புலம்பல்கள் - PULAMBALGAL
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Yes, the major hurdle is to tell the whole story in 1.30 hours. So a slight deviation is inevitable.But what is the point when the movie deviates a lot from the original plot, so it looks like a different story altogether? How is it justified?
For eg, i recently watched The Rainmaker by Jhon Grisham. The novel was very well written and the plot was really good. But the movie deviated so much from the original book, that it was frustrating to the point where i lost interest in the movie half way through.In the book, Rudy Baylor, works the jury towards his side, by proving Great benefit lied to the jury and his client. Also, phase by phase, Rudy makes a strong case by proving each of the lies of Great benefit and catching them red handed in the act. No where during the trial Drummond has an upper hand. It was always Rudy Baylor's show. It also makes sense why the Jury awarded $50 mill in punitive damages if you read the book.
In the movie, it seems, Rudy doesnt have control over the case in the courtroom. He is repeatedly snubbed by Tyrone Kipler and Drummond seems to have the upper hand till CEO Keeley sits in teh witness chair. And suddenly the Jury awards $50mill to Dot black. If i were in the Jury, i certainly would not have awarded such a big verdict if Rudy baylor argued, as in the movie. May be against GB, but certainly not such a big verdict. The trial was a farce.
Also, in the movie, it is showm Rudy baylor got claims manual from Jackie Lemancyzk (stolen). In the book, it will be provided by GB, during inventry discovery. And i felt, Everett Lufkin lying to the Jury is the critical junction where the Jury are more or less decided on giving the verdict against GB. The movie not only screwed up the plot but showed the very likeable Rudy Baylor in very bad light while using stolen documents.
May be, instead of cribbing too much about these, i should avoid watching movies, if i have already read the book. :).