Holes, the book or the movie?

Source
The movie poster of Holes

Holes, an award winning novel by Louis Sachar is the story of Stanley Yelnats, a wimpy little boy who has terrible luck all due to a supposed curse brought by his no-good-dirty-rotten-pig-stealing great-great grandfather. As a result of this, he was accused by a he did not commit and sent to a correctional institution named Camp Green Lake as a punishment. The story of race, destiny and how we treat others was compelling and moving while also being humorous and serious, a rare balance but easily achievable by the proficiency of Sachar.

In 2003, director Andrew Davis and the Walt Disney Company tried their hand interpreting the story as a motion picture starring Sigourney Weaver, Khleo Thomas and introducing Shia LaBeouf as the often unlucky protagonist, Staney Yelnats. The movie was moderately successful, receiving a few award nominations and generally positive reviews from critics. As a matter of fact, Louis Sachar himself wrote the screenplay, which is a quite rare opportunity for authors since many of them are not involved in the movie adaptations of their novels, but did he really succeed on bringing this already magnificent story on to the screen?

Initially, I was very surprised on the resemblance between the movie and the book until realizing that Louis Sachar himself wrote the screenplay and had a great amount of input into the filmmaking process considering all of the major differences of translating the words of a novel in to pictures the movie. Some scenes were basically reenacted word for word from the text and it really felt like I could’ve watched the movie while following along the book simultaneously. This must be the most faithful film adaptation of a book I’ve ever witnessed…Even the tricky flashbacks, even minor details like the campers' clothing - from their white shoes to their hats with neck-protecting flaps were kept the same as what was depicted in the novel and I was astonished of how much attention the filmmakers put on these negligible but still important aspects making the environment accurately resemble of what was originally portrayed in the novel, or even beyond...

Source
The Stanley portrayed in the movie

The protagonist Stanley Yelnats was pictured as a nice enough guy both in the movie and the book and as a result, he was frequently bullied, despite the fact that he easily was among the biggest kids of his class. The fact that Stanley still was a “nice guy” regardless of that “supposed curse” on his family was among the more redeeming qualities of his character and during the course of the story, we actually see how Stanley's “nice guy” quality transforms from being nice by default, because he didn't have the courage of standing upon himself into being “nice” as he genuinely wanted to make the right decisions. In the movie, Stanley is portrayed by a young Shia LaBeouf (Yes I know, that guy from the Transformers movies). He definitely had some “nice guy qualities”and the character was also written well enough, developing appropriately throughout the entire film. LaBeouf's acting may have had some flaws but he did quite well overall. Stanley's portrayal in the movie was almost identical to his literary counterpart, with a few exceptions. And, I do have ONE complaint!

Source
A more "authentic looking" Stanley

His physical appearance was supposed to be "noticeable bigger” than anybody else his age. In the book, Stanley was depicted as overweight, thus being mistaken for a bully because his large and imposing figure, even though he’s a quite meek on the inside. Stanley was also regularly teased on school of his weight but "Shia LaBeouf- Stanley" just looked like a skinny, non- threatening, goofy-looking little kid. He’s slightly bigger than the inmates at Camp Green lake, but not substantially and we didn’t even see him getting bullied in the movies, he just seemed like the person that would be. LaBeouf, certainly had some goofy and lovable qualities that would fit the odd awkwardness of Stanley but the movie still downplayed many traits of the main character and I was a little bit disappointed of it, even if it actually didn’t detract from the story at all.

Other than that, the other characters were generally well portrayed. The antagonists, the Warden, Mr Sir and Mr Pendanski all seemed like the icing on the cake for me. They were written well in both stories and the actors playing them were very talented. Their personalities might've appeared too exaggerated in the movie but they were still as intimidating, humorous and enjoyable as possible .
The kids at Camp Green lake were a little bit more defined in the movie as we actually got to see in several cases the origin of their nicknames while on the book, it was mostly left as a mystery. The relationship between Stanley and boys were also better shown in the film, adding some features and new connections to the narrative I endeavoured to recognize from the beginnning. The murderous outlaw Kate “Kissin” Barlow, Sam, the Onion man and other characters from the backstories were already vividly depicted in the novel but were left as enigmas to the reader in most cases and the overall story didn't really fall into place.The actors in the movie thankfully brought them to life and as the narrative of these characters were also better explained, the plot immediately became more intelligible and finally made some sense.

There were many plots and subplots in this story and even of those storylines might be presented seemingly random, both in the book and the movie but seamlessly woven together at the end. The chapters of the book were actually written and organized in such a way that it transformed very well in to the form of a movie, short chapters interpreted into short scenes and long chapters for long scenes with each of them feeling like a new cut in the film, in a certain sense. However, it was very evident that this story originally was written as a novel since the transition between the scenes in the movie didn’t always correspond to each other. In the book, it felt very natural moving from different segments without making intrusion or any inconsistencies to the story.The movie was also structured in such a way but it didn't come as natural or smooth and sometimes, it even seemed like you were ripped from the scenes during transitions. Even though I perceived the book to be very “cinematic” , it still was originally intended for text and there is what it is supposed to be. The film lacked that sense of consistency and the "caricature style" I really enjoyed reading the book and it somehow felt like the filmmakers only focused on telling the story accurately but not how it really should be told according to the author. Also, that "consistency" and the"caricature style" Sachar is known for were major aspects that distinguished the novel from the others and missing both of them just felt like Holes without the backstories. The main plot wouldn’t be interrupted but the same “effect” of the original story couldn’t be achieved or maintained.

Another problem I stumbled across watching the movie was the all of the similarities between it and the book. Cinema and literature have two completely disparate compositions and if one is too identical to the other, it doesn’t come out natural as it would be. Either Sachar could’ve written his novel in a more “cinematic” way, or Mr. director could just have filmed the movie in a more genuine way instead of “stealing” every aspect of it from the book… And as these stories were so similar to each other, I tend to lean against the original version. The novel is definitely better, not in every single aspect as the film certainly managed to deliver some characteristics more sufficiently, but as an overall experience. The book was unpredictable and arbitrary, every page of it seems to be a mystery of its kind and that mysteriousness motivated me of continuing reading, that made Holes so exciting and memorable. The movie gave me the impression of being too straightforward and at an initial glance, you'd probably predict and figure out the whole story. I didn't sense that excitement and intensity coming while watching the movie and that made it so monotonous.

The novel, Holes was also considered as one of the finest pieces of Children’s literature according to some kind of a committee and most importantly, it was an original idea. The movie just gave me an impression of an ordinary “rip off interpretation” of the same story and didn’t have the originality, making it stand out in both the cinematic and literary world.