1971: The French Connection

Screenplay by Ernest Tidyman

Adapted from the book The French Connection: A True Account of Cops, Narcotics, and Conspiracy by Robin Moore

Two detectives notice a suspicious man surrounded by known underworld figures at a club one night and decide to investigate him. After many long days and nights of surveillance, they uncover that he is connected not only to the Italian mafia, but also to some mysterious Frenchmen who are highly suspected of smuggling heroin into the country.

This book does a great job of seeming true to life, but the result is that most of it is incredibly boring. All of the stakeouts and following people around do mostly pay off in the end, but they're rather tedious to wade through. The book effectively conveys how much endurance and perseverance was required of all the officers and FBI agents involved in this operation, but if it had been directly transported to the screen as is, it would probably be the most unwatchable movie of all time. But thankfully that's not what happened.

The movie doesn't seem to be at all burdened with remaining true to what actually happened. In fact, it doesn't own that it's based on a true story at all; at the end of the credits, there's even the familiar disclaimer about all events depicted being fictitious. This is already a significant departure from the book, which calls itself "a true account" in the title. All of the characters' names are changed (although the nicknames do remain the same), and most of the scenes in the film either aren't in the book at all, or are so altered as to be almost unrecognizable. Pretty much the only consistent scene is when the main detective, "Popeye" (Eddie Egan in the book, Jimmy Doyle in the movie) is following one of the Frenchman who has gotten on a train, then gets off, then back on, then off and on again. Popeye stays with him for most of that, but misses the last time he gets back on, and as the train passes him, the Frenchman smiles and gives him a little wave. That part is almost exactly the same in both versions. But for almost everything else, while some of the basic plot points are consistent, most of the details were completely changed. The movie is also way more exciting than the book; there's this whole intense part when one of the bad guys (who I'm not even sure existed in the book) hijacks a train and Popeye drives like a maniac through traffic to keep up with him, none of which was in the book. And the climax of the movie is about 50 times as intense as the climax of the book.

I can obviously see why the movie was changed to become more dramatic, but I'm not sure why it was so eager to distance itself from the source material, especially since the real detectives Eddie Egan and Sonny Grosso were credited as technical consultants and even made cameo appearances in the film. Maybe in some ways the movie was actually more accurate than the book? Or perhaps the film was more like how the detectives wished things had happened? Regardless, the movie is definitely more interesting than the book, so if you only want to experience one version of this story, I'd recommend the film.

The next book I'm reading for this project was the source material for two Best Adapted Screenplay Winners. Even though there's a different one in between them, I've decided not to read the book twice, although based on the first chapter it's almost infinitely more interesting than the last book I read. So stay tuned for The Godfather, based on the novel by Mario Puzo, then The Exorcist, followed by The Godfather Part II.

1970: M*A*S*H

Screenplay by Ring Lardner Jr.
Adapted from the novel MASH: A Novel About Three Army Doctors by Richard Hooker

This is the story of the 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital, particularly focused on the hijinks of Captains Duke Forrest, Hawkeye Pierce, and "Trapper" John McIntyre, known as the "Swampmen." These three are rather brilliant military surgeons who cope with their physically and emotionally draining job by pulling off elaborate pranks, much to the chagrin of their commander, Colonel Henry Blake.

Rather than focusing on one continuous story, this book is really more a series of anecdotes, held together by the compelling characters and setting. It's therefore not in the least surprising that the story was eventually adapted to a TV series, since the book and even the movie are already fairly episodic, and the possibility for additional episodes is almost limitless. The main thing I noticed in comparing the book to the film is most of the gist of the episodes was the same, but the details were significantly different. Perhaps the best example is the Captain Waldowski incident. Waldowski, known as the "Painless Pole," is a dentist who is frequently described in both the novel and the film as very "well-equipped." In both versions, he intends to commit suicide, and the Swampmen come up with an elaborate plot to make him think he's killing himself with a pill that just temporarily knocks him unconscious, then do something to make him feel better about himself. In the novel, the Painless Pole is prone to worsening fits of depression, and they cure him by pushing him out of a helicopter to make him think he's come back to life. In the movie, he's depressed because he thinks he might be gay, and they cure him by helping him hook up with an attractive nurse.

In addition to illustrating the way the film changed the details from the book, the above example also demonstrates the other main thing I noticed: I'm pretty sure this was the first time the Best Adapted Screenplay winner had more sex in the movie than in the source material. The nurses definitely feature more prominently in the movie than in the novel, which I would ordinarily be in favor of, except they mostly serve as objects of desire for the men. I enjoyed the addition of Major "Hot Lips" Houlihan's cheerleading during the football game, since that added to the already considerable comedic value of that scene, but otherwise most of the nursing additions were completely unnecessary. This isn't to say that there was a lack of sexual content in the book, but there was unquestionably more in the movie, which is fairly indicative of the shift in what Hollywood considered allowable film content that occurred around the late 1960s/early 1970s. So from a historical perspective, I found this change fascinating; from a feminist perspective, not so much.

After watching this movie, I watched one of the special features, and learned that apparently, the screenplay was all but ignored when filming. The actors were encouraged to improvise, and the director made a lot of decisions himself without consulting the script. Ring Lardner Jr. was apparently furious, but still received sole writing credit, and thus received the film's only Oscar. I love this story both because it helps explain why the details in the film are so different from the book, and because it demonstrates how meaningless the Oscars can be. Says the person who spends a significant amount of her life focused on Oscar-winning films.

Coming up next: Best Picture Winner The French Connection, based on the non-fiction book by Robin Moore