Book vs. Movie Contest: Devil in a Blue Dress

In rare cases, a well-produced movie can elevate a poorly-written book which nevertheless had an intriguing premise.* But usually when we have books-to-TV/movie adaptations, a large majority of the beloved books’ fans express disappointment that the screen versions do not measure up to the original books. A fairly typical refrain to signal a reader’s discerning taste: “Of course, the book was much better.”

Happily in the case of Walter Mosley’s Devil in a Blue Dress (1990) adapted into Carl Franklin’s 1995 film, both works deliver—but for different reasons.

It is the novel version that I teach in my classes, but since students are often familiar with the movie as well we are able to hold discussions about the relative merits of the two. For those unfamiliar with this now decades-old movie, I point my students to a trailer—accompanied by my suggestion that they not watch the movie in lieu of reading the book since they will be examined on the book!

As you can see by the trailer above, there are some distinct advantages of the 1995 movie, mostly having to do with being able to visualize the world Mosley created of a post World War II Los Angeles. A picture might indeed be worth a thousand words, right? The hazy sunshine-filled sepia-toned depiction of a part utopian and part nightmarish city. Jarring clashes between promises and realities of mid-century California. Captivating scenes, no doubt.

And the star power! It’s difficult to go wrong with Denzel Washington as the lead character, everyman-turned-detective Easy Rawlins. And one could argue that Don Cheadle is even more impressive in his supporting role as Easy’s friend/sidekick/alter ego “Mouse” Alexander. Even Jennifer Beals as Daphne Monet adds to the film version’s advantages.**

But for the book-is-always-better purists, I have to concede that the movie loses ground in some other categories. For if movies have visuals on their side, books have narratives on theirs. No voice-over narration in a movie can offer as much information as a novel can. Simply: We can read into passages with greater depth with a book. Clues can be more subtly buried in lines of seemingly innocent description. And movies often forego (necessarily, for the sake of fluidity and length) small moments that deliver a big analytical bang in novels.

Some key themes and subtexts are easier to relay to readers than depict to viewers. For instance, throughout the novel, we note that Easy talks about skin color in possibly unexpected ways.  While most of the world is stuck on the black-white binary, Mosley’s novel ends up exploding the myths associated with the concept of a black-white binary not only by assigning “white” traits to “blacks” and vice versa but also by introducing a whole array of other colors (in part because, really, no one is literally “black” or “white” in the strictest sense of colors/hues). I can go on for many pages about this topic!

And as great as Don Cheadle’s performance is, the book’s exploration of what “Mouse” signifies for Easy’s psyche is something that the movie doesn’t have enough time or space to explore as fully as the novel does.

Ultimately then, Devil in a Blue Dress is a rare case of two great products, each working within the constraints of their genres while leaning into the advantages available to each. So, a tie?

Feel free to share in the comments your favorite (or least favorite?) book-to-screen-adaptation!

---

*Sideways comes to mind as an entertaining film which led me to seek out the book which did not measure up to the adaptation.

**I’m trying not to throw out any spoilers here, but the big reveal of both the novel and the film (gasp!) is not really a “big reveal” for anyone who has read or seen a few mysteries. That being the case, the casting of Jennifer Beals—versus someone who more literally fits the description of the novel’s Daphne Monet—worked fine for me.