sfear
01-31-2009, 06:49 PM
I saw the film adaptation in the theatre back in 1963. I was nine years old, too young really to have read the book, and it ejected the dejecta out of me. It was and still is upon rewatching a stunning piece of film, the definitive haunted house story, perhaps the scariest movie ever made, and now the book had the unenviable task of being compared to the Hollywood masterpiece instead of the traditional other way around.
The differences are few but noticeable and a little distracting. I had to keep reminding myself the book came first, it was the movie that initiated change: an additional character not in the film, the doctor's wife with a yen for planchette, the doctor himself with a full beard though I kept seeing him with only a moustache. The book's several outdoor scenes were mostly slashed from the film probably intensifying it's claustrophobic atmosfear.
But Jackson's stable elevation of terror with a most unexpected shot of surrealism in the bulging parlor door manifestation aced the film's brilliant portrayal, showing the creator is still the master and wise is the servant who doesn't escape the leash only to gain artistic wasteland.
The differences are few but noticeable and a little distracting. I had to keep reminding myself the book came first, it was the movie that initiated change: an additional character not in the film, the doctor's wife with a yen for planchette, the doctor himself with a full beard though I kept seeing him with only a moustache. The book's several outdoor scenes were mostly slashed from the film probably intensifying it's claustrophobic atmosfear.
But Jackson's stable elevation of terror with a most unexpected shot of surrealism in the bulging parlor door manifestation aced the film's brilliant portrayal, showing the creator is still the master and wise is the servant who doesn't escape the leash only to gain artistic wasteland.