I remember reading, when this film was released, that the writer on whose novel it was based, Louis Begley, thought the screen adaptation was a good job.
Either Mr. Begley had been paid extraordinarily well for the rights to his book, or he was just lying.
It's not that this is a bad film. Not at all! It's quite well-done. But any resemblance between this film and the novel on which it was based is coincidental.
Mr. Begley really ought to be permitted to sell screen rights to his book a second time -- the story he penned has never been made into a movie!
The tone, the social class of the characters depicted, the relationships among the characters -- all are vastly different in book and film.
To me, the best adaptations are those that the viewer finds recognizable -- familiar -- rewarding because of some proximity between one's separate experiences as reader and as film-goer.
But "About Schmidt" was not about Schmidt. It was about some other guy. An interesting guy; funny guy. A guy that poignant things happened to. But not Schmidt.
Either Mr. Begley had been paid extraordinarily well for the rights to his book, or he was just lying.
It's not that this is a bad film. Not at all! It's quite well-done. But any resemblance between this film and the novel on which it was based is coincidental.
Mr. Begley really ought to be permitted to sell screen rights to his book a second time -- the story he penned has never been made into a movie!
The tone, the social class of the characters depicted, the relationships among the characters -- all are vastly different in book and film.
To me, the best adaptations are those that the viewer finds recognizable -- familiar -- rewarding because of some proximity between one's separate experiences as reader and as film-goer.
But "About Schmidt" was not about Schmidt. It was about some other guy. An interesting guy; funny guy. A guy that poignant things happened to. But not Schmidt.