"The most important things are the hardest things to say. They are the things you get ashamed of, because words diminish them-words shrink things that seemed limitless when they were in your head to no more than living size when they're brought out. But it's more than that, isn't it? The most important things lie too close to wherever your secret heart is buried, like landmarks to a treasure your enemies would love to steal away. And you may make revelations that cost you dearly only to have people look at you in a funny way, not understanding what you've said at all, or why you thought it was so important that you almost cried while you were saying it. That's the worst, I think. When the secret stays locked within not for want of a teller but for want of an understanding ear." (Different Seasons by Stephen King, 1982)
“The Body” was written by Stephen King and published in “Different Seasons” in 1982. The lines above stayed with me long after finishing that novella. I think they might be among my favorite lines of all time. Genre fiction has no literary merit? Pfft.
The film inspired by this story was directed by Rob Reiner in 1986. “Stand by Me” is a film that has stayed with me. It was a favorite long before I’d read the book. I mean, I was 6 when the novella came out, so yeah, I didn’t realize until many years later that books inspired many films. When I did finally read Stand by Me’s inspiration, I thought it was a pretty good adaptation, but the focus was different enough that I felt I’d experienced two different stories. So this week’s fiction collision examines “The Body” versus “Stand by Me.” Who did it better; book or film?
The film closely follows King’s novella in terms of action and characters. The novella is written in first person narrative, with the character Gordie LaChance (played by a young Will Wheaton and an adult Richard Dreyfuss in the film) as the narrator. The focus is different though, as I said. The novella is what I’d call a character study of four 12 year old boys and how the transition from child to adolescent changes and slowly eats away at once solid friendships. The film is more about Gordie alone. The boys retain their roles, but Gordie’s character and parts of the story are profoundly altered to make the story revolve around him.
In the film’s opening scenes, we see a middle-aged Gordie sitting along a country road where a dead body was found years before. He’s holding a newspaper; the headline visible is one about the murder of local attorney Chris Chambers. From there, the adult Gordie leads us into the narrative. In both book and film we know where the story will end; with the adult Gordie pondering the sad ending to the hard life of his childhood friend, Chris Chambers.This is important because if events had stayed true to the novella, this scene would have made a huge impact. Sadly, the climax of the story was altered in the film, losing this scene's potential. Point to King.
In King’s version, Gordie older brother, Denny, died in a military accident, and played a distant role in his life. He was so much older than Gordie that they had very little in common. The barely knew each other. In the movie, we’re given flashback scenes, where Denny is portrayed as young Gordie’s hero. The parents pile praise on big brother at the dinner table while Denny tries to divert their attention to his younger brother’s writing. The parents aren’t interested in anything Gordie has done, but the film makes it clear that Denny knows his little brother is talented. This definitely gave some dimension to the character of Denny LaChance, but giving Denny the spotlight pulls away from the original purpose of the story.
Filmmakers also add a scene where Denny gives Gordie his Yankee’s cap before he ships out, and Gordie treasures that cap, which is evident when it is stolen by bullies. LaChance, a quiet, almost timid boy, is willing to fight against the town’s nastiest bully to get that cap back. This strengthens LaChance’s character and sets the story up so that it can center on the changes he experiences in the coming of age story, rather than focusing on the boys as a unit. I think the points go to the film on this one. The viewer is more invested in LaChance and therefore the story because of this shift in focus. Reading the novella, I felt somewhat detached from events. Watching the film, I was part of them. Point to the film.
The trip down the train tracks is almost completely the same in book and film, but the climatic confrontation (as I mentioned) between the boys and the bullies over the dead body of Ray Brower, differs. In this I was disappointed. Remember, I watched the film first. At the time, I thought it seemed weird, and out of character for Gordie to fire a gun. When I read the story, I realized the change and definitely think the original scene by King got it right. In the novella, instead of Gordie drawing the gun, it is Chris Chambers who does it. The change made by filmmakers turns the sullen Gordie into a hard, defiant boy, standing off against his childhood terrorists and scoring a victory for himself and his friends. But it felt empty because while this suited the film’s focus, it overshadowed the importance of Chambers’ fate which they highlighted at the film's opening. Point to King for knowing the importance of such things.
Another change that I’m just going to pull out of left field because it just occurred to me, concerns Gordie’s nightmare. Watching the film, I assumed Gordie's nightmare on that final night was about his brother. Then I read the novella, and realized it was about he and his friends drowning after he’d chatted with Chambers about how your friends can do the same to your future. I think that had far more impact and provoked more thought and emotion than the predictable dream about a dead hero. Just saying.
And I did not forget the scene with the leach on Gordie’s testicle. The film modified this one slightly. In the film it does not show the leach exploding in Gordie's hand, proving it had indeed been sucking on that delicate part of the boy's body. I think that was a wise omission if filmmakers wanted to keep it PG. I still can’t get the mere idea of a leach on one’s testicles out of my head, and I don’t even have testicles. The added knowledge of the explosion…no visuals necessary, but imagine the sheer horror for viewers if they’d filmed that exactly as it was written. Point to King for thoroughly disturbing his readers.
One change made by filmmakers that I think was for the better, was the closing line of the film,
"I never had any friends like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?"
This line occurred about half way through the novella, but it makes a perfect last line.
In the film, adult Gordie tells the viewer how the friends drifted apart as Chambers had predicted they would, and how Chambers made it through high school, college, and law school. In the novella, Chambers was still in college when he died and I don’t recall a clear indication how he met his fate. The film tells us about how the adult lawyer Chris Chambers met his sad end, but it isn’t as poignant as in the novella.
The differences between book and film seem subtle on the surface, but they really do change the entire feeling of this story. The movie is really Gordie's story, while the book tells the story of four boys on a familiar journey. While the focus is very different, they’re both powerful. King wins for knowing how to keep the story true to his characters, but then, the film wins for drawing the reader fully into the story. I think I have to call this fiction collision a tie.
“The Body” was written by Stephen King and published in “Different Seasons” in 1982. The lines above stayed with me long after finishing that novella. I think they might be among my favorite lines of all time. Genre fiction has no literary merit? Pfft.The film inspired by this story was directed by Rob Reiner in 1986. “Stand by Me” is a film that has stayed with me. It was a favorite long before I’d read the book. I mean, I was 6 when the novella came out, so yeah, I didn’t realize until many years later that books inspired many films. When I did finally read Stand by Me’s inspiration, I thought it was a pretty good adaptation, but the focus was different enough that I felt I’d experienced two different stories. So this week’s fiction collision examines “The Body” versus “Stand by Me.” Who did it better; book or film?
The film closely follows King’s novella in terms of action and characters. The novella is written in first person narrative, with the character Gordie LaChance (played by a young Will Wheaton and an adult Richard Dreyfuss in the film) as the narrator. The focus is different though, as I said. The novella is what I’d call a character study of four 12 year old boys and how the transition from child to adolescent changes and slowly eats away at once solid friendships. The film is more about Gordie alone. The boys retain their roles, but Gordie’s character and parts of the story are profoundly altered to make the story revolve around him.
In the film’s opening scenes, we see a middle-aged Gordie sitting along a country road where a dead body was found years before. He’s holding a newspaper; the headline visible is one about the murder of local attorney Chris Chambers. From there, the adult Gordie leads us into the narrative. In both book and film we know where the story will end; with the adult Gordie pondering the sad ending to the hard life of his childhood friend, Chris Chambers.This is important because if events had stayed true to the novella, this scene would have made a huge impact. Sadly, the climax of the story was altered in the film, losing this scene's potential. Point to King.
In King’s version, Gordie older brother, Denny, died in a military accident, and played a distant role in his life. He was so much older than Gordie that they had very little in common. The barely knew each other. In the movie, we’re given flashback scenes, where Denny is portrayed as young Gordie’s hero. The parents pile praise on big brother at the dinner table while Denny tries to divert their attention to his younger brother’s writing. The parents aren’t interested in anything Gordie has done, but the film makes it clear that Denny knows his little brother is talented. This definitely gave some dimension to the character of Denny LaChance, but giving Denny the spotlight pulls away from the original purpose of the story.
Filmmakers also add a scene where Denny gives Gordie his Yankee’s cap before he ships out, and Gordie treasures that cap, which is evident when it is stolen by bullies. LaChance, a quiet, almost timid boy, is willing to fight against the town’s nastiest bully to get that cap back. This strengthens LaChance’s character and sets the story up so that it can center on the changes he experiences in the coming of age story, rather than focusing on the boys as a unit. I think the points go to the film on this one. The viewer is more invested in LaChance and therefore the story because of this shift in focus. Reading the novella, I felt somewhat detached from events. Watching the film, I was part of them. Point to the film.
The trip down the train tracks is almost completely the same in book and film, but the climatic confrontation (as I mentioned) between the boys and the bullies over the dead body of Ray Brower, differs. In this I was disappointed. Remember, I watched the film first. At the time, I thought it seemed weird, and out of character for Gordie to fire a gun. When I read the story, I realized the change and definitely think the original scene by King got it right. In the novella, instead of Gordie drawing the gun, it is Chris Chambers who does it. The change made by filmmakers turns the sullen Gordie into a hard, defiant boy, standing off against his childhood terrorists and scoring a victory for himself and his friends. But it felt empty because while this suited the film’s focus, it overshadowed the importance of Chambers’ fate which they highlighted at the film's opening. Point to King for knowing the importance of such things.
Another change that I’m just going to pull out of left field because it just occurred to me, concerns Gordie’s nightmare. Watching the film, I assumed Gordie's nightmare on that final night was about his brother. Then I read the novella, and realized it was about he and his friends drowning after he’d chatted with Chambers about how your friends can do the same to your future. I think that had far more impact and provoked more thought and emotion than the predictable dream about a dead hero. Just saying.
And I did not forget the scene with the leach on Gordie’s testicle. The film modified this one slightly. In the film it does not show the leach exploding in Gordie's hand, proving it had indeed been sucking on that delicate part of the boy's body. I think that was a wise omission if filmmakers wanted to keep it PG. I still can’t get the mere idea of a leach on one’s testicles out of my head, and I don’t even have testicles. The added knowledge of the explosion…no visuals necessary, but imagine the sheer horror for viewers if they’d filmed that exactly as it was written. Point to King for thoroughly disturbing his readers.
One change made by filmmakers that I think was for the better, was the closing line of the film,
In the film, adult Gordie tells the viewer how the friends drifted apart as Chambers had predicted they would, and how Chambers made it through high school, college, and law school. In the novella, Chambers was still in college when he died and I don’t recall a clear indication how he met his fate. The film tells us about how the adult lawyer Chris Chambers met his sad end, but it isn’t as poignant as in the novella.
The differences between book and film seem subtle on the surface, but they really do change the entire feeling of this story. The movie is really Gordie's story, while the book tells the story of four boys on a familiar journey. While the focus is very different, they’re both powerful. King wins for knowing how to keep the story true to his characters, but then, the film wins for drawing the reader fully into the story. I think I have to call this fiction collision a tie.