5 Film Adaptations of Literary Classics to Watch

2004's film "Phantom of the Opera", starring Gerard Butler, was an indirect adaptation of the French novel Le Fantome de Opera by Gaston Leroux. While I have not read the book, I have happened to watch a few films that are based on Classic literature that I have read. So, today, I have decided to list a few films adapted on screen from Literary Classics.

1. Romeo+Juliet: This 1996 film starring Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Danes in the titular roles is the modern-day spin-off of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. A visually captivating romantic tale of a couple of teenagers whose families are sadly involved in a continuous mafia feud. Nothing can weaken their bond, and no conspiracy can tear them apart. The story's backdrop remains unchanged; however, the presentation is modern and artistically aesthetic. Interestingly, some of the dialogues and monologues in the play were used by director Baz Luhrmann. Luhrmann's films have always made a mark in the viewer's mind as a carnival-like experience, with celebrations and grandeur. From Moulin Rouge to The Great Gatsby, every movie is a grand celebration of human emotions. Frankly speaking, when I watched the film for the first time, I was too young to appreciate this kind of representation, but when I watched it years later, I found out why it is a beautiful adaptation.

2. The Count of Monte Cristo: I know many films are made on Alexander Dumas'famous novel. However, the only one that I have watched is the 2002 version, directed by Kevin Reynolds. The film has some really memorable scenes - mostly the confrontations between Dantes and Montego. The silent yet loyal bond between Dantes and Jacopo has been presented convincingly. The filmmaker has effectively used the final confrontation of Dantes and Montego in the bath. It is a well-made revenge thriller that thoroughly entertains viewers.

3. Victor Frankenstein: I wanted to watch a film based on Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. After searching and researching a gazillion on-screen adaptations, starting from the 30s, I zeroed it down to the 2015 movie directed by Paul McGuigan. However, while I wanted to watch it, I accidentally started watching another film called " I, Frankenstein". It has been a torturous experience throughout the runtime. It hurts deeply when a heart-wrenching, excellent novel about an eccentric scientist and his creation is presented as an aftermath where the monster turns into a protector/mediator ( exactly did not get what) trying to save humanity from Demons by helping out Gargoyles. Whooosh, real-world of heebie-jeebies.!! No offence to the actor Aaron Eckhart ( he has been part of some brilliant projects like Black Dahlia and The Dark Knight), but when you want to watch a film that has James McAvoy and Daniel Radcliffe, you will be highly disappointed with " I, Frankenstein." But, the good thing is, after a couple of weeks of this traumatic event, I managed to watch the actual, Victor Frankenstein film. And it is such a unique representation of the novel that you can't help but applaud it, primarily due to the compelling performances of the lead actors. A hunchback, who is gifted with excellent medical abilities, is unfortunate enough to work as a mere joker at a local circus; he is underpaid, mal-nourished and treated very poorly by his employer and other workers. Only a genius can identify another genius, and here comes Dr. Victor Frankenstein, an eccentric and brilliant scientist, who rescues the hunchback, gets rid of his hunch, and gives him a new life and a new name by making him his partner. Together, they manage to create a living being. The message conveyed by the story is simple, nothing can surpass the original creation. Instead of creating a new life, we can only improve the existing one. So, when his experiment fails in the end, Frankenstein accepts that transforming the hunchback's miserable life into a respectable human being Igor's life is his most significant creation. Daniel Radcliffe, as Igor, is perfect in his portrayal of a man treated worse than an animal throughout his life but slowly, with nervousness and much caution, turns himself into a man of substance. James Mccovoy's impish grin is highly addictive, and so is his performance as the insanely brilliant scientist whose only focus is his creation, which turns him selfish and borderline evil, hiding a loving and caring individual within. The ending of the film also gives optimistic hope to the viewers. 

4. The Personal History of David Copperfield: We have all grown up reading Charles Dickens's David Copperfield. The story of the very loveable and kind David has become close to the readers' hearts. A story being told from his viewpoint, almost like a fantasy, is what this 2019 movie is about. Dev Patel as David is excellent. He skillfully reveals the innocence and kindness that David's character is known for. One of the most interesting things about the film is that no one other than David seems to age in the movie. Perhaps it is to show that their memories are as fresh as ever in David's mind.  The modest life of the fisherman family inside a turned-up boat and the poor living conditions of London back then, in contrast to the pompous parties thrown by the rich, is quite striking. David is kind and intelligent. He does not forget anyone who has been kind to him and shows his gratitude to them till the end. He is good with the good and bad with the bad. He is a survivor and a winner. The movie has a fairy-tale-like feel that makes one smile at the end. There are some small but significant performances by Tilda Swinton, Hugh Laurie and Peter Capaldi.

5. The Secret Garden: As a kid, I had never read Frances Barnet's novel Secret Garden, and I only read it recently from my daughter's book collection. I watched the 2020 British drama adaptation recently. It is a noble attempt. The initial tragic events that Mary had to endure were heartbreaking to watch. Some dream-like sequences in the movie are enjoyable, especially the kids' adventures in the secret garden. However, I found a lack of connectivity and continuity in the sequences. Whether it is a deliberate choice of the director, Mark Munden, or whether the editing could have been improved is debatable. But the almost 2 hours runtime seems too stretched sometimes. 

The views and expressions of the post are my own. For technical details, I have taken references from Wikipedia.