Film vs Book #2

A Good Year (2004 - book, 2006 - film)

Book By: Peter Mayle Film Directed By: Ridley Scott Starring: Russell Crowe, Albert Finney, Marion Cotillard, Tom Hollander, Freddie Highmore, Abbie Cornish, Didier Bourdon, Isabelle Candelier, Archie Panjabi, Valeria Bruni Tedeschi

Certificate: PG Length: 118 Minutes / 245 pages

Tagline: "Everything matures... eventually" (both film and book)

This might seem like a slightly strange choice for inclusion in this feature, especially so early, but the film has long been one of my favourites despite getting a bit of a critical roasting, and it actually has comparable beginnings to Contact, the first film/book in this series of posts. The story is set in Provence in southeastern France where director Ridley Scott owns a property and had long wanted to make a film. He turned to author Peter Mayle, an acquaintance who had written several books set in the region, but Mayle didn't want to write the screenplay for Scott. He did, however, think Scott's ideas had the makings of a good book, so they agreed that he would write the book and Scott would secure the film rights and produce an adaptation henceforth. I'm not sure how successful the book was but sadly the film didn't do especially well, even with some talented names in the cast list, and is now considered a box office bomb.

Oh well, least its lack of success didn't mean I missed it, for I enjoyed it the first time I watched it and it has gone on to be one of those films I watch over and over. It's hard to say why I like it so much though, really. It has some memorable characters, a nice soundtrack, and a vast majority of it is shot in beautiful locations, but there isn't really much to it. I can imagine some people watching it and continually asking themselves when something is actually going to happen!

I think that is part of the appeal for me though. We don't always want complex narratives to untangle or pulse-quickening chills and thrills. Sometimes we just want to relax and lose ourselves in a world that represents, to me at least, the good life. An easy life free of toil and stress. Attractive people in attractive locales. For me, that might well look a lot like what Max Skinner (Crowe) stumbles on to here, particularly the film version of Max. He was already wealthy and successful, so probably could've had any kind of life he wanted anyway, but that doesn't take anything away from how appealing his life in France is. Anyway, enough with trying to put my appreciation of this film into (probably inadequate) words. Let's see how the film I've watched dozens of times differs from its source material.

The Film (with spoilers):

Max Skinner is a charming but arrogant stocks trader in London. I'm not sure what his job title is but he's apparently a senior trader in charge of a whole floor of lesser traders (or 'lab rats', as he calls them) who do his bidding, making their company a tremendous amount of money in the process. He's a typical workaholic; he doesn't do weekends, much less holidays. Suffice to say, he's very successful and accordingly also fabulously wealthy, living in an amazing apartment, eating in fine restaurants, and contending with a constant stream of hotties vying for his attention.

He wasn't always this way, though. As we are shown through a series of flashbacks, including one that opens the film, the orphaned Max spent his summers with his Uncle Henry (Finney) at his château in south-east France learning about the finer things in life. Okay, the younger Max (Highmore) was still a bit of a dick, and as we learn from the older Max when he discovers his dear uncle has passed away, it has been many years since they even spoke, much less saw each other. Nonetheless, all that was Henry's now belongs to Max, including La Siroque - the huge house, surrounding gardens, pool, tennis court, and entire vineyard. Naturally, he shows little interest in mourning, instead focusing on how much money he can get by selling it all, with the help of his best friend Charlie (Hollander), an upmarket estate agent.

After his latest stock market tomfoolery lands him in trouble, he decides to spend his suspension in Provence fixing up the sightly shabby house and estate in order to get maximum bucks for it. This brings him into conflict with Duflot (Bourdon), the gruff, long-time vigneron who tells Max that Henry meant for him to have La Siroque, not sell it. Henry knew what kind of person Max had become, you see, and presumably hoped some time at his treasured childhood holiday home might prompt some sort of reevaluation of his priorities. Or something. But alas...

During his time in Provence, Max encounters and is immediately infatuated with Fanny (Cotillard), a local restaurateur he accidentally ran off the road. Naturally, she isn't best pleased about this and has supposedly sworn off men anyway, but Max pursues her regardless. It isn't long before a rather more problematic female arrives on the scene in the lovely form of token American, Christie (Cornish), who is backpacking across Europe and wanted to meet the father she has never known, who was, according to her, Henry. This throws a bit a spanner in the works as Max may no longer be the rightful heir - something pointed out to him by notaire Nathalie Auzet (Tedeschi). Max's solution? Sell the place quickly before anyone finds out! It's a plan he ropes Duflot into too, on the condition that he persuades the new owners to keep the ageing vigneron in his much-valued position.

Charlie eventually shows up to view La Siroque and help finalise the sale, and he takes an immediate liking to Christie, perhaps coincidentally after seeing her arse, but aside from a vague sub-plot concerning a mysterious 'garage' wine found on the property, that's about it as far as the story goes. For the most part it's pretty people swanning about their mostly-idyllic surroundings without much of a care in the world. Naturally, the prospect of such a lifestyle full-time eventually wins Max over and he stays there with Christie helping Duflot to run the place while he frolics about the place with Fanny who turns out to be less frosty than she first seemed.

The Book (with spoilers):

It becomes clear pretty much straight away that a number of important details were changed for the film. For example, in this original story, Max is a banker/trader, but he's far from the high-flying fat cat in charge of lots of traders we see at the start of the film. Here's, he's one of the grunts working in a cubicle, largely unsuccessfully, and when he does get a promising lead, his boss steals it for himself and fires Max! Shortly after this, while worrying about what he's going to next, he receives the sad news about Uncle Henry, and promptly scoots off to the south of France.

Of course, given his newly jobless status, as well as residence in the notoriously expensive London, he heads south with the full intention of staying there. Once there, much of his time is simply spent lazing around as he adjusts to his new life. He spends much more time with notaire, Nathalie Auzet, than he does in the film, and it's even implied he hooks up with her, and Fanny is much more open to the prospect of naked activities than the film version too. Having said that, film Fanny was pretty easy in the end, but at least she made Max work for it. In any case, let's hope she still looks like Marion Cotillard here - tee hee! Someone else who is made to work less for rumpy pumpy here is Charlie. He immediately has the hots for Christie in the film but it doesn't seem like she grants him access to her underwear region. Here, she does. Quite easily, as it turns out. Lucky old Charlie!

There is female interaction aplenty here then, but aside from that, and without all the stuff about fixing up and selling La Siroque, what is the main story? Well, there isn't much of one really, if I'm honest. Even less so than the film, in fact, but after a while the main focus becomes 'Le Coin Perdu', that mysterious garage wine that gets a brief mention in the film. Here, Christie, Charlie and Max decide to investigate it, look into the people selling it, and try to muscle in on the considerable profits they are making while doing so, which provides a bit of intrigue. But for the most part, things are just as laid back here as the film. Only not as pretty, obviously.

But Which is Best?

And that's pretty much exactly what prompts me to again side with the film over the book. I'm confident it won't always be the case, but when a story takes place in beautiful locations, everyone but stubborn moles will prefer the version that actually shows you those locations! And indeed, unless you have an odd idea of beauty, you will very likely agree that the rural locations in the south of France used here, as well as the quaint, traditional villages we see, are the very definition of beauty.

But what if you reserve use of that word for describing people? Well, don't worry - there are some of those here too, again exclusive to the film interpretation of the story! I did enjoy reading the book. It's hardly a gripping page-turner so it took me a while to get through, I must admit, but I did enjoy it. The inescapable fact is, however, that it lacks most of the things that I enjoy watching and rewatching the film for. I suppose I don't really need to say much more than that. I realise it's a film I enjoy more than most people and I'm not good at explaining why. The fact that it depicts a kind of lifestyle I dream of but will almost certainly never experience should make it frustrating for me to watch, surely? Logically, yes, but I still very much enjoy it every time I watch it. Peter Mayle's writing style is enjoyable but it just made me want to watch the film again rather than getting me lost in his world.

That's often what happens when you watch the film before reading the book I guess, but I really don't enjoy doing it the other way around. The next post in this series will at least be a more well-known example. In fact, I'd say everyone who sees the post (if anyone) will have seen the film in question, and almost all will like it, even love it, but I bet very few will have read the book, or even know there is one.