MovieChat Forums > Captain Corelli's Mandolin (2001) Discussion > The book was so much better. (spoilers)

The book was so much better. (spoilers)


Yes, i admit the book did waffle on a bit about nothing in places, but all in all i reckon the book was so much better than the movie.
I know this is the case for most book to movie conversions, but the film missed out so much important information which explained alot.
One example is why Carlo steps in front of Corelli when theyre getting executed. In the film, we just think it is an act of loyalty from a soldier to his captain. But in the book its made clear that Carlo is gay, and is in love with Corelli. There is only one line in the movie that vaguely hints at it (and i cant remember it.. :P)
If you want to clarify anything you missed in the movie, i suggest you read this book. Even if you dont, read it anyway since its a good book.. :P

reply

I just finished the book today and was wondering whether the movie was even worth renting. I happen to detest Nicholas Cage and have a hard time picturing Corelli. I thought the book was beautiful, the prose throughout was amazing. Is the movie plot much different than the book?

reply

I happen to like Nicolas Cage in his other movies, but I found his (futile) attempt at an Italian accent as Capt. Corelli very irritating and distracting.

I read the book first and was truly, truly disappointed with the film version. To say it was simply condensed wouldn't be accurate. I think it was cropped to fit into 2 hours, thus neglecting some important and beautiful parts. I suggest that if you've read the book and fallen in love with it, and are contemplating on whether to watch the movie or not, don't.

reply

Although the book is indeed better than the film it presents such a libellous account of the Greek Resistance that it had to be changed in the Greek edition. This is also the reason for some of the changes. Check out the "real captain corelli" thread and follow the link to the Guardian article.

reply

Yep, the book was so much better. Although I do think Louis de Bernieres writes about the Greek partisans in a very derogatory manner - a very American/right-wing view. But I do think he wrote the book well - he was very good at conveying Greek humour which is quite dry and ironic, as well as dark at times.
The movie is NOTHING like the book - the book is far superior. But, I did like the film just as a film, seperate from the book. The scenery was fantastic.


I must say, Nicolas Cage was absolutely atrocious as Corelli - I've never heard such a bad Italian accent in all my days. Penelope Cruz as Pelagia wasn't much better - I don't think she was even told to make her accent sound Greek! The director probably thought 'well, she's Mediterranian, that's good enough'. John Hurt was not how I envisioned Dr Yiannis, but all the same he was quite endearing. I think Christian Bale as Mandras was good - his accent was better than most of the other actors. And David Morrisey as Gunter Weber was good - although sometimes he's slip up with his German accent and you could here his Scouse (English) accent come through!

reply


To anyone thinking of watching this film after having read the novel: DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!! if you love the novel stay well CLEAR of this pathetic film unless you want to be enraged!!!!!!!!!!!

reply

Saw the film before reading the book. Enjoyed the film but won't watch it now having enjoyed the book so much. The film has the usual happy Hollywood ending. Nothing like the end of the book.

reply

there are a hell lot of things that aren't like the book!

reply

[deleted]

What a load of rubbish. Comparing a book to a film is completely redundant. They are so utterly different as experiences. I didn't read the book before i saw the film and I loved the film. As for Cage's accent -it wasn't that bad. I mean Nicolas Cage IS Italian - and in the role of the Captain he totally worked for me. Carlo's sexuality would've just confused things in the film and i can see why they left it out. The story works as a love triangle between Bale, Cage and Cruz - any other stuff about a gay admirer wouldn't have worked in the film. i did read the book after I saw the film and frankly - it's pretty lacklustre to say the least. Why people insist on rubbishing a film made from a book with the 'book is better' crap is a mystery to me. OF COURSE a book is better - because it's a totally personal experience in your own mind.
That said - the film is great - a nicely told epic.

reply

Amazing!!! Someone who finally sees that one really shouldnt compare the books against the movie....movies are given restraints that books dont have to deal with. Carlo being gay would have confused the plot...I think this movie is pretty good if u dont compare it to the book

reply

And I also love how everyone in America is suddently an expert on how Italian accents sound and what sounds horrible.......

reply

[deleted]

I watched it on C4 last night, and I didn't regret it as much as I thought I would (although I did infuriate everyone else in the room by saying 'That didn't happen in the book' every three minutes...) I thought Nicolas Cage was actually a very good Corelli, although not how I imagine him, but I was so sorry that they left out Carlo's memoirs. I totally agree with you,
evil-herbivore, I do the same, and also, without all of the parts written by Carlo, it isn't explained in the film why he throws himself between Corelli and the bullets - I thought this was a fairly important plot detail, but never mind... I thought Mandras should have been left out. He really got on my nerves. And what's with the part where Mandras saves Corelli? That REALLY bugged me. Does anyone know what de Bernieres had to do with the screenplay?

"It turned into a... splodgy, squelchy thing and squidged off down the corridor." Arnold Rimmer

reply

I thought it was worth watching for the final scene alone where John Hurt is walking with everyone else down the hill towards the sea shore. The views were beautiful and, although I loved Christian Bale and John Hurt in the film, the island of Kefalonia was arguably the biggest star (and could have been used a bit more).

reply

i loved the book and the film, of course the film could never be like the book, firstly due to the time scale(the movie directors could not possibly spend 4 or more hours on it) and secondly because we all have a different captian corelli in our mind so it's impossible to make him suit everyone :) i liked Nicholas Cage i thought he was quite good in it and even though i was a bit annoyed at them leaving out Carlo's love towards Corelli i agree it would have felt out of place in the movie. Don't judge it purely because you love the book, but appreciate the fact that it's a really captivating movie.

i just curse the sun so i can howl at the moon-QOTSA

reply

Why do people keep saying that Carlo's sexuality would have confused the film? That's just rubbish if you ask me - in the book, the story of Carlo is actually almost as important as that of Pelagia and her romance with Mandras, and they run parallel from the start of the book. In the film, they could actually have used voiceovers of Carlo's diary, if they had wanted to include his story, which I don't think they did. He is a beautiful character, and his relationship with Francesco always makes me cry. In the film, you just don't see enough of him to understand why he would step in front of Corelli, but in the book he talks a lot about his desire to save the people he loves.

Gene Hunt: She's as nervous as a very small nun at a penguin shoot

reply

by - twisted_fairytale on Thu Mar 23 2006 12:53:15

i loved the book and the film, of course the film could never be like the book, firstly due to the time scale(the movie directors could not possibly spend 4 or more hours on it) and secondly because we all have a different captian corelli in our mind so it's impossible to make him suit everyone :) i liked Nicholas Cage i thought he was quite good in it and even though i was a bit annoyed at them leaving out Carlo's love towards Corelli i agree it would have felt out of place in the movie. Don't judge it purely because you love the book, but appreciate the fact that it's a really captivating movie.


Exactly my thoughts too,twisted_fairytale. Only difference is that I was not annoyed at the film for leaving out Carlo's heroic love story. I saw the movie on TV way after the opening scenes, nevertheless liked the rest that I've seen, then got a copy to see it from the start. I'm glad I saw the film first, six months ago, and haven't the least idea then, about the book. I don't know, I was just satisfied over-all with the film. Probably because I bought the DVD and so, naturally, more interested in looking for just about everything that is good in it.

Just like a few other posters above, I thought it was a neat, compact story about a love triangle competently played by the actors, with the added bonus of a very impressive delineation of Dr. Iannis's character by John Hurt. Plus the lyrical beauty of the cinematography.

I begun reading the book a week ago, on and off though for some reason, just halfway through, (slow reader) where Dr. Iannis got exasperated waiting for Corelli to begin playing his musical piece in his mandolin in the yard, Mandras has already gone for the second time to resume his search for martial glory. . .
and I agree with the resounding majority in this thread that the book is a brilliant piece of work, with its use of parody and satirical humor, with its graphic scenes of hardships, all the gore involved in any kind of war, the haunting poignancy of secret love - a kaleidoscope actually of all kinds of human emotions in its poetic and savage expressions ... the pages that I have read so far attest to it all.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Truth has an inscrutable,inexorable way of seeking out and revealing Itself into the Light.

reply

spoilers

ok fine i agree to a certain extent that you can't compare a book with a film, but having read the book and watched the film, you can see that the book has more than enough material to make a great film, what i hate is that the screen writer, director etc ignore some of the things that make the story so fantastic, have taken the very basic elements and made alterations that make the film into another typical hollywood love story.

things like the main characters first kiss, or corelli's little problem when he fantasized about pelagia, or how the war changes Mandras, the ending which i love.

this filme could of been something different, yes you couldn't fit everything in, but there are somethings they left out which i can't understand why especially because from a film point of view they would of worked out great. this film COULD have been fantastic and that's why i hate it so much

reply

* SOME SPOILERS*

To begin with, I like the movie very much and admires the book for its unquestionable brilliance although some of its chapters are just too harrowing to read.

by MDSR
. . . the book has more than enough material to make a great film . . .
From my point of view, the book has a vast amount of materials that are simply impossible to accommodate in a 2 hour movie.

The book is simply loaded with too much emotional angst associated with the nightmares of an international war and a civil war in Greece, its general effects on the populace and in the individual lives of the characters in the story.

A love story between a man and a woman constrained by differences of culture is hard enough to show in a film. Let alone setting it a time of war. I don't think that cramming a few more details of another character will enhance the compactness of a film without detracting attention from the main leads, especially that of Captain Corelli, from whose name the title of the movie was taken from. The movie is Corelli's story, after all, and his love Pelagia and his rival Mandras in a setting of war and chaos.

In the book, there is Carlo's heroic story as a closeted gay soldier in love with another soldier Francisco, and afterwards with Corelli. His story is just that extremely touching, just too sublime that it could very well overshadow those of the leads. That's why I prefer the movie as is.

There is also Mandras whose own transformation from the beautiful lean youth, illiterate, naïve partisan to that of a paunchy stocky would-be commissar, is - admittedly – another superb turn of characterization with his own haunting end-of-life scene in the book. His own metamorphosis from a youth trying to find his own niche, trying too hard to prove himself and being blinded by ambition enough to suffer just as much hardships like Carlo would just stretch the movie too much aside from likewise diverting audience attention from the leads. I like the movie's open-ended final scene of Mandras fate – rejected, forlornly walking in a street alone, fading in the blackness of the night.
. . . have taken the very basic elements and made alterations that make the film into another typical hollywood love story.
To make alterations is a movie's artistic prerogative and I'm glad the very basic elements were preserved in the film. Otherwise, the producers and director should have changed the title to something else.

I don't think Captain Corelli's Mandolin is a typical Hollywood movie. Just because it has a quiet happy resolution doesn't automatically make it a Hollywood formulaic movie.

How Hollywoodish is it when Pelagia (Cruz) was made up naturally, walks naturally like the women of the island, doesn't look like some glamorous, having perfectly proportioned, perfectly symmetrical body and facial features of a Greek goddess? She looked very naturally like a typical village girl.

How Hollywoodish is it that you have here a woman who would choose and genuinely fall in love with Corelli (Cage) - a balding, mature, apologetic-looking man, but nonetheless has a sense of humor and genuinely kind to one who has a body to die for like Mandras (Christian Bale), well-stocked and muscled, nimble footed and with youthful pretentious bravura and who in reality is unsure of himself? You only have to look around you to see that in real life, not all women fall for the likes of Mandras . That is fantasy, that is, more often than not, Hollywood's version.

How Hollywoodish is it that at the end, Pelagia and Corelli would finally meet again after a lapse of so many years after the war when there are already noticeable strays of gray in their hair, when Pelagia looked sterner, unsmiling and aged from resignation that Corelli has forgotten her and Corelli looking older, weaker and sadder than ever than when he was in the island?

How Hollywoodish is the film that has only one brief, discrete and restrained love scene between Pelagia and Corelli and none of the typical vulgar, cheap money shots of today's films? When there are only one, or is it two? scenes of only naked breasts of whores on the beach?

How Hollywoodish is the film that doesn't dwell in impressing the viewer on the superb arms and war technology of those crazy years? How Hollywoodish is it that there are no excessive or overstretch scenes of explosions and no sappy tiring, cliche dialoques about the heroism, the valor, the wisdom of all those involved in that global catastrophe of a war?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Truth has an inscrutable,inexorable way of seeking out and revealing Itself into the Light.

reply