I
found that book, and I read it between this post and my last - a
fascinating experience. It's really not bad at all: the dialogue
is a little overwritten, perhaps, but Janeway brings emotion and
intelligence to the material, and lots of the good dialogue in the
movie is from the novel.
Still, I wound up
maintaining respect for Hertz's adaptation.The
novel starts with a story quite similar to the movie's,
but the two works diverge completely.The
book is explicitly a chronicle of the beginning of the
war in the US, covering about the same period of history as They
Were Expendable, but on the home front instead of in the Pacific.
Obviously someone decided to keep the parts of the novel that could
become a Joan Crawford vehicle, and scrap everything else: Janeway
would have had every right to be furious at how Hollywood ran roughshod
over her careful intertwining of the romance novel and the social
chronicle.
In the movie,
Peter Lapham starts out as a veteran in uniform; in the book, he
enlists before being drafted, and for much of the story he is
a remote figure being shuttled from one training camp to another.Dan O'Mara's involvement with the court
case of the Nisei whose land was stolen is a similar
attempt to update the material: in the novel, Dan's big
project was trying to get the Army to begin production on a plane engine that he was convinced would help win the war.The novel puts great emphasis
on Dan's machinations in Washington and his knowledge of
how complicated political-economic machinery works.
There are also
differences in censorship, or self-censorship.People
sleep together more naturally in 1945 novels than in 1947
movies.Dan's attempted assault on Daisy
in the movie is a consummated rape in the book.And
Janeway avoids what I consider the movie's primary defect, its
capitulation to Hollywood family values in Daisy's final lecture to Dan
about how leaving his marriage is running away from responsibility.
But the biggest
differences between novel and film have to do with the
love triangle.Daisy's two loves are
pretty much kept separate in the novel: they represent a
choice she has to make, and the novel is more or less
about the way that two important love relationships coexist in
Daisy's mind, and how her choice is less about renunciation than about where in her psyche these two great loves should hold dominion.Peter is caught in the
machinery of war halfway through the book, and he and
Dan meet only once, I believe, at the very beginning of the story.All the interplay between Dan
and Peter in the movie, all the maneuvers for advantage
with Daisy, all the "modern combat tactics" which are the
most important part of the film for me: these are all creations of the filmmakers.Indeed, the unusual
character of Peter in the movie, though inspired by a
few hints in the book, is basically an original creation.
In short, what's
striking here is not how well the novel was adapted - in fact, it was
trashed, rather contemptuously - but how well Hertz and Preminger were
able to improvise a new movie from the wreckage, and how
thematically coherent that new movie would turn out.The movie is more or less a fantasia inspired by
a few suggestions in the novel.
This post is
already too long, but let me add a note about the objectivity and
ambiguity that many critics attribute to Preminger. These ideas
have some basis, but they've been exaggerated by Preminger's admirers
to the point where they stand in the way of good Preminger criticism.Nearly every Preminger movie contains
characters (like Lucille's father in DAISY) who are plainly created to
be on the wrong side of the audience's sympathies.
I prefer to think
about Preminger in terms of things he connects and keeps
together, things that classical Griffith-derived decoupage would normally separate for dramatic clarity.So
there is often a tension in Preminger between opposition
(which is our natural way to make sense of a drama) and
unity (which Preminger forces upon us).One
registersthis tension in
those tracking shots, which slide smoothly from one forced
foreground-background opposition to another across rooms, characters,
changes of mood.And it comes across
clearly in moments of small and large upheaval, like Peter's first
disconcerting "I love you," filmed without the mandatory reverse shot
or the almost-mandatory cut to a closer shot.Sometimes
Preminger will go the opposite route, and create a stylistic shift so
great that it makes a separation in the storytelling.A beautiful example of this is the very
Premingerian aftermath of Daisy's car crash, where
frantic cross-cutting, close-ups, and loud music all
fall away at once, and we're left with silence, the
palpable feeling of snowy nature, a slow track in from long shot, and the first stirrings of life among the wreckage.