Andy Weir made me tear up with relief.  He also got me through New Mexico.  I recently took a cross-continent road trip with my wife.  After twelve days of travel, we now live in Austin.  Road trips normally grind down my patience till I am a sullen bear of a husband.  Mark Watney’s struggles to stay alive and travel 3200 km on Mars made all of my travel woes insignificant.  Technically I traveled farther, but I never ran out of ketchup.  I’ll start with the book.

I listened to this book as an audio book.  The reader for the Audible version was fantastic.  R.C. Bray commands so many different accents and characters.  But, Bray’s interpretation of the characters taints my view of each character.  The story itself is stressful and exhausting.  People with a heart condition should allow for breaks to relieve built up stress.  There were several times that I fist pumped when one of the several likable characters succeeded in the face of death by implosion, fire, jettison, starvation, explosion, infection, etc.  Weir’s story is simple.  One guy versus one planet.  The only criticism I would have of the story is that the human administrative drama of how to reveal details about Watney’s survival is unnecessary and distracting.  Weir devotes story space to use white collar drama to spell out “Astronauts have to be brave” whenever there is an astronaut on a deserted planet actually being brave.  This space could have been devoted to more buddy-scenes or communication between Watney and the crew or even provide a more fleshed out epilogue.  The plot ends abruptly with Watney, a character who has spelled out every step he will take every hour, not answering the question, “How will I survive now?”  The closing message of “Humanity bands together” is a very surprising Star Trekian theme out of a book that I thought would be Castaway in space.

Speaking of Castaway, I knew that Ridley Scott’s 2015 film would have to maroon lots of content and have more straightforward plot structure than the book.  Overall the plot choices and big decision to follow fairly linear plot progression were perfect.  Matt Damon’s performance was good, but I felt that he brought too much self-doubt to Watney – except for the space rescue scene, which was probably not Damon’s call, but it was so fun.  Watney’s cockiness and humor is his main defense mechanism in the novel; whereas, Damon’s Watney is more well adjusted and survives by connecting to his crew.  This hurts the basic story of one guy versus one planet.  The main plot difference in the film pertains to Watney’s ability to stay connected to earth and his team.  This would have played into the theme of “Humanity bands together” if the movie’s extended epilogue went that direction; however, the closing theme of the movie is “Pioneers are going to pioneer.  Try hard.”  I laughed harder at the Council of Elrond scene more than I ever have at any fourth-wall awareness in any film.  Sean Bean blew my mind.

So which is better?  Weir’s novel is a wonderful suspense filled survival story.  Ridley’s film is better than any popcorn level teamwork film.  However, both stories are supposed to be about survival.  Survival stories are most compelling when you aren’t sure if the characters will survive.  Weir never lets the reader take Watney’s survival for granted. Ridley’s montage filled adaptation skimps on loneliness and desperation.  The novel wins. Also, you should watch your back around Boromir.

Laura Hillenbrand’s 2010 “Unbroken” is my favorite non-fiction novelization.  Laura didn’t invent the story, but she did craft the context.  You begin Louis Zamperini’s story knowing it will be a war novel.  People will die. There will be pain and a glorification of brother in arms.  However, the novelization rides the swells of Louis’ life to become much more than a war story.  The message is more than, “War sucks,” but “Life sucks, and there is redemption.”  Also, Laura doesn’t frame the story as “these hardships prepared Louis for being a POW.” This focus-on-the-present biography was critical for me identifying with Louis.  I knew going into the novel that I would respect Louis for his story of survival, but Hillenbrand’s determination to tell each stage of Louis’ life as if it were the most important moment lets you grow up with Louis and root for him as a boy, as a teenager, as an Olympian, as bombardier, etc.

Angelina Jolie’s 2014 film “Unbroken” made me cry when it was supposed to and it masterfully disoriented me.  At first, I was upset that Jolie or the Coens decided to open the movie in a rickety B-24.  I asked myself, “Does everything have to be Tarantino-ed.”  I loved the novel because every aspect of Louis’ life mattered.  But, the choppy story telling grew on me because it stopped me from anticipating the novelization.  One of the most disappointing things for thriller or action dependent Book/Movies is that when you have heard the story once you keep waiting for the boogeyman.  You start the movie asking yourself, “How will they show Dumbledore’s death?” Jolie’s reorganized plot actually put me back in the story, and I went into the “beheading scene” terrified with the thought, “Wait, does Phil actually die?”  And yes, I cried at two points.  When Louis’ family listens to the broadcast of his record breaking lap and when his family hears POW Louis’ broadcast, I cried for my momma.  It is pretty awesome that the emotional effects of a non-visual medium affected me so much on film.  I was crying at a movie of people crying at the radio.

So, which is better?  Hillenbrand wins because she tells Louis’ story to the point of redemption.  Jolie had the story setup for a battle between Louis’ darkness and light.  The message is actually preached, but this theme is never picked back up.  The climax of the film is Louis persevering and defying the Bird.  It is an inspiring story, but Louis’ story is more than Braveheart.  I know Jolie and Hollywood won’t get as loose with Louis’ faith as Hillenbrand was, but Louis’ life can be secularly stated.  Louis’ discovers that perseverance keeps you alive through a war, but he learns that forgiveness and redemption makes you human on the other side.  I don’t want to be too hard on the film.  Movies are usually about one thing, one enemy.  I don’t know how I would have fit it in, but in a film filled with flash forwards and backs, some scene could have added emotional weight to what Louis experienced after the war.  The heartwarming scene of him running in Japan is cool, but it only adds to the “Most Interesting Man in The World” mystique.  Louis battled demons that are very relevant to a society stressed out by war.

Here’s my final take.  Louis’ story is so good in any medium.  It could be a coloring book and still be a great story.  The movie doesn’t give treatment to the whole character arc.  Do yourself a favor and read the rest of the story.

When I think about the narration in Gillian Flynn’s 2012 thriller novel “Gone Girl”, I float off into a trance.  I have to pull myself back to reality.  The story is narration, narration that I enjoy way too much.  There are action scenes, but the real thrill is waiting on the thoughts coming from our twisted protagonists,  Nick and Amy.  Or, are they antagonists?  I must confess, I find the horrifically clean ending to be a guilty pleasure.  But, maybe I am morally superior to the characters. They hate their final situation because they want out.  I love their final situation because it displays how matrimony can jarringly turn on its head.  Any reader says, “My marriage isn’t that bad.”  But, the real terror in this mystery story is that any untended marriage could could end like the Dunne’s.  There is one crack in this thriller’s iron-clad plot.  In the brown house scene, why didn’t the cops ever trace the phone number the alarm call was made to?

David Fincher’s film adaptation of “Gone Girl” perfectly tells the story .  Rosamund Pike’s smile in the ER is Anthony-Hopkin-level creepiness.  Like many film adaptations, the characters where distilled to one characteristic.  Nick is blundering.  I wish Fincher had distilled Nick down to menacing, but Affleck would not have fit the part.  Amy’s parents are snobs.  Gosh is betrayed.  Detective Boney is suspicious.  Unfortunately, the film did not have time to flesh out the overt feminist subtext of the novel.  We only hear Nick’s father cursing women.  We don’t hear Nick’s inner turmoil and guilt over how he himself views women.  The biggest blunder of the film was casting Neil Patrick Harris as Desi.  He does a decent job of being creepy until the line, “Octopus and scrabble?”  From then on his character comes off as pitiable instead of loath-able.

I am torn on whether I enjoy the book or the film more.  The trouble is the story transcends the medium.  Nick and Amy’s train wreck of a relationship would be jaw dropping if it was portrayed with balloon animals.  The book fills in more of the details of the how and why. “He did that to her!?  She did that to him?!”  However the film dishes out the plot faster.  There is something impressive about watching things get that twisted in under three hours.  In the end, I side with the novel.  It came first.  It has hall of fame level narration.  It is amazing.