The film distorts the book by overemphasizing certain things, leaving out others, and changing certain key points. However, it's still a powerful film because the distortions don't change the important basic point which is the loneliness of all the characters and their attempts to connect with someone.
Alan Arkin is perfect as John Singer, he remains true to the spirit of the character in the book, no distortion there. He's the reason I rate the film so highly.
The book was published in 1940, 20 years before To Kill A Mockingbird, published in 1960. The classic film versions of both films came out in the 1960's so many people think they were contemporary books, especially because the film Lonely Hunter was in color. The film version of Mockingbird was in black and white and seems truer to the earlier time period. What's interesting is how little changed in the 20 years between the time of the two books published.
Alan Arkin is perfect as John Singer, he remains true to the spirit of the character in the book, no distortion there. He's the reason I rate the film so highly.
The book was published in 1940, 20 years before To Kill A Mockingbird, published in 1960. The classic film versions of both films came out in the 1960's so many people think they were contemporary books, especially because the film Lonely Hunter was in color. The film version of Mockingbird was in black and white and seems truer to the earlier time period. What's interesting is how little changed in the 20 years between the time of the two books published.