book Jenny has already married someone else. Also movie Jenny has contracted some sort of "mysterious virus" (i.e. AIDS), so she dies, which does not happen in the book.

Overall, the book is over-the-top ridiculous, while the movie is more serious, for the most part. Personally, I greatly prefer the movie, since it's a much sweeter story, but I can see how the book would appeal to other people.

Coming up: Six movies in a row I haven't blogged about before, beginning with Sense and Sensibility, based on the novel by Jane Austen.

1993: Schindler's List

Screenplay by Steven Zaillian
Adapted from the novel Schindler's Ark (aka Schindler's List) by Thomas Keneally

Oskar Schindler uses money, charisma, and influence over fellow Nazis to save 1,200 Jewish people from the Holocaust.

This book is considered a novel, but it's practically non-fiction. While it generally follows the narrative structure of a novel, it consists mainly of anecdotes that were related to the author by survivors. Keneally is quick to point out when different people's stories conflict, and often omits quotation marks from conversations to illustrate that no one really knows or remembers exactly what was said. When compared with the movie, the book seems even less like a novel, as the movie shows a much clearer picture of Schindler's character journey, while the book keeps his motives more ambiguous, since no one can be quite sure exactly what he was thinking when. Thus, the film feels more like a novel than the book does.

Many of the more powerful stories from the book are incorporated into the movie, although often the order and the details were changed. Sometimes, several similar incidents were combined into one, or things that happened to a couple different people were shown all happening to the same person, to make the story more concise. For the most part, what happened to the Jewish people was, while not exactly the same, quite consistent. The biggest changes were in the Nazis, especially Schindler and Amon Goeth. The beginning of the movie makes it seem like Schindler didn't particularly care what happened to the Jews as long as he was making money, which helps his speech at the end about how he wished he had sold more of his stuff so he could have saved more people become even more moving and powerful. In the book, he doesn't even make that speech at the end, and it seemed like he came around to the idea of trying to save lives much sooner. The movie attributes most of the earlier work to Itzhak Stern, whereas the book made it seem like Schindler was involved in decisions that the film showed him unhappy about. Also, according to the book, Schindler was arrested and imprisoned several times during the war, while the film only shows this happening once. While this was probably to keep the movie from becoming even longer, multiple arrests helped demonstrate just how much he was risking in a way that the film doesn't convey quite as clearly. In the same way that the movie reduces Schindler's arrests, it doesn't show that Amon Goeth was imprisoned by the SS before the end of the war, which I thought was very interesting. There's also a whole thing in the movie about Schindler telling Goeth that he would be more powerful if he pardoned prisoners and Goeth trying it for about a day, which I don't remember from the book.

If you've only seen the movie, I would recommend reading the book, because it includes several moving episodes, particularly at Brinnlitz toward the end of the war, that the movie kind of skips. However, I don't think the movie could have adapted the book much better. I've always thought showing the color of the little girl's coat in red while the rest of the movie was black and white was very powerful, but I wasn't expecting that girl, and the fact that she loved the color red, to feature so prominently in the book. After having read that, the use of that one color in the film seems more than just a beautiful touch to the film; it seems like it would have been wrong if they hadn't done it that way. I also noticed several other small details that I hadn't remembered from the movie, since they were described more thoroughly in the book. That's actually something I've noticed in several other cases during this project when I'd seen the movie before but never read the book. I'll be reading and think, This wasn't in the movie, and then I'll watch it and see that it actually was, just much more subtly than the book. So while I was a little disappointed when I realized just how many Best Adapted Screenplay winners I'd already blogged about, in a way I'm glad that I was already somewhat familiar with many of these stories.

Speaking of which, the next winner is yet another Best Picture Winner, Forrest Gump, based on the novel by Winston Groom. But after that will be six movies in a row that I haven't blogged about before, which is the longest such stretch so far.

1992: Howards End

Screenplay by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala
Adapted from the novel Howards End by E. M. Forster

This is the story of the middle-class Schlegel sisters and their dealings with two families: the upper-class Wilcoxes, who own a house called Howards End, and the lower-class Basts.

This book was longer and a bit more dense than the last E. M. Forster story I blogged about (A Room with a View). It's still a good book, but I could have done with fewer philosophical tangents. The movie, while it does omit a few of these, is still longer than one would expect compared to the length of the novel, mostly because the book is mostly from Margaret Schlegel's perspective, with a few notable exceptions, whereas the film shows us certain events that she didn't witness, which are only briefly described later in the book when she learns of them. This allows for more explicit foreshadowing in the film. In the novel, several developments seem to come almost out of nowhere; since Margaret had no way to predict them, neither did the reader. These same events in the film come as much less of a surprise to the viewer, since we've been shown more of what led up to them.

For the most part, everything that happens in the book also happens in the film, although some of the details are changed. For example, in both versions, Helen Schlegel meets Leonard Bast after inadvertently stealing his umbrella when they were both listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. In the book, they were at a concert, and Margaret, Aunt Juley, and a German cousin were all with Helen. In the film, they were at a lecture, and Helen was alone. This mostly helps simplify the incident, but it also changes the dynamic between Helen and Leonard for the entire story, and again, helps with the foreshadowing. There are several other similar alterations that all help achieve this. I wouldn't call the book disjointed, but the movie is definitely more cohesive.

In short, I think it would be difficult, if not nearly impossible, to adapt this story into a feature film better than was done here. The characters are perfectly brought to life, and the events are all relatively, if not exactly, consistent with the book. The few changes there are make the story flow better and easier to follow. I don't love the story - I think Henry Wilcox is a despicable human being and cannot for the life of me figure out what Margaret sees in him - but it's one of the best novel-to-film adaptations I've seen. And I've seen a lot of them by now.

I just realized that this movie is currently the most recent Best Adapted Screenplay winner that also won Best Actress. And it's also the only time so far (that we know of) when a person has won a Best Actress Oscar who would later go on to win a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar. But before I get to Emma Thompson's adaptation of Sense and Sensibility, I will be revisiting two more Best Picture Winners, beginning with Schindler's List, based on the novel by Thomas Keneally, which was based on a true story.

1991: The Silence of the Lambs

Screenplay by Ted Tally
Adapted from the novel The Silence of the Lambs by Thomas Harris

FBI trainee Clarice Starling is sent to interview a notorious cannibalistic former psychiatrist named Hannibal Lecter, who, it transpires, possesses vital information regarding an active investigation into a serial killer nicknamed Buffalo Bill. Lecter offers to help Starling in exchange for information about her personal background. Meanwhile, catching Buffalo Bill becomes an even higher priority when he kidnaps the daughter of a senator.

Some books are better suited to film adaptations than others, and this is one that was crying out to be made into a movie. The novel almost reads like a film; a good portion of the narration is basically stage directions. The story is extremely suspenseful and dramatic, and the suspense and drama unfolds much more effectively on screen than on the page. I don't mean to imply that the book doesn't work; it does, but I think the movie works much better. For example (spoiler alert), one the most well-done scenes in the film is when the FBI thinks they've found Buffalo Bill, but Clarice is too far away to join them, so she continues her investigation where she is, and unwittingly stumbles upon Buffalo Bill alone. I love the way they show the FBI guy ringing the doorbell, then the killer reacting to the doorbell, back and forth several times until he opens the door. The first time I watched this movie, I think my heart actually stopped when Clarice was standing there. The book kind of does the same thing - one chapter ends with the FBI at the door, then the next chapter is from the killer's perspective and has him hear the doorbell - but it's not nearly as intense, so the adaptation of that scene was a vast improvement.

As always, there were a few things cut from the book that I would have liked to see. Clarice's roommate, Ardelia, is more important in the book, and her frequent sassy remarks provide welcome comedic relief to break the tension, so I missed her in the movie. She's still there, but barely. Jack Crawford, the agent in charge of the Buffalo Bill investigation, has a wife dying of cancer who isn't mentioned in the film. I can see why the filmmakers would find this unnecessary, but I like the way it adds to his stress level and raises the stakes for him. Similarly, toward the end book Clarice is repeatedly told that she'll almost certainly be kicked out of school if she doesn't direct her focus away from the investigation and back to her studies, so her choices make it very clear that this case is more important to her than her own future. This is only vaguely hinted at in the movie, and I think it could have been a little more effective if it was emphasized more. But overall, I think the few other changes that were made actually improved the story, and consequently this is one of the best adaptations to win this award. It's consistent with the book, but not confined by it, and the story unfolds much more smoothly onscreen. Though I'm getting a little tired of having to watch this movie over and over again for these Oscar projects, at least I can say that all of its awards were very well-deserved.

As I mentioned in my last post, this is currently the most recent winner of Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. However, many of the Adapted Screenplay winners since Silence of the Lambs have also won one or the other of the categories I previously blogged about, just not both. Case in point: the next winner is Howards End, which did not win Best Picture, but Emma Thompson won Best Actress for her performance in it. It was also the second time Ruth Prawer Jhabvala won this award for adapting a novel of E. M. Forster's (the first being 1986's A Room with a View). So stay tuned for that.

1990: Dances with Wolves

Screenplay by Michael Blake
Adapted from the novel Dances with Wolves by Michael Blake

After being decorated for bravery during the American Civil War, Lieutenant Dunbar requests to be posted to the frontier. When he arrives at Fort Sedgewick, however, Dunbar finds his new post deserted. His only companions are his horse and a lone wolf, until he begins to encounter Native Americans. Dunbar has been warned about their vicious, savage nature, and is therefore surprised to find them intelligent and just as human as he is. Soon the lieutenant finds himself torn between two worlds: the white world he was born into as John Dunbar, and the Indian world he grows to love as Dances with Wolves.

As has been the case with pretty much all of these Oscar-winning screenplays that were written by the author of the source material (I believe this was the 13th, counting ones that the original author co-wrote with other people), both versions of Dances with Wolves are quite similar. There are, however, a few extremely significant differences. The Natives in the book are Comanches, while in the movie they're Sioux, but almost all of the details about their culture and life are exactly the same. I don't know if that's because the Comanche and Sioux tribes are in fact very similar, or if they could just find more actors who could speak the Sioux language and therefore went through and changed every reference to Comanche in the original script to Sioux, but either way it struck me as a little odd. I did appreciate that they seem to have actually found Native actors to play the Native characters, which happens so rarely in Hollywood movies, but I would be curious to hear their thoughts on the accuracy of how their culture was portrayed.

Apart from changing tribes, there aren't a lot of major alterations to the story until the very end. Beyond that, the film depicts most of the main events of the book almost exactly as they originally appeared, but not always in the same order. The most glaring example of this is the beginning. The book starts with Dunbar on his way to Fort Sedgewick, and explains the events leading up to this later. The movie shows these events in chronological order, starting with Dunbar fighting the war. This doesn't make too much difference to the story itself, and I think it works well in both versions. But then there's the end. The end of the movie is completely different from the end of the book, which just feels strange given how similar the rest of it is. Granted, the final conclusion is the same: white people continued to invade and steal all the land. But the specific destinies of Dances with Wolves and his wife, Stands with a Fist, are on very different paths when each version of the story leaves them. Personally, I much prefer the ending of the book, but that's mostly because it's a little bit happier, and the rest is so sad that I really like seeing something even slightly good come out of it.

Stay tuned for the seventh and most recent Best Adapted Screenplay winner to also win Best Picture and Best Actress: Silence of the Lambs, aka the perfect Christmas story, based on the novel by Thomas Harris.

1989: Driving Miss Daisy

Screenplay by Alfred Uhry
Adapted from the play Driving Miss Daisy by Alfred Uhry

Daisy Werthan can no longer drive, so her son, Boolie, hires Hoke Coleburn to be her chauffeur, against her will. Ultimately her need for transportation overcomes her stubbornness, and she grudgingly allows Hoke to start driving her. Despite their differences in wealth, religion, education, and race, Daisy and Hoke form a close bond that lasts for the rest of their lives.

As is generally the case when plays are adapted into films, particularly when both scripts have the same author, the differences are minimal. Almost all of the dialogue is exactly the same, although the film makes some significant additions. The most striking change was the addition of more people. The play only has three people in the cast: Daisy, Hoke, and Boolie. While the film does mostly focus on those three, and most of the added people are extras, there are two important characters who are mentioned repeatedly in the play that we actually see in the movie: Boolie's wife, Florine, and Daisy's maid, Idella. They act pretty much exactly as they're described in the play, so their addition is still very consistent with the original. Florine doesn't do much, so I don't feel like her presence really enhances the story, but Idella is a great addition. I think the story greatly benefits from having her as an intermediary between Daisy and Hoke, which she kind of is offstage in the play, but I enjoy getting to actually see her interact with them in the movie.

Apart from scenes relating to Florine and Idella, the biggest change is during the road trip scene. The movie adds two police officers who question Hoke and Daisy suspiciously for no reason. Nothing terrible comes of this, and it's a relatively brief incident, but it helps to emphasize the deep-seeded prejudice of the society, mostly against black people, but also against Jewish people. This fits in well with the rest of the story, since although bigotry isn't the main focus, it's an ever-present undertone throughout, and this addition helps further tie this together. The play doesn't give much of a feel for how the outside world viewed this unlikely couple, and the film's use of these policemen to do that helps put the story into perspective. In many ways, the world was changing very fast during the time this story was set, but in others, not nearly fast enough. And unfortunately, that can still be said today. But it's nice to have this sweet story to remind us that friendship can prevail even when surrounded and discouraged by bigotry.

At the time of blogging, this is the second most recent winner of the three awards I've blogged about: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Picture, and Best Actress. The most recent was two years later, but before I get to that I'll enter the 1990s with yet another Best Picture (but not Best Actress) winner to also win this award: Dances with Wolves, based on the novel by Michael Blake.

1988: Dangerous Liaisons

Screenplay by Christopher Hampton
Adapted from the novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

The Marquise de Merteuil wants her friend and ex-lover, the Vicomte de Valmont, to seduce the young and innocent Cécile Volange, who is about to become engaged to a man whom the Marquise despises. The Vicomte, however, feels that Cécile is too boring of a target, and declares that he would rather focus on Madame de Tourvel, a married woman known for her strict morals. Without losing sight of her plans for Cécile, the Marquise makes a deal with the Vicomte: if he is successful in his seduction of Madame de Tourvel, the Marquise will allow him to return to her own bed.

In terms of the events of the story, the film is remarkably consistent with the novel. Naturally, some parts were simplified, and a few minor subplots were eliminated, but overall the main events were shown essentially the way they were described in the book. However, the way the story is told changed so significantly that they feel different. The novel consists entirely of letters written by various characters to each other, whereas the movie shows the characters interacting with each other. This allows readers to see different perspectives of the same event, which is particularly interesting since Valmont and Merteuil are almost always lying to everyone else except each other, and the other characters often feel the need to conceal their true thoughts to keep their dignity. The movie, showing the events themselves rather than letters after the fact, relies on the actors to convey these deceptions to the audience. Thanks to the film's stellar cast, the characters' thoughts and motivations are still quite clear without being spelled out.

However, some things are sacrificed with the elimination of the letters. For instance, the film doesn't develop Cécile or the man she loves, Danceny, very much at all compared to the book, so we feel less invested in them, which is perhaps part of the reason the movie doesn't bother to tell us what happens to them at the end. Not that I can truly blame the screenwriter for sacrificing these rather vanilla characters in favor of the far more interesting, though despicable, Vicomte and Marquise. The film mostly focuses on their relationship, which is also arguably the main focus of the book, but their whole dynamic changes significantly when they're talking face-to-face instead of writing. As far as I remember, Valmont and Merteuil never actually meet up during the whole course of the book (if they do, it's very brief), but in the movie they have several in-person conversations. While what they say is mostly very similar to what their original counterparts wrote to each other, there's a lot more back-and-forth in a real conversation than in letter correspondence, so the pacing of their conversations is a lot faster in the film. In addition, often the book put several letters from other characters in between theirs, so the reader has to wait longer to find out how they respond to each other than the viewer. I'm not sure if it's a direct result of this change in format or not, but I noticed that both of them, but particularly the Marquise, appear a lot more vulnerable and human on screen than on the page. They're still horrible, but they seem more real when they're having conversations than just writing formal letters. The movie version of the Marquise seemed to me much more clearly in love with Valmont than she is in the book, but perhaps I wasn't reading between the lines enough. Though different, I think both versions of the Marquise/Vicomte relationship are quite effective, with the one caveat that because we haven't seen them write very many letters to each other in the movie, the part at the end when the letters are revealed doesn't quite have the same effect. Otherwise, although I didn't particularly enjoy the story itself, I thought both the book and the movie told it very well.

Much to my relief, after this story about people being terrible to each other, I get to move on to a sweet story about an unlikely friendship, the sixth Best Adapted Screenplay winner to also win both Best Picture and Best Actress: Driving Miss Daisy, based on the very short play by Alfred Uhry. So stay tuned for that soon.