I have seen a lot of movies and had to compare them to their books many times, but the comparison between the two versions of The Reluctant Fundamentalist is unlike any other comparison I have tried to make before.
There are so many obvious differences between the style of the book and the style of the film. For me, the book seemed to almost take on a creepy, horror type of feeling. I almost felt trapped by just hearing one person's perspective on such complicated and intense situations (Changez's romance with Erica, the situation in the Middle East, September 11, etc.). I found myself being completely understanding of Changez's point of view and opinion on everything, until the end of the book that is. The last two chapters of this book had me sitting up and speeding through the pages, just to find out who was the good guy and who was the bad guy in this situation. Could it be Changez or the man to whom he was speaking in the tea shop? The cliffhanger ending left a feeling in me that I really only get from horror books and films, even though this is not that type of book.
The movie, however, was a completely different situation. The author of this book, Moshin Hamid, also wrote the screen story for the movie and after comparing the two it almost feels as though Hamid had nothing to do with the movie at all. The movie felt to me, very typical of Hollywood. It incorporated action, suspense, romance...all the things you come to expect from a blockbuster film. The ending changed completely so that there was some sort of resolution, and a much less scary, and in some cases, happier one at that. Throughout the film, we receive all different points of view. I found it much harder to take one character's side, or really trust any of them at all.
My overall feeling on The Reluctant Fundamentalist? The book is a must-read. The themes, writing style, and general feelings you can realize from this novel are things that the movie is severely lacking. It makes me wonder what the intention was behind the screenplay and why Hamid would consider making the changes he made in the movie from the book.
I think your comparison on both the film and book is very accurate. That one is a bit too much Hollywood while the other is pure gold. And it is almost a shame to watch how many corners were cut in the film, because it took so much away from the book. On the idea though of him writing both the screenplay and book I am, in the end, happy they were different. They made you walk away with two different feelings and I think it is what the author was trying to get across. That or perhaps he was hoping that once people saw the movie it would make them want to read the book (like most Americans do) which is a brilliant strategy to hook you with the film, and then show you the book.
ReplyDelete