Gap between first publication and film release: 14 years (1973/1987)
Closeness to original characters: 100% (Mike)
Closeness to original story: 99% (Mike)
Mike says when I was younger, we could count on two things when we were home sick: The Princess Bride, and Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Years later in college, I had the wonderful opportunity to read the The Princess Bride, and it has remained a favorite ever since!
That the writer is also the screen writer is all that must really be said. While some things have been altered from page to screen for dramatic effect (the screeching eels were originally sharks), in truth, everything is there; or at least, the essential bits are.
The characters are all exactly as they were in the book, as are their relationships. In reality, the only real advantage of the book over the movie is the sheer volume of back story and commentary on each character, which the writer continually has fun with. He's even able to blame the long winded parts on the fictional S. Morgenstern, whose original manuscript William Goldman "abridged." The characters of the book were transferred lovingly and completely to the screen, with no personality or origin changes.
There are even little nuggets hidden in the movie for the fans of the novel. In the novel, Goldman goes into great detail about Fezzick's one great talent: His arms. Fezzick's arms are tireless, hence his ability to drag three people up the cliff by a rope. And so, when Fezzick looks down at the climbing Wesley in the film, his comment "he has good arms!" always brings an extra big grin to my face.
Instead of summaries that the characters deliver (with great timing) during the movie, Goldman actually describes the back story in detail in the novel. It's very fun! And the truly great part is that because of this, the book and movie don't feel repetitive. While Goldman's novel claims to be "only the good parts" of a larger volume, the movie is truly only the best parts of the book. Another wonderful aspect of this is that the events in the novel that were cut are not precluded by the movie-- they could have still easily happened off screen.
Like Kate, I too have little objectivity when it comes to this movie. I love it, and the characters. Each are unique, alive, driven, and, as Kate says, full of heart. This is one of the few films that I love just as much now as when I was a kid.
Oh, and Kate? "I don't think that word means what you think it means." HA!
Kate says in High School, The Princess Bride was for me what Monty-Python was for people just a few years my senior: the film that everyone had seen, that everyone could quote from.
And what awesome quotes! "I'm not saying I would want to build a summer-home here, but the trees are actually quite lovely."
"Is this a kissing book?"
". . . a pleasure cruise through eel-infested waters."
"Drop Your Sword."
And I could keep going . . .
But I will refrain.
I have read the book, but I don't remember it very well (it was a number of years ago), so I've left that part of the analysis to Mike. I remember not being greatly surprised or disappointed by the differences between the film and the book; it may help that the book's author also wrote the script!
In terms of the characters: I can't think of any two young actors better suited for their parts than Robin Wright and Cary Elwes were at that time. Robin Wright is simply lovely with that unrelenting aura of innocence (so much so that it is actually difficult for me to see her any other way). Cary Elwes, of course, has that whimsical-twinkle-in-the-eye that makes his youthful beauty bearable.
It is also rather nice to see actors I am fans of--Mandy Patinkin and the awesome Peter Falk--in atypical roles although I think Peter Falk is just playing himself (being utterly adorable).
Not that I can forget the hilarious Wallace Shawn! Or the slimy Chris Sarandon! Or the wry and exceedingly dry Christopher Guest!
Carol Kane!
Billy Crystal!
Even the minor parts are well-played: Malcolm Storry as Yellin! ("Oh, you mean this gate-key.")
Okay, I'll stop . . .
*Sigh.*
In case you haven't figured it out, there's zero objectivity involved in this review.
All the actors do a remarkable job delivering drop-dead hilarious lines with panache and sincerity. The characters are unique, yet stable and consistent. They have heart. I think it is notable that many of the actors have mentioned The Princess Bride as their favorite film to make.
I think "heart" is really want makes this film stand out from other fantasy films that combine fantasy/ mythological motifs or that insert modern commentary into medieval settings or that otherwise spoof the fantasy genre. The humor is there but so is love and compassion and kindliness. Although Westley and Buttercup's reunion is the core of the film, Fezzik and Inigo's reunion is more than little touching while Inigo's justice over Count Rugen is more than a little satisfying. And these reunions/confrontations are done without becoming syrupy and mawkish.
It isn't just the humor that staves off the sap. It is the way each character remains true to him or herself. Westley's remains Westley even with Buttercup: "Well, now, that was an adventure." (Turning the hero into a milksop the moment the heroine shows up is a mistake made by many television writers; that problem is avoided here. Westley loves Buttercup; he also "gets" her.) Buttercup remains Buttercup; she doesn't, thankfully, turn into Xena. Inigo's revenge is accomplished in Inigo's way: "I want my father back, you son of a bitch." The slimy prince earns the ending/humiliation he deserves.
I think the characters are so strong because in The Princess Bride, story reigns supreme! That is, a good story with lots of substance and good themes is told correctly with excellent thematic pay-offs: the right people do and say the right things. No matter how improbable an event, it doesn't just occur because it was stuck into the film. It occurs because it makes sense for its context.
The result is one of the best movies ever made.
Me: I'd take it to a desert island even over Monty-Python!
2 comments:
Inconceivable!
I read the book many years after first seeing the movie for the umpteenth time. It was a little disconcerting. At first, I thought Goldman was capitalizing on the movie by writing a novelization! More importantly, this was one of those rare occasions where as I read, I heard the voices of each character as they were in the movie. It made it very entertaining.
I don't recall if Goldman has said so, but I do get the distinct feeling he wrote the screenplay, then the book and then rewrote the screenplay (the way Goldman writes screenplays, at least the early drafts, is fairly unique in the movie world--he writes them pretty much as, well, vivid books--so this makes more sense than it may sound.)
Off the top of my head, I'd say this is the most perfect adaptation of a book ever. And that's saying a lot (especially in light of the next movie--I shudder.)
Post a Comment