How faithful is it to Bram Stokers story?
Just wonderin.
Don't play stupid with me - I'm better at it!
Not faithful is it to Bram Stoker's story.
Having read both the story and seen the film, the only similiarity between the two is the title "Lair of the White Worm," and the place Mercy Farm, which is called Mercy Farm in both the story and the film.
Even the characters, which appear in both, such as Amanda Donohoe's character, have had their name chnaged. In the book, she is called Lady Arabella March, but in the film, she is called Lady Sylvia Marsh.
Though (IMHO) for once, the changes from story to the film, are for the better.
"Though (IMHO) for once, the changes from story to the film, are for the better"
What does that mean?
Don't play stupid with me - I'm better at it!
That means (IMHO) if Russell had not changed a word of the book, in order to make his film, but instead had done a straight adaptation, then the film would not have been as good, as the one he made. Again (IMHO.) You might read the book to see what I mean.
shareI am thinking of reading the book, I love comparing books to movies.
shareThe good thing is it's a short read, not too many pages to it. If you have read Stoker's "Dracula," just remember that his "Lair of the White Worm" is no where as good a book. Indeed, I've had close friends who have read his "Lair of the White Worm" and think it is not only his worst book, but the worst book they've ever read. And if you've think the film version of it, the only similiarity between the two is the title. And the film is probably better for that.
shareI heard that the book is confusing. Some others said it was a fun read. Where other said it was his worst.
shareThe novel has plenty of odd content: one character purchases multiple mongooses (mongeese?) to combat the snakes in the area, and every one of these animals dies in horrific circumstances: 1 is shot multiple times, another is strangled, and another is torn in half. A weird "duel" takes place between a mesmerist (hypnotist) and a young woman. The purpose for his attempt to control her is never made clear--he just goes over to her father's farm for tea, multiple times, and with other people in the room in attempt to control her/wear her down/defeat her to the point where she drops dead at one point. This same man flies a giant kite to scare off a plague of birds that shows up one day. For every odd detail in the novel, there is an odd jump from one section to the next, and in this way I think the movie and the novel are similar: there are plenty of scenes in the novel where there is no transition whatsoever: for example, Hugh Grant's character and a bunch of men in hazmat suits showing up at the cave with canisters of toxic gas; the bagpipe playing to snakecharm the character Amanda. The movie is goofy in the intentional humor and odd sexual puns, both verbal and visual, but the novel is an example of bad pacing, underwritten content, and incoherent jumps between a lengthy piece of spoken information, usually historical, and a meeting between characters of opposing sides (it's very clear who is good and who evil) that never really make motives clear.
shareYes, just finished the book. I would take it one step further and say the only thing linking the two is the title.
share