I do not usually compare books to movies because they are two different means of expression. Books give lots more details and let the readers work with their imagination. Movies give us the director's vision, which is usually different from ours, but may add interest to a known story.
In the case of Fatherland, however, having read the novel years ago and stumbled upon the movie only a few nights ago, I was disappointed. The novel is based on historical facts (up to 1942) and accurately researched, but still manages to get us involved with two interesting and believable main characters, Xavier March and Charlie Maguire.
They live in a scary, dystopian past-future of the year 1964, with the Nazi as winners of WWII, a Cold War between Germany and the US and guerrilla between the Russians and the Germans. March is a police office and honorary SS, investigating a suspicious suicide, Maguire is an American who wants to report on the meeting of the 75 yo Hitler with US president Joseph Kennedy.
The film has a great performance by Hauer as the weary March and a totally miscast British Richardson as the American journalist Maguire. Her character is described as a young, rebellious child of the 60s. Richardson looks like a bored middle-aged matron.
Another major change in the plot is March's son. In the book he is described as a malevolent, brainwashed creature, while in the film you can see for yourself. The idea of the Nazi regime as pure evil is a lot stronger in the book and the punch of the final revelation watered down in the movie, by the fact that the audience already knows what really happened. Also the ending feels really rushed and a bit silly.
It is interesting but depressing to see what could have happened if the Nazi had won. Perhaps the main purpose of this movie is to make us happy that it did not happened. But if you want to dig deep, the book is very well written and gives the full picture.
In the case of Fatherland, however, having read the novel years ago and stumbled upon the movie only a few nights ago, I was disappointed. The novel is based on historical facts (up to 1942) and accurately researched, but still manages to get us involved with two interesting and believable main characters, Xavier March and Charlie Maguire.
They live in a scary, dystopian past-future of the year 1964, with the Nazi as winners of WWII, a Cold War between Germany and the US and guerrilla between the Russians and the Germans. March is a police office and honorary SS, investigating a suspicious suicide, Maguire is an American who wants to report on the meeting of the 75 yo Hitler with US president Joseph Kennedy.
The film has a great performance by Hauer as the weary March and a totally miscast British Richardson as the American journalist Maguire. Her character is described as a young, rebellious child of the 60s. Richardson looks like a bored middle-aged matron.
Another major change in the plot is March's son. In the book he is described as a malevolent, brainwashed creature, while in the film you can see for yourself. The idea of the Nazi regime as pure evil is a lot stronger in the book and the punch of the final revelation watered down in the movie, by the fact that the audience already knows what really happened. Also the ending feels really rushed and a bit silly.
It is interesting but depressing to see what could have happened if the Nazi had won. Perhaps the main purpose of this movie is to make us happy that it did not happened. But if you want to dig deep, the book is very well written and gives the full picture.