Girlybooks-to-film: Failures? Successes?

It's the holidays when a lot of people are off work and some of us watch more movies than usual. Anyone care to make a list of top successes and failures of books by women turned to film?

Just off the top of my head, successes include film versions of--
Rebecca: Joan Fontaine and Lawrence Olivier were miscast, but Dame Judith Anderson as Mrs. Danvers, oooohhh.

Black Narcissus: Beautifully sustained sense of menace.

Mansfield Park: Making parallels with Fanny and the slave trade actually helped me see some hidden depths in this novel, which I often found priggish and tiresome.

The Old Maid: Bette Davis, enough said!

None of the "successes" was exactly like the book, but, for me emphasized and amplified character.

Failures included--
The Children of Men: Completely killed religious imagery, though the scene where the cops stop fighting when they hear the baby cry--and then go back to bludgeoning their victims was pretty good.

Ethan Frome: Wooden and grindingly depressing despite Liam Neeson and Joan Allen. I didn't get the necessary frisson at the surprise ending.

Jane Eyre: Mia Wasikowska somnambulated her way through, though it was very pretty to look at. My fave is the BBC version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens.

I have to say I liked the recent Jane Eyre adaptation. I thought the actress looked so plain she was believable, and the indoor scenes of the old houses were great. I hadn't realized how little light those people had. Seasonal Affective Disorder must have been rampant.

The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969), Maggie Smith's first Oscar, and one of the greatest omissions in Academy history is that Pam Franklin wasn't even nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

I've got to get around to reading Harriette Arnow's The Dollmaker, but the 1984 made-for-TV movie was Jane Fonda's Emmy and, IMO, her greatest performance.

Another one I've got to read is Pat Barker's Union Street, which was the basis for Jane Fonda and Robert deNiro's Stanley and Iris (1990), with great performances all around but unfortunately with too much a pie-in-the-sky ending to be believable. I don't know whether this was a problem with the book or whether the production flubbed something.

There's a story I haven't read, the one from Lillian Hellman's Pentimento that was the basis for Julia (1977), which brought Jane Fonda one of her Oscar nominations and co-starred Vanessa Redgrave for Best Supporting Actress (and also Best Supporting Actor for Jason Robards).

Hmmm, alright, so it's pretty obvious I'm fonda Jane!

I really dislike Gone with the Wind, both the book and the play (EDIT: oops, I meant movie), but I have to give it credit for Hattie McDaniel's break-through Oscar (though objecting to the greatest of all Academy outrages that occurred that year, namely, that Margaret Hamilton wasn't even nominated for The Wizard of Oz).

When it comes to Jane Eyre, I'm definitely a purist and prefer the 1973 miniseries. I especially love Tina Heath as the perfect Helen Burns. And please spare me the versions with Orson Welles and George Scott, both of whom steal Jane's story.

Again for a miniseries, there's the 1990 version of Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit, which I personally prefer to the book. (Jeanette Winterson also wrote the miniseries teleplay.)

The 1982 miniseries of Frost in May is highly regarded, but I've never seen it and it seems to be impossible to get hold of either in VHS or in DVD.

ETA: Oh, and for a complete failure, To Kill a Mockingbird. Casting Gregory Peck too much overwhelmed Mary Badham as Scout and consequently stole Scout's story. Besides, Peck has always been for me too wooden an actor, and I'd give the Oscar that year to Jack Lemmon for Days of Wine and Roses (but wouldn't quarrel with Peter O'Toole for Lawrence of Arabia). For a real performance of Mockingbird, listen to Sissy Spacek's unabridged audiobook.

I think the film version of Toni Morrison's Beloved really works if you've read the book. On the other hand, I hated Speilberg's version of Alice Walker's The Color Purple -- I though Oprah was all wrong in that one.

My favorite Austen film is Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson and Kate Winslet. The BBC version of Silas Marner with Ben Kingsley is also very good.

I actually liked The Lovely Bones and The Time Traveler's Wife better in the screen adaptation then the novels and that doesn't happen very often for me, usually I like the novel better.
My favourite Austen small screen adaptation was the BBC mini-series of Pride and Prejudice. Jennifer Ehle will forever be ingrained as Elizabeth Bennet for me, not to mention Colin Firth as Mr Darcy. It lead onto Colin Firth being cast in Bridget Jones's Diary which was one of the funniest castings ever in a film and really added something to an already hilarious book.

I loved the film adaptation of The Color Purple. I can't remember if I read the book first or saw the movie first, but I loved them both, and thought Oprah did a great job. Different tastes, I guess.
I very much liked the book The Lovely Bones though I liked the non-fiction account of her rape better - Lucky. I did not like the movie.
I agree, the BBC miniseries of Pride and Prejudice was wonderful.
Beloved also was great, and again I can't remember if I read it or saw it first, but loved them both.
I loved To Kill a Mockingbird but have to admit I haven't yet read the book.
Julia is an overwhelmingly good movie, but again, I haven't yet read Pentimento
I thought all the Harry Potter movies were well done except for the last two.
I was surprised at the omissions in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. It was because I saw and liked the movie that I read the book and found the book ever so much better.

@5: "The BBC version of Silas Marner with Ben Kingsley is also very good." Agree, really excellent.

Interesting that several people have noted that the male leads have "stolen" what should have been a woman's story. I'm not sure that Orson Welles wouldn't steal ANY story b/c he was such a big presence, but I defy anyone to think of a movie role (from a book or otherwise) that a man could steal from Bette Davis.

I just remembered how much I loved the BBC adaptations of Tipping the Velvet and Fingersmith. I think the adaptation of Affinity was less successful.

8>> Actually, I'd defy just about anyone to try stealing anything from Katherine Hepburn! Too bad she never played Jane Eyre on film, because she did appear as Jane on stage. Now, I did say "just about anyone," because the Fondas, père et fille, did dominate On Golden Pond.

Incidentally, that's one movie (On Golden Pond I mean) which, although not based on a novel, was based on a play, and I think the movie is infinitely superior to the play. The problem in the play is that Chelsea wimps out to Norman; but in the movie Chelsea does a successful backflip (really, more a backflop, but it's the effort that counts), putting herself more on a level of equality with Norman. Besides, could you ever imagine Jane Fonda letting her character wimp out to her father's?

But then, On Golden Pond doesn't qualify as a "girlybook" anyway.

Dorothy Parker reviewed a very young Katherine Hepburn onstage in "The Lake," saying "she runs the gamut of emotions from A to B," and I can't say I ever warmed up to K. Hepburn except for "Lion in Winter." It wasn't a girly play (James Goldman was the playwright), but she made it one and outshone a young Anthony Hopkins and Peter O'Toole at his prime.

"Desk Set," in which she played a liberrian, was pretty good.

I think Joan Crawford performed the same transformation of man's novel to girly movie with Mildred Pierce by James M. Cain.

I've not read the mysteries on which they're based, but I've loved Prime Suspect, both the original Helen Mirren version and the new ones with Maria Bello. On a different note, I saw The Time Traveler's Wife last night and liked it very much. Maybe that's because I haven't yet read the book. The Rizzoli and Isles TV series is pretty mediocre, and I haven't yet read any of the books though I went to see Tess Gerritsen speak, and she was wonderful.

My absolute favorite girly book lit adaptations are the already named BBC version of Pride and Prejudice, but I also like the Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson. I suspect I should re-watch Mansfield Park. I watched it when I was a teenager, before reading the book, and obviously I expected something quite different (you know, something "light, bright, and sparkling"). I've gained a lot of affection for the book and its darkness, so the movie (which I remember being well-done, just way darker than I expected) might bear re-watching.

I don't think anybody's mentioned yet the also-wonderful BBC miniseries of North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell. Richard Armitage, swoon!

The film adaptation of Vera Caspary's Laura is my favorite noir film ever.

I'm also a horror movie lover, and quite like the 1963 movie The Haunting, an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House. The scene with the ghosts pushing on the doors is unbelievably eerie. A far more successful adaptation than the 1999 version.

Moving to the opposite end of the spectrum from horror, one of my favorite musicals is Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. I read the book by Anita Loos many years after the movie became a favorite, and at first was not taken with it. I gradually was charmed and impressed by its sharp wit. I think the movie lacks the humorous bite of the book, but it synthesizes the narrative into a lively and fun story with some great musical numbers.

In the realm of children's, I enjoy all the Harry Potter movies--great effects and imagination. The recent ones are especially good, after Daniel Radcliffe became a bit less wooden in his acting.

Off the top of my head, I'm not coming up with any real disappointments.

I love Anita Loos, too, and I enjoyed the movie "Gentlemen etc." Quite different from the book, but captured the spirit of the book nicely for another generation.

Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood was a much better movie than book, in my opinion. I liked the movie version of The Help better than the book as well.

#15, I haven't been tempted by either "YaYa" or "Help," but would be interested in why you think they make better movies.

Back at number 6, Citzenjoyce wrote: I loved the film adaptation of The Color Purple. I can't remember if I read the book first or saw the movie first, but I loved them both, and thought Oprah did a great job. Different tastes, I guess.

I totally agree. I'm not much of an Oprah fan, but I think she did a great job.

and:

I loved To Kill a Mockingbird but have to admit I haven't yet read the book.

I just reread that book so I could discuss it with my daughter who is studying it at school. It really is a great read. I can't believe you got through a US school system without reading it.

> 15 I agree on Ya-Ya. I liked the characters much more in the movie than the book. That said, I still read all the books in the series.

I still haven't seen the movie for The Help so I can't comment on that one.

There's so much controversy about The Help. Here are a couple of sites where Melissa Harris-Perry discusses it in very unfavorable terms:
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/melissa-harris-perry-breaks-down-the-help-ahistorical...
http://www.booktv.org/Watch/12807/Sister+Citizen+Shame+Stereotypes+and+Black+Wom...

I understand what she's saying and can agree with her in part. The Help is primarily about the white woman who interviews the help and does not show the worst things that happened to black women in the south. The movie in particular was very short on the part of the story that dealt with the death of Medgar Evans. But both the book and the movie showed a part of what was going on during that turbulent time and opened some eyes that had been closed to everything but the warm southern hospitality version of race relations. I also thought all the actors did a great job. So once again were left wondering what is better - to withhold all comments unless you can make every comment or to say what you have about a part of the problem.

#16-In both cases the story to be told was much bigger than the writing could support, in my mind. I could see what each author was trying for, but each fell short. Not sure if it was lack of depth in the characters on the written page as opposed to the splendid casts in both movies who were able to dig down and find remarkable aspects to their roles, but I want to see the movies over and over. And maybe each author was just a wee bit smitten with Harper Lee, one taking the gothic approach, and the other going for the noble course to lift everyone up.

I was just reminded of the PBS Masterpiece series of White Teeth. I thought it was excellent.

While not a perfect film and not as good as the book, I still enjoyed the screen adaptation of Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. I had a huge crush on Mary Stuart Masterson, the perfect Idgie Threadgoode, for years after that movie *sigh*

I agree with nohrt4me2 about Black Narcissus. It's a stunning film-like virtually all of Michael Powell's work.

A more recent film adaptation I really like is the Franco-Japanese production Stupeur et tremblements based on Amélie Nothomb's novel of the same name. Both Sylvie Testud and Kaori Tsuji are fabulous in the film (Testud won the 2004 César Award, the French equivalent of the Oscar, for her performance).

I agree, I loved the film Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe, though I have to admit I haven't yet read the book. Even though it contains neither Kathy Bates nor Mary Stuart Masterson nor Jessica Tandy nor Mary-Louise Parker , is it still really good?

22, 23 - Or Gary Basaraba, who played Grady Kilgore. (I only say that because his dad was my boss while he was filming Fried Green Tomatoes).

Wow, OtherJoyce, you're famous.

Yeah, wow. You should see the paparazzi hiding outside my house right now.

Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe was the only book I have read that I was pleased to have seen the film first, and I love both formats.

Jumping on the bandwagon here - I liked both the movie and the book versions of Fried Green Tomatoes as the Whistle Stop Cafe. I somewhat recently re-watched the movie and since then I've been meaning to re-read the book as well.

The book Enchanted April is much superior to the movie, though the movie tries hard. I tell potential viewers that reading the book is essential to understand and appreciate some of the action in the film

I kinda remember seeing the film version of Cold Comfort Farm, and it doesn't do justice to the images or moods the book conjures.

Emma Thompson kept a diary about filming and writing the screenplay for Sense and Sensibility, mentioned above. Anyone read that?

In an interview, Thompson talked about the problem of "translating" nineteenth century novel dialogue, which tends to be long and verbose, to the screen. So a good deal of what is conveyed in conversation in the book had to be conveyed in gesture, body language, and scene composition in the movie.

I've recently seen "The Iron Lady" and am rather confused by it. I know it doesn't technically fit here, but there's a message to women. Of course Meryl Streep does her usual great job in portraying a sad old woman suffering from dimentia, and I suppose that is the condition of Margaret Thatcher now, but is that all we have to say about her? Here was one of the most powerful women, no people, in the world. No matter how we may have despised many of her decisions she charted a course of action for a nation and followed through. She influenced the world and we're remembering her only as just another old person lost in her memories? That seems rather like a slap in the face to any powerful woman to me. Someday will there be a movie about Hillary Clinton that portrays her only as a sad woman who stuck by her philandering husband then lost her bid to power to a nicer looking younger man?

OtherJoyce - I don't see myself viewing The Iron Lady anytime soon, but I hope to eventually. It's such a controversial movie, and your comments add a new layer to the conversation. I'm sure I'll come looking for you when I finally get to see it.

#31, thanks for the preview. I do want to see the movie (but may have wait for the DVD).

Abi Morgan (a woman), wrote the screenplay for the movie, so it's a girlyfilm (if not based on a girlybook).

Do you detect a certain schadenfreude in the treatment of Margaret Thatcher? I think some bios of President Ronald Reagan make too much of his Alzheimer's and of Mrs. Reagan's astrologer, which makes it seem as if they were nutbars and that, therefore, whatever happened in the Reagan administration was the work of people who weren't in their right minds.

While I'm not a fan of either Thatcher or Reagan, I agree that dismissing them because of their final illnesses is unfair and facile.

Schadenfreude - you're right, that has to be part of it. Ah, if only right wing zealots were the only people who developed alzheimer's, what a lovely world it would be.

I watched Dragon Seed, based on the book by Pearl S. Buck and starring Katherine Hepburn because I knew Anna May Wong also had a part, and I wanted to see her. I was surprised to see that her name wasn't listed in the credits, I was even more surprised to see that she had just one scene in which she doesn't even speak. She sits on a bench and looks inquisitively at Katherine Hepburn's husband. She was beautiful, of course, but I was surprised she didn't have more of a part. All the major parts of Chinese, of course, were played by Caucasian actors in yellowface.

I recently showed "Broken Blossoms" with Lillian Gish and Richard Barthelmess to my mass media class. The original short story was a piece of purple prose, which was repurposed to say some interesting things about race and class--all of which was somewhat negated by the fact that Lillian Gish could not be almost-kissed by a real Chinese actor, so Barthelmess had to be made up.

I recently watched the movie 'white oleandor' based on the novel by Janet Fitch and was terribly disappointed. The book was beautiful, the movie just butchered the story line! Anyone else think so?

> 37 Yes! It's been a long time since I read the book and watched the movie, but I remember thinking the same thing. The movie was just trying so hard to fit everything in that nothing was fleshed out well. If I recall correctly, they also changed the order of some events.

Am waiting for someone to weigh in on The Hunger Games, a series I ultimately found very tiresom, but certainly had cinematic possibilities.

Also, have not read Notes on a Scandal but it made a heck of a movie!

We're going to see Hunger Games this weekend. I'm not expecting much, so maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Citizen, not expecting much b/c you didn't like the books or just b/c Hollywood tends to bollix things up?

I am freshly back from "The Hunger Games" movie. I have not read the books. My 29 year old daughter, who went with me, has (she's an 8th grade teacher, need I say more?). She says: excellent adaption. They softened the ending a bit (and ended it a bit ahead of the book's ending).

It will be years before I see the adaptations of "The Hunger Games," because I want to wait for all of them to come out. The first book, I thought, was the best in the series, but my guess is that they will make good movies. At least IMO.

I haven't read these at all and wonder if I should . . .

Rebecca, go for it! They're a phenom, like that dreadful Twilight series. How you gonna understand teenage girls who'll be taking care of you in your old age someday if you don't read these things and try to help others see why they're awful? Though I can't say "Hunger Games" begins to touch the awful-ness of "Twilight."

Can't read Twilight. Tried to read (skimmed) a YA book about teenagers/young adults, Imaginary Girls, because it was a gift and about an area I know very well, but was seriously bored/underwhelmed. I guess I'll have to take my chances as I approach old age.

I liked The Hunger Games, but I think its going to work better as a movie than it did as a book. I'm not sure when I'll get to see it though.

My problem with The Hunger Games is Katniss. She's too reactive, insufficiently proactive, and she's too codependent on the two boys. Just being kick-a$$ doesn't mean being a strong girl character. But still, I know how popular they are....

I sympathize with those who can't read Twilight--I MobyDicked it by skimming over a lot, but I've been talking about these books for some years now with students in my one-woman crusade to get people to acknowledge how awful they are.

The series has some unintentionally hilarious parts. The vampire family is really rich on account of one of them being able to see the future and thereby making a lot of money in the stock market. So they're conspicuous consumers, but they (and I am NOT making this up) periodically donate their clothes to the Goodwill. I have not seen the movies, but I hope they put a scene in in which the vamps load up the BMW with last year's couture and wait until after dark to drop it off in the big metal bin behind the store.

Moreover, my main objection to the whole series is that when girls are told that being with their boyfriends, even if it kills them and forces them to give up family and friends, is the apex of a girl's life; that the rich and soul-less evil dead are more desirable than real boys; and that having the body of an 18-year-old forever is every woman's dream, well, how can you refrain from any opportunity to point out what utter shit this is?

Well, I'm hogging so off I go to await more reports about "The Hunger Games."

Related to the Twilight conversation, my daughters and I had a fun half hour shop at Value Village today--we saw at least 8 black T-shirts with variations of "Team Edward," "If you'll be my Edward, I'll be your Bella," etc. Either there were a lot of those shirts floating around out there that ended up in the charity bin, or one person had a lot of those shirts!

I'm glad that craze is over. Apparently even the actor who played Edward didn't like the film.

There are probably words to say how much I hated the Twilight series, but it nauseates me a little to think of them. Hunger Games is, well I can't say a million times better because there's no way to compare. Hunger Games, I think, is a very well written anti war series that I hope will make kids rethink the idea that they can always go into the armed services if they can't find a job or a way to get into college. I think it does a great job of showing how governments can misuse youth and is one of the first books I've read to do such a great job talking about war related brain trauma. I didn't have much hope for the movies because I thought Hollywood would completely botch it. I was wrong. The movie was a very good adaptation, I'm glad I saw it. It was really fun to go on opening weekend to see all the kids so excited about it. Saw a bunch of Hunger Games t-shirts and more braids than I've seen in one place ever. It was a very responsive audience. Very quiet for most of the movie but applause, yelling, and crying in appropriate places. It was quite an experience and I recommend it highly, quick before all the kids have seen it.

Joyce, as someone who worked in journalism and PR, I was most taken with the media manipulation in Hunger Games, which, like many themes, fizzled out as the series progressed in favor of the literary equivalent of special effects fight scenes.

I didn't read this as an anti-war book whatever; I felt it rather glorified the suffering warrior despite the toll armed conflict takes on mind and spirit.

So now I'm really going to have to see this!

I'll be honest- I got sucked into Twilight mania and I read all four books. I don't disagree with any of the comments above, Bella Swan is probably the most weak-minded heroine that I've ever encountered, but I think that as adult readers, we experience it in a different way than the audience that it was meant for. Its all about what Bella sees and feels and we're at a point in our lives where we can make sense of all of that, but not a whole lot of 17 year olds can. I think that Stephanie Meyer did a brilliant job in terms of addressing her target audience, and that was kept me reading.

With The Hunger Games on the other hand, I have to question who the target audience is. I think its classified as a YA book because the majority of the characters are teenagers, but I read it more as an adult story that is told from the point of view of a teenager. I haven't seen the movie yet, but I think that seeing it played out and stepping outside of Katniss's head will lend itself better to the adult experience of the story.

That being said, I need to find time to see it!

> 53 I don't want to denigrate your opinion because obviously a large part of a book's success is how a reader interprets it, not just how it was meant to be interpreted. But, for what it's worth, the author did specifically say she wrote the books to be an anti-war message. See more here: Suzanne Collins’s War Stories for Kids

I have read the Hunger Games trilogy and just saw the movie. They did a great job with casting and keeping to the book. One of my favourite characters turned out to be Lenny Kravitz... who knew?

For the record, I have also read the Twilight books and I have seen all the movies so far. The first book definitely had an almost erotic energy to it so I definitely see why it's a hit with teens. The books did go right downhill as the series progressed and by the end, it was just ridiculous (but I kept reading because I hate not finishing a series). I had no plans to see the movies but a friend was watching the first one and I will admit, I got sucked in and suprisingly, found it somewhat interesting. But again, they have gone right downhill and the last one was absolutely stupid and laughable (although the two friends I was with thought it was great).

The problem with the Twilight series is that Bella is a whiny, sucky brat who basically throws her life away to marry. This is not a message that I would want my kids to see or read. Family, friends, a decent education, self-worth etc obviously mean nothing any more.

I like that the Hunger Games has a strong female character who, while accepting the rules (at least in the beginning), she does so on her own terms. It's interesting to see that while Bella grows weaker as the series progresses, Katniss actually grows stronger.

sweetiegherkin: I don't take disagreement as denigration (unless you get call me a dumbass, which you didn't and I appreciate).

Thanks for the info about what Collins said she was trying to do. Certainly, that bears more thinking about on my part, but my first reaction is that she has failed to write an an anti-war series.

It's been awhile since I read the books, and perhaps I'm not looking at them deeply enough, but ***SPOILERS FOLLOW*** Katniss is brave, has excellent killing skills (food at first, people later), but is not a deep thinker or intellectual. Her sister, the healer, is smarter and has much more spiritual and moral strength. But it is Katniss who brings down the corrupt regime through violence, while the sister bites the dust. Katniss is damaged deeply by the experience, but my guess is that this will be lost on many kids given the sheer number of exciting violence sequences in the trilogy. The message is quite mixed and messy--like real life sometimes.

But it makes for interesting discussion.

nohrt, I applaud your anti-Twilight crusade. That crap needs to be shot down as often as possible. Even teenagers deserve better; once upon a time, they knew it and their educators knew it.

On a different topic (as far as I know), a friend asked me to post this link here for him, an LA Times article about The Hunger Games:

What the 'The Hunger Games' really means

(He says he'll drop by once he finishes with his catalogue and starts socialising on LT.)

I haven't read The Hunger Games myself, but I hope no one minds, as it seems topical.

Lola, I got an error message when I tried the link. But in trying to find the story, I did find an LA Times reporter's article about how appropriate/relevant the movies were for kids that is interesting.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/03/26/2453975/games-relevant-suitable-discu...

I have a lot of older students with kids in my classes, and many of them were very concerned about their kids reading "The Hunger Games" (some local teachers assigned it) b/c they were about kids killing kids. I told them my son and I traded off the books and discussed the themes and literary merits (and I said the books in no way glorify the kids killing kids incidents).

I'm always stymied about why parents get het up about what they HEAR about books instead of READING the books first. Anyhow, I've never told my kid he couldn't read a book, though I often wanted to read things with him so we could discuss as I felt necessary.

Oops, sorry, I fixed it!

>59 LolaWalser: That's a very interesting article, Lola. It had me until I got to
Rick Santorum, meanwhile, has similarities to the heroine, Katniss Everdeen — a figure who is "a scrappy upstart from a poor coal mining community who does not have the same pre-ordained privilege, training and money in his background." Oh my. I think not.

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger...! :)

I only skimmed the article, just enough to make me feel I probably wouldn't care for the books (or the movie). I can't stand libertarian paranoia, or the cult of rugged individualism. Not a big fan of gladiatorial games either...

> 58 It's hard online without contextualizing cues or really knowing one another, so I wanted to make sure it didn't come across as me completely dismissing your interpretation of the book. I agree it's messy and, until the last book, the series didn't strike me as anti-war per se. I had some trouble with the first book in particular, feeling that 'enjoying' the book was akin to enjoying the Hunger Games, putting the reader in the position of the spectator. Some have argued that this isn't the case because we see everything from Katniss's perspective, although this is less so in the movie. Again, there are many ways to read a book and everyone comes away with a different feeling and interpretation, some very different from what the author was anticipating, I'd imagine.

Now that I read the article posted by Lola, my comment seems redundant - lots of different interpretations out there indeed!

>63 LolaWalser: No, I wasn't shooting you. Until the article I wouldn't have said it had anything to to with libertarian paranoia, I didn't even think the gladiatorial part was central to the story in spite of the fact that the book is named for the hunger games. I guess I thought of it a little like a YA version of 1984 which wasn't anti government but anti tyranny I thought.

sweetiegherkin, no offense taken at all. Clearly, the books have elicited very different interpretations. I think I'm most interested in knowing whether these interpretations differ among teenagers as much as they have among adults.

Any YA librarians who could weigh in on this and tell us how the kids liked the movie?

I just want to thank youse guys for discussing The Hunger Games. I didn't like it, and I couldn't put my finger on the why of it. Conversed with my grown daughter about it, and she had loved the book. I had to agree with her statements, but still felt some un-ease. Your collective comments have helped me to understand why.

Any YA librarians who could weigh in on this and tell us how the kids liked the movie?

Not a librarian, but a parent ..... my 12 year old liked the movie a lot. She read all the books when she was 11 and loved them. All the kids in her class (11 & 12 yr olds) seem to be reading them right now. Definitely a big hit. I read the first book last year and it really didn't do it for me, although it wasn't awful.

#66

Oh, just kidding!

Nickelini, my son at age 14 was geeked up about the first book, but lost interest in the last installment, though he finished them. He does want to see the movie, which he hooks up with the whole Occupy movement that he's been involved in now that he's 16.

Would be interested to now how your daughter sees the story.

Would be interested to now how your daughter sees the story.

Both my girls (12 & 15) think it's good, exciting entertainment. They both thought the third book was a let-down. I'm not reading past book one myself. I saw the movie this afternoon, and although I think it was well-done, I found it much more disturbing than either of them did.