"A River runs through it"

Paul Newman negotiated with Norman for about a decade trying to get him to agree to allow the book to be made into a movie.It wasn't until right before McClean passed that they came to an agreement on the screenplay. I remember reading that Newman was originally going to play Paul in the movie,but by the time it went into production he was to old to do it .I enjoy reading the book more than the movie,but I wont turn down a chance to watch it if it's on.
 
Hopdemon wrote:
Paul Newman negotiated with Norman for about a decade trying to get him to agree to allow the book to be made into a movie.It wasn't until right before McClean passed that they came to an agreement on the screenplay. I remember reading that Newman was originally going to play Paul in the movie,but by the time it went into production he was to old to do it .I enjoy reading the book more than the movie,but I wont turn down a chance to watch it if it's on.
It was Robert Redford not Paul Newman. ;-)
 
Your right WTT,I misspoke.Thanks for setting it right
 
When this thread was new I searched the film on my dish schedule. Luckily I found it on some obscure channel. I set the DVR and it finally recorded today.

When this movie first came out I instantly discredited it and didn't watch it. This is because the only time I ever heard of it was when the ladies I worked with were raving about the "new" heart-throb Brad Pitt.

"Oh Brother! not another sappy chick-flick!"

Funny how when was younger, I could easily dismiss things based on my own assumptions.

I still do it. But not as often. I guess that's one area of improvement that I can always work on.

Great movie by the way ;-)

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

Forrest Gump, by far.

That's about it. Catch-22, for instance, not even close.

Sean Penn made a very good movie of Jon Krakauer's book Into The Wild. It isn't the same story as the one Krakauer told. But I think I enjoy both the book and movie equally as much, factoring in the artistic liberties Penn took with it, which I think were legitimate in order to make it a more appealing film. I recommend both the movie and the book highly.

As for A River Runs Through It, I've read the book and seen the movie, and enjoyed them both. But Norman MacLean's book is a work of art, the way My Antonia by Willa Cather or All The King's Men by Robert Penn Warren is a work of art- a classic of American literature. The film is merely a very good movie. It doesn't come close, because even a great film can't compete with a great novel in terms of narrative detail. It's always a condensation.

imo, Forrest Gump the movie beat Forrest Gump the book because the book ain't all that hot. But it did happen to feature a plot gambit that worked superbly for the purpose of making a film. Uncomplicated, yet absorbing. And Tom Hanks actually improved on the character portrayed in the book. As did Robin Wright, as Jenny.

As a couple of other commenters have already mentioned, RRTI isn't really primarily about fly fishing.
 
The River Why, on the other hand, is mostly about fly fishing. Although it also develops some larger themes, because David James Duncan is a very good writer. I'd like to think that book is a classic of American literature too, but I'm too biased in favor of the subject matter to really know. Someone else with more objectivity would have to say. I'm not sure if the book would hold non-anglers long enough to settle into its artistry and craft. Which is considerable, imo. I think that Duncan's like Ken Kesey, a North American Magical Realist.

But like I said, I'm biased. The book is good enough to make me want to read Duncan's non-fishing lit, like his book The Brothers K. I've been meaning to find a copy of that for some time.

I highly recommend D J Duncan's books of essays, River Teeth and My Story As Told By Water. Plenty of material in there about fly fishing. And conservation, and spiritual/metaphysical/religious meditations, and etc. His favored themes.

As for the movie The River Why, I haven't seen it. Not sure that I want to. The book has always seemed as if it would be easy to ruin if it were made into a movie, and that seems to be the prevailing opinion on what happened.

There's a funny thing about that book- it seems to me that it's the closest thing to "chick lit" that I've ever read. Ultimate fantasy for any guy fly fisherman- at least those of us into girls: wading up an idyllic trout stream, you round the bend and find a gorgeous sky-clad water nymph sitting in a tree, holding a fishing rod. Sincerely liking the same things you like, not just humoring you. Including, as it happens, liking you....falling in love, getting married, going off for a raging honeymoon and presumably Living Happily Ever After.

You can imagine how easily that literary magic trick- which Duncan handles so deftly in his writing- could be turned into a travesty by being made into a film. Although it would also be impossible to leave that part out and still have any kind of a movie.
 
Top