´óÏó´«Ã½

The film of Trainspotting was better than the book, surely?. While the book was rambling and incoherant, albeit with some phenomal passages and rants, the film was a well-rounded whole that worked on almost every level.

I think there are some great books which would benefit from being made into films - especially thrillers, because the director can build up the tension and have people "on the edge of their seats".
However, I think that directors often take too many liberties with the text. I recently went to see "Prince Caspian" and it was more like "Lord of the Rings" for a younger audience! And some extra material was added which wasn't in the book at all. If the story isn't exciting enough to be made into a film - don't do it!

Movies from books is very much a hit and miss affair dependent on many factors.

Two examples - the first from 1930, the second from 1940 - come to mind where great books were done justice by the movies they inspired. These being All Quiet on the Western Front and The Grapes of Wrath.

From 1943 comes a movie than I could never take seriously after first reading the book. In For Whom the Bell Tolls Maria is a Spanish gypsy girl; to see her played by a big blonde Swede (Ingrid Bergman) makes the whole thing unbelievable. But that was the studio system.

"Has a book ever actually been bettered by a screen adaptation?"

No. Not in my experience, not ever.
Some have come close to being good representations of the book, but, of necessity, left out chunks of story and dialogue. One of these would be The Thorn Birds, where I'd read the book (yes, I'm a romantic) long before seeing the mini-series, and was therefore able to watch and enjoy the screen version.

On the other hand, screen adaptations have ruined books for me, in cases where I saw the film/screen version first and attempted to read the book later. This was the case with The French Connection. I failed to read the book at all as I couldn't get into it -- largely, I assume, as the film had simplified the scenario for me.

In my opinion, reading the book first is always best. You then have a 50/50 (or less) chance of enjoying the film!

It's nigh on impossible for a writer to match one individuals interpretation of a book, we the readers have the ability to bring characters to life in our own imaginations in a way that, isn't yet possible for television and Film.
For example we may have had Harry Potter as a Blonde haired boy. with a different pair of glasses etc, etc. And Batman to look nothing like Christian Bale, not to mention spiderman. this is to say nothing about the actual screenplays themselves, which get turned from quirky to mainstream in order to maximise profits, which after all, it is all about.making money. But having said that, there are those films which seem a lot better to me in the visual media than in the books themselves, notables such as, An inspector calls, and Hobsons' choice, and having watched both the TV and Theatre versions of these great works, there is nothing like the theatre, and watching live actors perform, although the TV/film versions are quite good. The books will always be hard to better, because (this is my opinion) the written word can prolong events, unfortunately for most films, they have a short time frame to tell a very eventful story, without making it sound like janet and john.

Films, books, theatre, music - in fact anything that allows or evokes a personal response, is subjective and when you come to any of the above with expectations they may be disappointed, whether it be because you have read the book, the review or heard it recommended etc but why should you think you may not like or agree with the way the material is handled?

Surely it is part of the creator's artistic expression/vision and the dialogue between him and the spectator?

You can always vote with your feet or with the zapper.

A screenplay has inherent limits, for example there exists only a limited set of devices to look inside the minds of characters; e.g. voiceover, reaction shots or asides. Not all are suited to every style either - imagine a Shakesperian aside during Harry Potter!

I feel that this limits the potential of screenplays in terms of how rich an experience they can ever be for the viewer, whereas the written word can communicate so much more and is limited only by the imagination of the reader.

However, this last point can also be one in favour of the televisual adaptation; surely a great way of furthering the imagination of those too mentally stunted or lazy to visualise the world for themselves!

It may be but what gets me is the unbearable simpering smugness of Keira Knightly. Does she ever do any other expression apart from the pout? She seems to think that her attractiveness is enough carry films like these.

There have been plenty of film versions that could be considered superior to the book.

The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, Trainspotting, L.A Confidential, Shindler's List, and the very recent (and truly excellent) adaption of There Will Be Blood, to name just a handful.

Both The Godfather and Jaws are generally considered screen adaptations superior to the novels on which they were based.

Bladerunner.

Such an argument is largely pointless and questions intended to posit such arguments are not really valid questions. A book is a book, a drama a drama/comedy etc and the fact that the latter is based on a screenplay based on a book makes no difference. You can debate the merits of one against the other for ever and never come to a valid conclusion because there can be no absolutes in matters of taste and opinions on subjective issues.

The best example of a film that is far better than the book is The Shawshank Redemptiobn. The Novella "Rita Heyworth and the Shawshank Redemption" was certainly a good read (part of Stephen King's "Different Season" collection), but the film is widely regarded as an all time great. The work of Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman to define the characters they played and the relationship between them over a 20 year period was far superior to that expressed in the story.

Having said that, with the exception of "Stand By Me", another great film adaptation from the same book, and Misery, there are no decent Stephen King adaptations!

One example where the screenplay bettered the book is Heart of Darkness becoming Apocalypse Now.

Heart of Darkness (yes I'm in danger of getting clobbered by an expert here) is about the inherent savagery of man and how the land shapes you, once you leave civilisation you may lose that civilised part of yourself. The character Kurtz's methods are ultimately shown to be a failure.

The film develops this into a far more sophisticated message - not only is Kurtz not a failure, his methods actually work and are in a purely pragmatic sense more moral than the supposedly moral methods of his more 'civilised' superiors who want him killed. The most moral and rational way to behave is relative and set by your environment, attempting to apply an absolute is doomed to fail.

the godfather

I suppose, in this question three and not two issues are involved: (1) the book, (2) the film, and (3) the intelligence of the commentator. There is reason to believe that some of the suggestions given here are based on the failure of the commentators to read books properly. It is hard for a film to better a book it is based on. While there are a great many bad books, for whatever reason, few bad books are ever made into films. Two films that genuinely challenge and even better the books upon which they were based are: The third man, which came out before the book was finished, and Walkabout, by Nicolas Roeg, with beautifully constructed dialogue, and cinematography with few equals.

It is so difficult to get it right. In a book, you can create the surroundings, the feelings of the person and what is happening around the character which can be effective compared to just looking at the scene in a movie. You get more out of books in my opinion as well as you can create your own imaginings of characters and places, etc. compared to being shown what one person (director,etc.) thinks about. Very hard to do and been let down so many times but other films stand out as a success in themselves. e.g. Bourne films are adapted and away from the books and truly get you on edge. I love reading books more in the case of film v book scenarios but a movie is always good to watch during a night in!

For me No Country for Old Men (while still a great book) was bettered by the film.... I would say the same for The Green Mile- while not critically acclaimed a personal favourite of mine... Both for the same reason- that visually they had a big impact (in No Country the lonely open space etc, in Green Mile the dark, depressing prison environment and the massive Michael Clarke Duncan). The Films both 'added' to the book- unlike the usual scenario of cutting and editing sub-plots out of the story so the original book isnt done justice...

For the record- the worst adaptation is surely Captain Corelli? How could they change the ending like that!!!! Never seen a good book ruined so badly- not to mention nic Cage's ludicrous Italian accent... I'm-a Nicolas Cage-a

The Shining.

One of Stanley Kubrick's greatest achievements and one of Jack Nicholson's finest portrayals.

A film so rich in visual texture and sheer intensity, even those with led stomachs will be disturbed.

A terrifying masterpiece that has cemented it's place as one, if not the, best horror film of all time.

Another Stephen King contribution could be The Shawshank Redemption. Haven't read the book but the film is highly acclaimed. Last one on the King list is The Green Mile. Again, haven't read it but Frank Darabont recieves a winner yet again.

I have found generally that books don't translate very well to screen i.e. Thomas Harris' Hannibal Lecter series. However, I do think Steven King novels are always quite good. Namely Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile.

Although there was some artistic licence such as Morgan Freeman's character Red in Shawshank Redemption being a Red-haired Irishman in the book, the films essentially tell the story as it is written all be it without some of the detail.

I find that the wrong types of books are made into films. The classics and bestsellers are usually turned into films or mini-series so that the TV and Film companies can capitalise on their success, however, as so many people have read them there are more people with pre-conceived ideas about what the characters, scenes, story etc should be. Maybe if they took more obscure titles and thrillers as suggested by taragsd they transition would be more successful.

I think it depends on what order you do the reading or watching in. People may tell you after watching a movie "the book is much better", only for you to find that you wish the book could be wrapped up as succintly as the movie.

Perhaps it will draw comment from people who are big readers, but sometimes I don't want to spend days reading a story when I could watch it in a night.

However, I always find if I read the book first, the characters who's image i have created in my head will never match the screen adaptation, which can be a let down.

A bit negative sorry, just a thought...

The main difference between a book and a movie is that one lends itself to a more in-depth hidden analysis of background story, character creation and emotional content while the other revolves around creating dramatic visualisations and also relies heavily of atmosphere created by visual effects and soundtrack.

Some books (Lord of the Rings is a prime example) seem too long winded and may be fantastic works of literature but not necessarily easy to follow or seem to in-depth in areas that simply do not lend anything to the story other than being 'artsy'. These books usually do very well as a film adaptation simply from the fact that they get on with telling the story rather than bogged down in descriptions of scenery. Other books require the reader to be informed of inner thoughts, a specific mood of the scene or character. Books such as Discworld novels carry a certain inner charm that is very hard to capture on film, (footnotes and sarcastic narrative monologues are very hard to capture on screen).

However, two of the major problems of film adaptations are who is making it (i.e. the budget and director influence) and the readers own imagination. Books allow the reader to paint pictures in their own head of how characters look, or how the scene is portrayed but film takes this away, giving the reader a viewpoint that may actually show something different to what they had imagined. There is a thesis to be written in the differences between the two, but at the end of the day it all boils down to personal preferences mroe than anything!

There are far too many film and TV adaptations of books and short stories, and often some of the SAME work. When they're good they're worth watching and when not (which is more often the case) they are a travesty. This is at the expense of producing original ideas and stories, and exemplifies the laziness of film/TV makers these days. Having said that an adaptation of a great novel is much more difficult to do well than you might think, and requires a high level of skill and judgement. I, Claudius is one of the best adaptations for TV ever, as was Gormenghast. Trainspotting was excellent, as was Christine Edzard's Little Dorrit.

Several posts have touched upon what I want to say, which is the wider scope for our subjective response when reading a book, rather than watching a screenplay made from it, which has been given a shape and colouring by a third party, or several third parties.

These come between the author and the reader; they pick out what they think are the essential elements and (if they are worth their salt) produce their own coherent response. This is perfectly valid, but it has changed the original work of art. Their minds and imaginations have interposed themselves between the book and the consumer. Sometimes this is a wonderful outcome, sometimes it is a frightful disappointment

On a workaday level, I always found the Sharpe TV series much more enjoyable than the books, but the reverse was true for Brother Cadfael.

But no Pride and Prejudice screenplay has ever come anywhere near the pleasure of reading the book. Words fail me when it comes to Mr Darcy in the bath. What a travesty! When a great novel is turned into a film, it should only be done by someone whose imagination - and taste - matches that of the original author, not one out for cheap novelty.

It's difficult to compare book and film because they are two entirely different mediums. For example, consider the film of Paul Bowles The Sheltering Sky. There is virtually no dialogue in the book. But you can't have a film without dialogue, can you?
And so, in my opinion, the film, given that limitation, is worthless.

The fact is that (especially in the UK) it is virtually impossible to get a script read UNLESS it is based on a published book.

Such is the state of the people who run our film industry that no one appears to have an opinion or will take any risks - thus they can always say "Well, the book was successful...."

Don't blame the writers - there are many of us trying to get interesting and new ideas made into films but we meet brick walls unless we can say "Based on the book by....".

Films are frequently better than books. In fact many good films are based on very mediocre books - compare the film of The Virgin Suicides with the decidedly ropey original. Or the James Bond films with the Ian Fleming books. The difficulty comes in adapting a GOOD book. Usually the best examples come when the adapter is clearly working for the new medium rather than trying to pay homage to the book. As you can tell from my blog name I'm keen on the politics of the period of 'The Duchess', but I wouldn't expect a film to go into the details. The thing to do is to create a film that leads people to want to kow more - and thus to read the book. But it's got to be a good film in its own terms.

Shawshank Redemption:
Film Masterpiece, Totally Average Read.

Jaws - surely!
You've only got to look at the effect it had on the movie industry - the first summer blockbuster and without it we may never have witnessed the astonishing career that Spielberg has had.
Sure, the book was exciting, but it's rare that you can say a film has brought a book to life in the way that it did. You could never experience the suspense that was the effect of John Williams music in the written form. I'd always go book over film, but this has to be my exception. "We're gonna need a bigger book!"

All of the Bourne Trilogy are better than the books. The plot is better thought out, certainly more believable.

Bond films are also invariably better than the books, where all he does is eat and drink. In the Goldfinger book the plan is to steal the gold, by truck. It's ill thought out twaddle. The film plot, to contaminate the gold, is ingenious and credible by comparison.

Keira Knightley was Oscar-nominated for Pride and Prejudice, not Atonement.

And the Lord of the Rings films are better than the books, majestic though they are.

I think a lot depends on the reasoning behind the film/screenplay adapation.

There are some where the writer/producer believes the ideas are good but can be embelished into a very good production, such as the short stories of the shawshank redemption, or where a book is a good idea but badly done.

There are then those who love the books so much they want it 'brought to life', but these can be double edge swords, as the production is driven by the creators passion, which is good, but is steered by their experience which can be totally alien to other readers views. I think a good case in point here is Lord of the Rings.

Then there are those that try to make a quick buck. The book was a massive success, therefore the film will be. I do believe a lot of these the producers are not bothered whether it is up to scratch because they know people who have read the book will flock to it, such as Da Vinci Code. ( which i thought both where poor to be honest).

Lastly Terry Pratchett is a great example of what you can achieve with written word, that can never translate to screen.

The film of The Lord of the Rings was definitely better than the book. Peter Jackson managed to take a truly dreadful book and make it into a very watchable film.

Books... films... different media entirely. I see folk citing Trainspotting as an example where the film has bettered the book but - for me - that simply isn't true. To me the book was beautiful and influential - so good to hear familiar sounds and see familiar people on a page - I learned a lot.

The film was entertaining but lacked the impact and rawness the book had - I saw it's main benefit being to give the story(s) to those people who can't or won't read. All of the many millions of them.

Which is the point - more people won't read these books than will - so screen adaptations, whilst limited, as essential if the stories are to be told at all. Dr Zhivago? Omar Sharif mate. Boris Pasternak? Who?

A movie that was just a bit better than the book... I must say I enjoyed more 'The Hours' on screen rather than the book.

I wouldn't presume to judge whether the book or the film is best in all cases.

However, my recommendation, particularly with the classics, is to always read the book first, thus allowing the characters, moods, and non-visual aspects, to be created in your own imagination - either fitting exactly what a skilled author intended to portray, or even improving on the author's creation.

By watching TV, DVD and cinema portrayals, the imagination is less engaged, and I feel sorry for my young grandchildren that they have all been force-fed (for instance) the same Disney images of characters as all their contemporaries, whereas I alone saw in my minds eye all my own creations.

In an age where we are told to 'welcome diversity' we are in danger of breeding atrophy of the imagination.

Er...sorry to bring the level down a bit, but the film version of Bridget Jones's Diary was better than the book! (both book and film sequels were terrible)

The most awful adaptation ever has got to be Captain Corelli's Mandolin. The book was savage and beautiful and the film was mawkish, trite Hollywood at its worst.

Books v Films.. Mmmmn? You don't get to see Keira Knightley in books.. To my mind end of conversation. Next topic please!!!

The one that always springs to mine is The Howling, a horror movie from 1981. The book was absolute pants but the movie, directed by Joe Dante and written by the splendid John Sayles, was a bit of a hoot.

Movies that were at least as good as the books:-
The Day Of The Jackal
Lonesome Dove (mini-series, astonishing perfomances by Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Duval)
M*A*S*H
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

I havent's seen No Country For Old Men yet, but I have high hopes for it.

Whenever people discuss this topic the adaptations that are brought to mind are always ones of particularly famous books - recently, for example, Lord of the Rings, Northern Lights and The Kite Runner.

People always seem to overlook the fact that there are plenty of very famous films adapted from comparatively unknown novels or short stories, good examples given above included The Shawshank Redemption, Jaws, The Godfather, Bladerunner, Silence of the Lambs and Stand By Me. For most of these the films are more famous, and better, than the novels they were adapted from.

I think a lot of the time when people talk about screenplays adapted from books they are unaware of quite how many screenplays are adapted from short stories and lesser-known novels and concentrate only on those films adapted from bestsellers.

One obvious one I forgot is "Lawrence Of Arabia", based on T.E. Lawrence's long, rambling and largely unreadable "Seven Pillars Of Wisdom".

re # 43:
"Bestsellers," although adequate, was probably the wrong choice of word - "The Da Vinci Code" just popped into my head which is awful both as a book and as a film. Basically, plenty of excellent films have been adapted from average novels but it is difficult to make an excellent novel into an equally excellent film.

As a rule I do not believe that screenplays are ever do justice to the books that created the story. There are however exceptions, the best one I believe was the original "The Day Of the Jackal" , not the appalling remake.
With this film you could sit with the book and follow either. A true recreation of the book into visual terms.
I also remember the long awaited film "The Dogs of War" People were waiting in expectation as the book was excellent and I think everybody thought that the film industry to do the same job as they had done with "The Day Of the Jackal". Unfortunately this was not the case and the film bore little or no resemblance to the book, as in most cases.

The television series Dexter, which begins its third season this autumn in the US, has in my opinion far surpassed the books upon which they were based. While Jeff Lindsay's books were fun light reads, the on screen version creates a far richer and deeper world for its titular character to inhabit by painting a vibrant Miami for the drama to unfold and developing many of the minor characters left flat by the author. Once it leaves the books behind, it becomes a tense rollercoaster ride that has provided me with far more entertainment than the books could ever bring. I will say, however that this is the exception to the general rule - I have yet to see any other works in the televisual or cinematic medium that match up to their literary inspiration.

I think films rarely improve on books because they are more finely detailed and textured. I remember being very moved by the film The Color purple, but then I read the book and wanted to horse whip Speilberg for what he had done to such a superb book.

I can think of two examples however where short stories have been outstripped by their film versions. The first is Blade Runner and the second is AI. Maybe its no coincidence that being short stories and science fiction enabled the film versions to be much better.

On a neutral note; Lord of the Rings is pretty complex as a book; as I like big chewy books I can lose myself in, this is fine by me. I am an avid reader and I do choose a range of books from super heavy to fairly light. But I also loved the films as they were a good balance of slight simplification but very true to the general idea and feel.

Bad book made into a film- Da Vinci Code! I read it with an open mind and nearly binned it before finishing it (almost a sin in my canon). I find with books any plot holes or puzzles that don't really work are irritating. But I solve puzzles a lot and don't like to have to suspend all rational thought with a book. On the other hand I accept that mainstream films often have poor plots or holes, so I will accept a certain amount of errors there! I will even hire very silly films for "beer and pretzel" evenings at home where I just want to suspend my brain and be entertained.

Having said that the Da Vinci Code annoyed me enough that I couldn't bear to pay to watch the film at the cinema. I refuse to read any other Dan Browns on the basis I didn't much like his style, but again that doesn;t mean other people won't like his stuff. I may watch it for research at some point...of the sancks and lite beer variety. My husband has a strange and strong allergy to all things Harry Potterish; so I'm sure there's an element of how you interact with the writer or director not just an objective merit to books and films.

How about The Bridges of Madison County?

Book was dire, film was Genius.

I actually complained about the 'bladerunner' comment because to say that it's better than Do Androids Dream...is horrendous!

Even though Bladerunner might perhaps be my favourite ever film, the philosophy in Do Androids Dream...is deeper than a film can potentially ever get, which I think is a key issue in this debate. Can a film ever really take a person to the depths that a book can?



Anyway, here's my one. Psycho. Rubbish book, that.

I must take issue with people who preferred the films of Lord of the Rings to the books. I loved the books for their words and ideas, but didn't want to visualise things at all, and I simply couldn't make myself watch the films, though I tried hard.

But the Shawshank Redemption, yes, yes. Also Schindler's List, though I never saw why they had to change the title.

Where was Tom Bombadil in the "Fellowship of The Ring"?

I always used to wonder why films adaptations varied from the books so massively. If the book was so good that you're making a film out of it, why do you feel you need to change the ending?

But then I watched the first Harry Potter - JK Rowling's close involvement with the production meant that the film was just exactly the same as the book. What was the point?

Far from the Madding Crowd (Julie Christie version) was equally as good as the book, apart from the hair colour. Both in my to ten of all time!!

Far from the Madding Crowd (Julie Christie version)was equally good as a film compared with the book, apart from the hair colour - and both in my top ten of all timesBut The Kite Runner - definitely not..

Isn't that the whole problem with recent British cinema? Film is a visual medium - it shouldn't be reliant on novels, which are about the interior life, and films should tell stories with images, not words. Your preamble talks of 'writers', but what we need are visualisers, auteurs. Most British films now are like filmed plays, the visuals and lighting pedestrian. If filmmakers have to look to another medium for inspiration, then maybe they should do what the Americans and Continental Europeans do, and have been doing for decades: read comics! A surprising number of the great Auteurs and directors have been fans of a medium the British still dismiss as infantile and dumb!

And to make my point- Bladerunner has been mentioned a lot, but the film, whilst it takes ideas from Dick's excellent but untranslatable novel, is actually heavily indebted to O'Bannon and Moebius' comic 'The Long Tomorrow'.

David Lean did some excellent adaptations, Great Expectations and Lawrence of Arabia in particular (mentioned in comment 44), but he was a rare genius.

Oh, and WORST comic-to-film ever was The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, turning a sharp cartoon into a loving apology for the lethal 'Blimpishness' Low satirised.

Not all books turned into film are great. As a matter of fact, the film "Brideshead Revisited" and "The Other Boleyn Girl" are two examples of really fantastic books turned into really bad films.

The original production of Brideshead is FANTASTIC! What were they trying to do remaking it?

The entire story in "The Other Boleyn Girl" was screwed up as well. Everyone who has seen it says that the ´óÏó´«Ã½ production was alot better;but the book is absolutely BRILLIANT!

Working in a Bookstore, in New York, I have noticed that many people would rather read the book and then take a chance and see the film. It's all a matter of choice.

Hi everybody!
reading a book is definitely different from watching a movie or any other media. We have to imagine and involve oneself to enjoy the book. Whereas if it is a movie, it is someone's perception which you cannot as such.
It will become a debatable visual idea in general.

In my experience, I have never seen a screen adaptation that was better or improved upon the original book.

Books make it a personal experience. When writing, the author knows that they are reliant upon the reader to use their own imagination to complete the experience they are creating. No matter how many layers of fine detail the author weaves into their work, a reader is always called upon to paint the pictures in their own mind. In this way no two readers have exactly the same experience when reading the exact same story.

When this is transferred to the screen, directors paint the picture for you, based on their interpretation of the text. Some directors create master pieces and still allow the viewer some scope for imagination - but it is not the same unlimited range of freedom afforded to you when reading.

An example for me would be watching David Lynch's Dune and then reading Frank Herbert's master piece. So much was missing from the film. The book is now my favourite work of fiction of all time.

On the flip side - I read Angels and Demons and loved it. I then wanted to read Da Vinci code prior to watching the film but caved in and watched it. After watching the film I was left with so much disappointment that I feel I may never read the book or will have to read it to erase my memory of what was a bad nonsensical film..

For me, the written word and the celluloid experience should exist in two separate realms that never cross.

However - it has to be acknowledged that films are the only way some people will be exposed to some fine works of literature.

Can the film ever be better than the book? Of course. Read M.A.S.H, watch the film and marvel that Altman had the wit to see the dark comic potential.

The length discipline imposed by the movie format often forces the improvement of flabby source material that wanted for a good book editor.

Probably the best example of this is Dr Zhivago. Pasternak's novel is an overextended mess (with all due respect to the Nobel Prize committee) and David Lean’s film cuts it down to size and paces it expertly. Lean's grafted on pro-Soviet ending with Rita Tushingham, totally against the politics of the novel, it pretty unforgivable though. For me, Polanski's Tess is also better than the Hardy novel for the same reason, though this is probably a controversial opinion!

I've not read 'The Shawshank Redemption', but frankly if the film improves it, it must be pretty awful! "We were promised redemption and all we got was this lousy movie!" But it seems more like this was a good script (by Hollywood standards) let down by bad casting. Neither Robbins nor Freeman have anything like the acting range required to tell this story. Freeman is utterly unconvincing as a young man and this is only emphasised by the lack of contrast with the voice of his elderly self providing the (rather unnecessary) narration.

I think it is sad that the film of the Duchess seems to seek only to portray a sacrificial victim.
By concentrating mainly on the personal husband-and-wife relationship, it highlights something pushed as central to our identity in the 21st century but not necessarily of primary importance to 18th century aristocracy and ignores all the many and various ways Georgiana was active and a prime mover. She was, for instance, a very accomplished geologist. This was later in her life, admittedly, but it can't have come out of nowhere; one gets no sense in the film of an enquiring scientific mind in embryo.
I'm not quite sure why our current society is mesmerised by images of "woman as suffering victimhood" (preferably anorexic-looking - and yes, I am aware G. possibly had an eating disorder, but her portraits show her as well-covered). Knightley looks and acts more like a model fronting a contemporary cosmetics campaign: pouting, blank, passive, subservient, empty; devoid of intellect or opinions; living only through others' approval.
The film seems to show Bess in something of the same way. Bess wasn't just a "victim of loving too much", she was more akin to a celebrity stalker.
The reality is so much more interesting and complex than the tired cliches.