Book vs Adaptation?
It's Kind of a Funny Story
Ned Vizzini's It's Kind of a Funny Story (2006) vs It's Kind of a Funny Story (2010)
I've known all about this story for a number of years, but only read it for the first time this year. I was skeptical about it at first, as the mixture of characters in Craig's life was a little overwhelming, but once the story developed and you really got into the mindset of Craig and his struggles, I absolutely sailed through it. This book was beautiful. You can tell it was written by somebody who had struggled. It broke my heart to read in the foreword that Ned Vizzini is no longer with us, but the importance of this book transcends his life. It will always be there, and just because it's now written by an author no longer with us, does not mean there is value detracted from it. There will always be a need for books like this, and I'm incredibly glad to have read such an honest and authentic story that was still able to make me smile and cry in understanding.
The novel is well paced and informative, but never boring. The insight you gain into doctors, hospitals, medications, support systems and especially how suicide hotlines work (which is something I never really knew about) is truthful, and you can tell, based on the small print after the novel which details when Vizzini himself spent time in a psychiatric ward and when he wrote the book. Naturally, you're excited to learn about a book you've read having a motion picture adaptation, and I read this book thinking about watching it afterwards, which I did, but it wasn't what I'd hoped.
Craig himself was a great adaptation - Keir Gilchrist is in another show I watch, so I was excited to see him in the role. He was pretty standard in how I pictured Craig in the book, and so was Bobby, played by Zach Galifianakis. However, the adaptation of other important characters, Nia, Aaron, Noelle, Humble, was disappointing. I didn't think Zoe Kravitz fit with the movie at all - she seemed a lot older than the rest of the cast, especially Thomas Mann (also very weak actor choice, but not as noticed due to lack of screen time) who played her boyfriend Aaron who she was supposed to be the same age as her. The same can be said for Noelle - Emma Roberts just didn't seem to do the character justice. In the book, she's quirky and mysterious when she befriends Craig, but in the movie, she just seemed like a typical boring love interest. In the novel, she had her own story; in the movie she was just part of Craig's. As for Humble - he just didn't look how I pictured him, which just can't be helped most of the time. There was a lot of background detail to do with Craig's illnesses that was missed out of the movie, which again, you can only fit so much into a movie, but it felt a little disrespecting of the novel and the story as a whole.
Conclusion: Book trumps Movie.
An important note: Viola Davis was incredible as Dr. Minerva, but Viola Davis is incredible in everything.
All The Bright Places
Though this book has been out since 2015, I hadn't heard of it until recently when the Netflix film adaptation came out. Usually I don't read stories like this as I don't really enjoy YA stories of romance, and topics of mental health can sometimes trigger my own, and I especially don't like romance films, but once I had seen the trailer for the film I was intrigued. I thought I'd give it a shot and I wasn't disappointed.
The film was relatable and real and the relationship between the two main characters felt raw, as if they needed each other to get themselves through the mental health issues they were both experiencing. One character going through depression, the other going through bipolar (though I didn't feel the bipolar case was explained or fleshed out enough within the film compared to the book). The movie appeared to focus on Violet's side of the story much more than Theodore's, only getting mere glimpses into his life, whereas the book is split, with each chapter alternating between both characters to give deep insight into both their lives.
The way the characters meet in both variations of the story are incredibly opposite. In the book (without spoiling too much), they meet publicly during the day, whereas in the film they both meet in a similar situation while it's just the two of them at night. I don't know whether watching the film first before reading the book has tainted my first impression of the story, but I think I prefer the meeting in the film. It felt personal between the characters and when it comes to mental health (in my own experience anyway), being confronted privately feels like less of an attack, and the fact it's just the two of them really hones in on the aspect of mental health without anything distracting the audience from the scene.
In regard to the ending of the story, there were many mixed reviews when it came to the movie. Without giving too many details, the ending of the film is vague. While what happened is blatantly obvious (and I'm glad they didn't show a triggering and detailed scene), the writer and director of the film stated that they wanted to 'blur the lines around the circumstances [...] leaving it more open to audience interpretation'. They wanted to leave the final events within a grey area, hoping that after watching the film it would get the audience talking to each other about mental health and what they believed happened to the characters.
Personally, when it comes to the question 'book or film?' I will always choose book, solely for the imagery and detail that gets put into a novel. However, being able to visibly see characters you love or a story you're a fan of come to life on a screen will always be a win for me, even if particular details or scenes in the story have to be sacrificed. At least the books will always be there to go back to so we can experience those beloved details.Conclusion: Book trumps Movie.
Sharp Objects
This book has been on my shelf for many years, but I only read it this year during quarantine for COVID-19. It was one of the first books I read fresh out of a heavy reading slump, and it's safe to say I enjoyed it immensely. It's such a riveting story and the twists left me shaken on another level. This was the first book I had read by Gillian Flynn, but I can certainly see now why she is so highly regarded. I don't doubt that Gone Girl (2012) is just as good and I have Dark Places (2009) on my shelf for future reading. To put it simply, this book was written impeccably, and there were many times I sat open-mouthed at some of the events. Yes, the main story was about Camille uncovering the string of murders taking place in her hometown Wind Gap, Missouri, but it is also a story of a tortured woman returning to the place where she felt most trapped.
The elements of mental health in this book are subtle in that Camille never seeks the help she really needs for her issues, and the murder mystery is constantly overwhelming her. There are details of a psychiatric stay for Camille, and the obvious scarring all over her body that began at a young age. The issues are there, and if you view this book from a mental health perspective, they're blindingly obvious, but they aren't spelled out for you. Camille isn't the only character with issues of some kind - Adora's MSBP (Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy) being revealed at the end of the novel; Amma's insecurities and violent actions due to the impact her mother has had on her - it is an entire family full of toxicity that never gets addressed and therefore results in Adora and Amma both in jail. Perhaps the one positive influence for Camille and her health is her boss Frank Curry, who looks after her and her health more than Camille does herself. Camille ends the book with a stable life and support from Curry and his wife, who are almost the family that she deserved.
As for the HBO 2018 miniseries, the creep factor was definitely fulfilled to the maximum. The casting for every character was stellar, and the three female leads Amy Adams, Patricia Clarkson and Eliza Scanlen were absolutely perfect for the roles. The addition of Chris Messina was appreciated, but he didn't quite give Richard Willis the depth that he had in the novel, whereas the female leads portrayed the characters to the very depths of their fictional forms. There were times I wanted to punch Patricia Clarkson in the face, her sickly Adora Crellin was that good. Knowing what she is really up to whilst watching the series only makes you hate her more. Overall, the adaptation was incredibly faithful to the book, however, I'd have loved more fallout on screen from the reveal of Amma as the murderer.
Conclusion: Book trumps Miniseries, but only by a small margin. The series deserves its praise.