Should film adaptations remain loyal to books they’re based on? Readers discuss

Young woman in a yellow jumper with a red book in front of her face. Only her eyes are visible. She has dark hair and there is a bookcase behind her.
Readers discuss the ethics of film adaptations, the number of cars on UK roads and whether Halloween is something to celebrate (Picture: Getty Images)

Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments

This reader sees no problem with films that deviate from their inspirations

Peter Foreman (MetroTalk, Tue) complains that director Guillermo Del Toro has taken too many liberties with his film adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.

I haven’t seen the film yet and even though I’m no fan of this director’s obsession over the past 20 years with rehashing old stories or creating mash-up homages, I couldn’t complain if his version deviates from Shelley’s novel.

Films have often taken liberties with novels when adapting them for the screen. That doesn’t make them bad movies. The important thing is whether they succeed in being visually compelling and entertaining.

Frankenstein: The True Story from 1973 takes Shelley’s story as an inspiration then often veers away from it in imaginative directions. But the emotion, tragedy and power of the novel are transposed to the screen brilliantly.

My favourite film, Vertigo, is based on a French novel and, quite frankly, that book is so dull it’s almost atrocious. Alfred Hitchcock and his writers did a magnificent job of adapting it, usingonly about 20 per cent of what is actually in the book.

I could cite many other examples where a film adaptation has become a magnificent piece of cinema often because it risked being widely different from the book. In many cases that approach was justified.

Shelley’s book will always be there to read. Don’t think that the purpose of cinema is to imitate literature – they are two disparate art forms. William Barklam, Erith

Do people actually know the difference between Frankenstein, and Frankenstein’s monster?

Following on from Peter’s comments about the new Frankenstein film.

As time appears to erode history,
I was wondering if we were to take a survey of one hundred people now, how many would answer correctly that the beast’s creator is ‘Frankenstein’ and not the monster itself?

To my mind the monster will always be defined by Boris Karloff’s version. And does anyone else remember the You’ll Die Laughing bubblegum cards from the 1970s, which I was deeply fascinated by
as a kid?

Boris pops up on these on a number of occasions, I think. Dec, Essex

ITALY-CINEMA-VENICE-FILM-FESTIVAL-MOSTRA
This reader says many wouldn’t know that Frankenstein is actually the monster’s creator, not the monster himself (Picture: Getty Images)

Number of naval crafts ‘lost in the summer of 1940 is hard to establish’, reader points out

Got a question about UK politics?

Send in yours and Metro’s Senior Politics Reporter Craig Munro will answer it in an upcoming edition of our weekly politics newsletter. Email alrightgov@metro.co.uk or submit your question here.

Your daily Today In History column is always interesting, thank you.

On Friday, you recorded that, in the Battle of Britain, the RAF lost 915 aircraft.

It is often forgotten, and seldom corrected by an RAF too often seeking glory, that 57 naval aviators from both the Royal Navy and Royal Marines flew in the Battle of Britain – a few no more senior rank than midshipman.

The badges of 804 Naval Air Squadron and 808 Naval Air Squadron are on the memorial on London’s Victoria Embankment. Exactly how many naval aircraft were lost in the summer of 1940 is hard to establish but not all returned to our shores safely. Lester May, Camden Town

Reader questions legitimacy of Peter Hegseth’s claims on ‘drug smugglers’ killed in the Carribean

Regarding those who US defence secretary Pete Hegseth described as ‘drug smugglers’ from an ‘unnamed designated terrorist group’ and were killed in a US military strike on a boat in the Caribbean.

Democrats have demanded proof the attacks are legal (Metro, Mon). These massacres of human beings are a disgrace to humanity and to date no evidence has been produced by the US to show that those murdered are guilty.

Indeed, who makes them judge and jury over the guilt or innocence of these defenceless people?
Nzingha Assata, via email

On number of cars on roads, reader says ‘today’s situation is a price of progress’

Beijing Urban Transportation ,China
This reader says traffic jams are an inevitability (Picture: Getty Images)

While I agree that there are too many cars on the road, Roy’s claim (MetroTalk, Mon) that ‘compared with the 1960s there are too many of us motorists’ is debatable.

Many of today’s infrastructure problems stem from attitudes and decisions taken during that decade. In 1960, 28 per cent of British households owned a car, which rose to 45 per cent by 1969, the appeal unquestionably heightened by motorway constructions from 1959.

Under to the 1963 Beeching Report, 2,363 railway stations were closed and 5,000 miles of track abandoned, while the number of vehicles registered on British roadways increased by around four million from 1964 to 1968.

Many coastal roads suffered peak congestion in the 1960s and Swindon, for example, was a bottleneck until the M4 fully opened in 1971. Today’s situation is a price of progress. Robert Hughes, London

This reader calls for an end to the ‘repellent festival of Halloween’

I am sure many of us are relieved it is now November and the repellent festival of Halloween has passed by.

Others will be dealing with terrified children whose homes have had aggressive knocking on their door and householders whose homes and cars have had eggs and other things thrown at them.

Why we have encouraged trick-or-treating I cannot imagine. As well as leading children to think that issuing threats to get ‘treats’ is OK, the imagery of death can be distressing at any age.

It is time that this came to an end and was not encouraged by shops and TV.
 Quentin, Kent

Reader defends dog owners calling out those setting off fireworks

Girl watching a firework display
This reader says people who disregard pet owners firework-related concerns ‘know nothing’ about animals (Picture: Getty Images)

People who mock dogs’ carers for complaining about the prolonged, noisy fireworks scaring their pets don’t know anything about pets. The noise of fireworks to animals’ sensitive ears is like hearing bomb explosions. Very scary.

It’s like people having to listen to drone attacks, bomb explosions or even nuclear explosions every night.

Animals can even hear other animals walking on the public pavement, past their closed windows, hence their barking. Gordon, Birmingham

Do you agree with our readers? Have your say on these MetroTalk topics and more in the comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *