book? - Ragtime (1981) Discussion

[–] Nazimova23 18 years ago

In concentrating on the Coalhouse Walker story, the film ignores the brilliant thematic parallels that Doctorow drew between the historical vignettes and each of the fictional storylines. Nesbit, Thaw, White and Booker T. Washington are there, but Henry Ford, Emma Goldman, Matthew Henson, Harry Houdini, JP Morgan, Lavinia Thumb, the U.S. presidents and the baseball players are either absent or in very marginal roles. Thus, a politically and socially significant story becomes another period drama.

reply

[–] mikeoak840 18 years ago

Things were compressed and changed for the movie as almost always happens. I think part of that is because writers & directors can't just take a good story and film it without changing things...just so they can say "And I made it a much better story than the book!" and they're ALWAYS wrong.

Trust me - read the book.

reply

[–] ronfakename 18 years ago

yeah, i watched the movie because i read and liked the book, BIG disappointment.

reply

[–] RexDartEskimoSpy 18 years ago

"I think part of that is because writers & directors can't just take a good story and film it without changing things...just so they can say "And I made it a much better story than the book!" and they're ALWAYS wrong."

Do you have any idea what the hell you're talking about? I don't think there's a writer or director in Hollywood or anywhere that has that pompous mentality (There's probably one somewhere, but for the most part, no.), and the omission of various details is due to time constraints and practical film composure for a motion picture. Had this been a miniseries it might have done a better job, but the way the book is written is so hard to film in any way possible. I think the movie does a great job with what it handles, and every aspect of the film - the acting, direction, costumes, cinematography - is near perfect. If you would just focus on what the film has as opposed to what the film doesn't have, your criticisms might be more realistic. A film is a totally different animal from a novel and must be treated as such.

I don't know how many times I've argued with people who put down a good film just because it's not the novel it was based on. They can't give a realistic reason why the film is not good or whatever other than that "It's not the book." That's not a real reason.

On the other hand, there have been plenty of books that were made into better movies. Forrest Gump and M*A*S*H are among the best in this category. The books that those two are based on are horrendously bad.

That being said, Ragtime remains one of my favorite movies and one of my favorite books.

Man, give her the *beep* overhead clause!

reply

[–] wvanderburg 18 years ago

You also need to remember that Milos Forman was not the original director for this film. I am sure the original director's vision would have been different.

Also, to incorporate every storyline in the novel to the movie would have made the movie probably the longest ever made. The book is told entirely in third person, as if it is America telling it's own narrative of the events that happened.

But no, the movie is FAR from "near" perfect, even in costuming, sets, props, characterization, etc. How many people know or even care that the real Rhinelander Waldo was actually in his thirties during the time period the movie was supposed to be set in? Who cares if Coalhouse's car was a 1916 Model T Ford, backdated to appear as if it was built in 1912 and earlier? Who notices the 50 star flags at the Political Rally that Sarah is beaten at?

Movie makers, on the average, do not take these things into consideration becasue they mistakenly believe that the movie-going public are not knowledgable enough to notice these things. And saying they "used what they had" isn't good enough an answer. Anything can be bought or manufactured.

reply

[–] EdwardKimberly76 18 years ago

Robert Altman was set to direct originally & he would have been the perfect choice given the "woven" structure of the book. I still have hopes that someone will try this again, it's such a great narrative, and it COULD be represented on film. It could be a series or mini-series for HBO. All versions of the story blot out great, great scenes with Evelyn Nesbit, Emma Goldman, Tata, and Tata's wife.

reply

[–] elchippo 18 years ago

It's interesting to observe the parallels between book, film and musical. I actually feel the musical encompasses more of the book than the film does, which spends a bit too much time on the younger brother/Evelyn Nesbit storyline and not enough on Tateh or even Coalhouse. However, the film score is great.

reply

[–] EdwardKimberly76 18 years ago

Yes, I agree with you about the musical. It did include more of the book & I think Doctorow was very pleased with it - more so than the movie which he didn't like. (Maybe you already know that!) I also love Randy Newman's score. It's perfect & too bad it wouldn't be in a new version (I'd put money on their being one eventually.) The musical for all it's "bigness" (every song sounds like a first act finale) left me a little flat - and I don't mean to sound pretentious. The "musical staging" was oddly stoic contrasted with the energy of some of the numbers, there was just something missing.

reply

[–] macdent 18 years ago

When the movie was first released, I read an article that said that almost the entire book was filmed, but it was hours too long, and needed to be cut drastically. The end result was that some main characters were completely eliminated in the final cut, and those important ones, played by famous Hollywood stars, were just gone. Imagine going from a starring role to not even being in the picture! If that article was true, and somewhere the eliminated portions remain, perhaps there may someday be a restored "director's cut" that can redeem this good (but highly flawed) film. Still, I hope it is released in its original version on DVD, without the Nesbitt cuts and other adjustments present in the current DVD version.

The Broadway musical version seemed to capture more of the essential nature of the book, though it had to speed through enormous amounts of dialogue and plot to get it all in. And yes, many songs seemed like "closers", so many, that, when I saw the original production on Broadway, I was drained by the end, not just from the drama, but from the great number of musical climaxes.

reply

[–] jawebster2000 9 years ago

James Cagney was terribly miscast. He would have been perfect for the role of the bed and wheelchair ridden grandfather. His character Rhinelander Waldo was barely mentioned in the book.

reply