"A River runs through it"

[jbeck]

I enjoyed both the book and the movie, for different reasons. The book, in my opinion, is a masterpiece. In the movie, a beautiful story was told over 2+ hours. What many people don't realize is the book is only around 100 pages long, maybe less. You can read it in a couple of hours. I read the book in about 90 minutes while sitting in the ER with a broken ankle, waiting to be seen. Maclean has a tremendous ability to tell a story using simple, direct language. That's an art that is lost on many authors today (not just sporting authors, but all novelists).

If you haven't read it yet, grab a copy and give it a go. It's really amazing.

 

[afishinado]

jbeck wrote:
I enjoyed both the book and the movie, for different reasons. The book, in my opinion, is a masterpiece. In the movie, a beautiful story was told over 2+ hours. What many people don't realize is the book is only around 100 pages long, maybe less. You can read it in a couple of hours. I read the book in about 90 minutes while sitting in the ER with a broken ankle, waiting to be seen. Maclean has a tremendous ability to tell a story using simple, direct language. That's an art that is lost on many authors today (not just sporting authors, but all novelists).

If you haven't read it yet, grab a copy and give it a go. It's really amazing.

tl;dr.......lol

Actually, +1

 

[Flyfishmedic732]

I think Ill throw my 2 cents here LOL

I have never read the book but definitely WANT to. I will have to say that this movie is one of my favorite movies out there. To me, this movie is not only about FF, but also Norman Mcleans life. I always took as a biography of sorts. Yeah the fishing is definitely staged, the backdrops are awesome. To see how 2 young boys started the lifestyle of FF at very young ages and never forgot their roots and see one river as "their Home" reminds me of what life is supposed to be like. How simple it is and how families can be boinded by one certain thing. I love FF, I started when I was in my 20s. Not because of the movie, but because my father taught me a new way to fish. I find myself wishing I was out on the river when I watch it. If this movie did in fact bring "yuppies" to the stream, the so be it, More people enjoying our sport. Maybe a few stayed, maybe a few didnt. Does it really matter? IMHO no it doesnt. The movie was great in my mind, and I cant wait to read the book as I am sure it is just as great if not better.

 

[csoult]

1wt wrote:

I don't like to read a long word filled book that much? Way too much "filler" for me! If they had a "Cliff's Notes" version of A River runs through it, I might read that?

You have no idea what you're missing out on. Not just this book, but many others as well.

 

[STONEMAN]

Norman's other book, "Young Men and Fire" is worth picking up,too-very technical book about a fire that killed several forest firefighters.

 

[DaveS]

I've never read a story by Norman Maclean, that was NOT enjoyable. I often times, stop and re-read a paragraph and think about, not just what the author said, but how he said it. Maclean had a great way of saying things. IMHO.

 

[elonDO]

I am definitely a fan of the movie. It makes me think about the bigger picture of things and how fly fishing can be an escape. I've got the book on my shelf, but have yet to read it. I plan on doing so at some point.

Incidentally, the actor who plays Norman Maclean, Craig Sheffer, is a south-central PA native. He grew up in York, PA and graduated from Central York High School. Just a little piece of trivia, since this is a PA fishing site.

 

[krott243]

I have seen the movie at least 100 times. Its one of my favorite of all time. I can just about state every line of the movie, am I weird..maybe. The book is very good, I am not much of a reader of novels but I enjoyed it. You know the river they claim the big blackfoot is not really the big blackfoot in the movie?

 

[troutbert]

"It is my love poem to my family," Maclean said in 1986. "It is a story of the tragedy of my family."

It seemed to me that the family tragedy comes through in the book. In the movie, maybe not so much.

 

[TimMurphy]

troutbert wrote:
"It is my love poem to my family," Maclean said in 1986. "It is a story of the tragedy of my family."

It seemed to me that the family tragedy comes through in the book. In the movie, maybe not so much.

Dear troutbert,

Funny, but that is exactly how I saw the movie. It wasn't about fly fishing but rather the story of a dysfunctional family. Flyfishing was nothing more than a backdrop to the real story.

And I've never read the book.

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[hammertime]

krott243 wrote:

You know the river they claim the big blackfoot is not really the big blackfoot in the movie?

Most of it filmed on the Gallitain and Boulder rivers as the Blackfoot was too polluted at the time.

Shot mostly in Bozeman and Livingston also instead of Missoula.

edit-Came across this article after posting.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_b07d873c-6039-11e1-b043-001871e3ce6c.html

 

[pcray1231]

Has anyone ever both read a book and seen the movie, but actually liked the movie better?

Don't know about better, but equal. To be fair, I saw the movie first, and later read the book. Thoroughly enjoyed them both, but when I read the book, I already knew the story, and at that point it was mostly about discovering what was different about the story between book and movie. So that probably took away from it some.

As movies from books go, they did not deviate all that much. Took a few liberties, but the thrust of it was the same.

While yes, there is fly fishing, and yes it is described well and in the movie the scenery is good, I still do not view it as a "fly fishing" movie. It's a story of a family. The fly fishing is secondary and it wouldn't take much away from the story if it were say, golf, instead of fly fishing.

 

[JackM]

Yes, but "A Cartpath Runs Through It" is not a pleasant sounding title.

 

[pcray1231]

I am haunted by sand traps.

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

rrt wrote:
I have to agree with Dwight. I think the movie is all right, but the novella is much better.

Has anyone ever both read a book and seen the movie, but actually liked the movie better?

Books can tell a story like no movie really can. The thoughts of the characters can be expressed in a book which can be a whole story on it's own. Also your own imagination paints the picture of a scene which often is far more vivid or spectacular than any movie can depict.

I've read a book first and have often been disappointed by a movie because many parts of the story are often "lost" in a movie. And the reverse, if I really like a movie, I can be sure I will really love the book.

I think it's true that when you read a book first, then see the movie, the movie often seems disappointing.

When you read the book first, you imagine visual images of what's going on, including what the characters look like, the scenery, the action etc., creating a "movie" in your mind.

But then when you see the movie that Hollywood made, things don't look the same as you imagined. So, it seems jarring, creating the sense that they "got it wrong."

But if you see the movie first, the movie supplies the visuals. So when you read the book afterward, the visual images in your head tend to be what you saw in the movie.

 

[DGC]

A movie that is better than the book: A Clockwork Orange. However, in this day and age it would probably seem very tame.

 

[ryguyfi]

pcray1231 wrote:
I am haunted by sand traps.

pcray's shortest post ever!



I hate reading, so all movies are better than books.

Actually 2 books that I thoroughly enjoyed are Lee Wulff's Compleat and The Fly Fishingest Gentlemen. Couldn't put either of those down. Would love to see a movie made about Lee Wulff's life.

My wife actually enjoys a River Runs Through It. It didn't get me into fly fishing, but definitely compels me to do it more and enjoy it every time.

 

[Shock]

When the movie came out I liked that it showed the characters flyfishing which was mabe even more fringe back then.

When I watched it recently, I was more taken by the limited amount of gear the characters were using and the bamboo rods in the film which I took for Grangers due to their nickle silver reel seats and the film taking place in the West. Grangers were made in Denver Co.

For what it is worth, I think the reason why most people like books better than the movie is because a book lets our imagination fill in the gaps rather than a director cutting things down and giving us their vision of what the story should be.

Shock

 

[troutbert]

Many people believe "The Movie" led to an increase in the popularity of flyfishing. And that's true.

But it also went the other way. The growing popularity of flyfishing led to the making of "The Movie."

Back in 1976, when the book came out, probably no one in the movie business would have considered producing a major movie that had flyfishing as a major theme. Because flyfishing was just not popular enough.

But flyfishing had been growing steadily through the 1970s and 1980s and early 1990s, and was getting big enough that it made sense financially to make a movie that featured flyfishing.

 

[JeffK]

I will second the recommendation for anything Norman McClean wrote. "A River Runs Thorugh It" and "Young Men and Fire" are his classics - but everything is good. A hard to match blend of outdoor sensibility, a look at the West when it was wilder, and just good stories.