A Comparison of Bucky F*cking Dent (Novel) to Reverse the Curse (Movie version)
Please note this contains spoilers for both the movie and the book.
Bucky F*cking Dent (BFD) is a novel written by David Duchovny which was published in 2016. It is his second published novel. Reverse the Curse (RTC) is a movie based on the novel which is written, directed and starring David Duchovny. It first premiered at the Tribeca Festival in 2023 and then was released in June 2024. It is the second David Duchovny film written and directed by him. After Duchovny’s first movie was released in 2004, when asked what his next written and directed by film would be, he described the plotline for BFD/RTC. He did not anticipate twenty years between. His first movie, House of D, was panned by critics; although it has gained more appreciation in recent years and funding for the second film came and went as often happens in Hollywood. When first conceived, Duchovny planned on playing the son, Teddy, in the film. I confess that upon reading the novel I had a very hard time picturing Duchovny as the son. After the success of Duchovny’s first novel (New York Times Best Seller, Holy Cow), he decided to write the novel BFD based on his earlier screenplay. This second novel also received critical acclaim and he went on to write two additional novels and one novella. When the time came to adapt his novel into a movie, he was too old to play the son and instead played Marty, the father.
In general, I can enjoy both a film and the novel on which the film is based, but there have been times, depending on if I read the novel or seen the movie first, where I prefer one to the other and, possibly, have decided I don’t like either the movie or the book as much. As a for instance, it is impossible for me not to love Henry Fonda’s portrayal of Tom Joad from The Grapes of Wrath movie which I first saw as a child, but reading the book years later made me realize how inadequate the movie was when compared to the novel. With that in mind, I was simultaneously enthusiastic about the movie RTC and terrified I would not like it; especially as I heard from people who were at Tribeca about some changes made in the adaptation to screen. BFD is the novel that made me a fan of Duchovny, the writer. It is a novel which months after reading would wake me in the middle of the night with a remembrance of a passage that I felt compelled to read again (not uncommon for me with my favorite writers). Also, his first written and directed by movie is one of my favorite movies ever. So, I was putting a lot of pressure on RTC as an Indie movie that did not see a wide film release.
Remarkably, perhaps because Duchovny is both a novelist and a script writer, I found the movie and the book (which I reread in its entirety after seeing the film for the first time), are complementary towards each other in their differences. Seeing the movie enhanced my enjoyment of the book and rereading the book made the movie more enjoyable for me on subsequent rewatches. In my review of the movie, I said I would do a comparison. It took me a few months to decide on an approach. Cataloguing what was different and the same, the sequence of events between say where the first scene of the movie happens vs. its inclusion in a more middle sequence of the book, might be illustrative of the technique utilized for adaption, but it left me not embracing the heart of the work as well and what is common in both the novel and movie is the heart of the story. So I’ve decided to take a less prescriptive approach and instead compare what works better in the film and what works better in the novel.
What works better in the film?
The barbershop boys and the condensation of some material.
In the book, Marty goes to a news kiosk on his block where three guys his age often gather to talk over the news of the day. In the movie, it’s the same three characters who gather in the barbershop. In both, these old guys are part of the scheme to keep Marty healthy by creating a bubble in which the Red Sox are winning including sometimes “faking” rain outs by convincing Marty that it’s raining. (Remember this is set in 1978 before cell phone and constant online news). This was always my least favorite part of the book because, even in 1978, this is a stretch for my suspension of belief and because I have never, really, been around old guys who are lifelong friends to understand the rhythm of the banter. The character who keeps asking people to loan him $50 was lost on me. In the movie, this is one of my favorite parts. Duchovny calls on his Californication co-stars Evan Handler and Jason Beghe (Pamela Adlon also has a small part as Teddy’s literary agent) and adds Santo Fazio to make these characters come to life. According to an interview with Beghe all scenes were shot in one and a half days. The rhythm of their banter is so real, interrupting each other, finishing each other’s sentences, that when I read the book now, I can hear this rhythm. I can visualize the rain creating sequences which in their absurdity is hilarious but also become more realistic and possible as viewed in the film. I have watched very few movies where the least favorite part of the book becomes better because of the movie. I am grateful for Duchovny’s decision to use “old guys” who he already has a rhythm of banter with to make this happened so convincingly. It also brings the heart of these guys into focus. In this way it reminds me of the Bonnie Hunt written and directed movie, Return to Me, in which Duchovny stars and in which there are four old guys. These are old guys whose wives are no longer with them, and they are each other’s support network. It’s quite beautiful and unexpected in both Return to me and in RTC.
The condensation of material can be one of the most challenging parts of adapting a novel to screen. Beloved characters and subplots are often lost. Here again, this is done quite well in this movie. Instead of the Jamaican guy who Teddy buys his weed from in the book and eventually purchases tickets to the Red Sox/ Yankees one game tie breaker, it is the barbershop old guys who give Teddy the tickets. It includes the story of why one of the guys still carries his wife’s purse. She has been dead ten years, but love conquers death. He pulls from the purse the tickets to give to Ted. It makes this, additionally improbable plotline, of Marty coming back from a coma to be able to travel with Ted to see the game, more poignant and possible – because love defeats death and makes anything possible. In the book, the broader subplots and characters are important for depth and understanding of the characters. Another example of this is that far more of Ted’s work life and ultimate termination from the job is detailed in the book. It is an essential point of his journey. However, stealing the VCR machine and game videos would have been clunky in the pacing of the film. Simply solving the problem with, “I took the tube out of the TV” eliminates the need for this.
Additions to the movie
As we will get to in the next section, there is one area where over condensation occurs -especially as it affects the backstory of Mariana. Duchovny adeptly makes up for this by adding one conversation with Mariana and Ted which was not part of the book, but rather was part of his X Files research. In talking to an FBI agent to prepare for Mulder, the agent told him that sometimes agents will die from gunshots that do not need to be fatal because their mind convinces them that they will die. In the movie, Mariana considered becoming a FBI agent and, upon hearing the story, decides that the mind can be a more powerful protection than a gun and becomes a grief counseling nurse- helping people to die. She tells Ted this and, later, when Ted calls to tell her Marty has died, he says “just because you were shot doesn’t mean you have to die” to entice her back into his world of the living.
What works better in the book including what was left out of the movie
Use of music, flashbacks, poetry and stream of consciousness.
In the novel, Ted is a Deadhead. Mariana loves disco. I previously wrote a blog about the careful placement of Grateful Dead songs in the novel. I even managed to have a conversation with Duchovny about the use of Box in Rain as the song that plays in Ted’s mind as his father dies in the car on their way back from Boston following the game. The correlation between the fact that this song was written by Phil Lesh and Robert Hunter as Lesh was caring for his father who died of cancer made the use of this song in the book more poignant. In the movie this is short handed by one scene about Mariana’s tattoos where she confesses to being a Grateful Dead fan with Box of Rain being her favorite song and Ted wearing a “disco sucks” shirt. This is, I believe, a nod to the fans of the book that the writer and director understands that, for some of us, this lack of a single Grateful Dead song would be a disappointment. They were on a budget. Grateful Dead songs are expensive. Their substitution of the song Father Song by Keaton Simon is a wonderful choice. The inclusion of Duchovny’s original song The Rain Song which references a Box of Rain also has a poignancy for those who know the backstory of that song. Duchovny’s ex wife loved the rain, and her favorite movie is an older movie about a man creating the illusion of rain for a woman he loves who loves the rain. That movie is a clear inspiration for creating the illusion of rain sequences in the book and movie. The line in the song “it will always be raining in this song” is a declaration of love and speaks to the heart of the movie. However, this movie would have been better, in my opinion, if there had been a budget to include some Grateful Dead (at least for this old deadhead).
The book includes several flashback sequences spread throughout the book of when Marty was younger, and Ted was a baby and in the hospital. It also includes flashbacks of when Mariana’s daughter was dying. There are some brief flashbacks of Marty and Ted which leads to the big reveal in the movie about why Marty had problems reattaching to Ted. This scene might be the best of Duchovny’s acting career. If there had been time to include more flashbacks that might have been better. There are no flashback scenes of Mariana and her daughter in the movie. I don’t know how those might have been included except for perhaps as Mariana is telling Ted goodbye. However, there is one chapter in the book where the daughter is trying to think of how to tell her mother not to die too which is heartbreakingly sad and speaks to the heart of Mariana’s character who has trouble attaching to people who are not dying. As mentioned earlier, the FBI addition went a long way to compensating. I still would suggest that everyone should read the book in order to bring the awareness of those flashbacks to the scenes – especially the Marty asking his son’s forgiveness scene.
The last two things – poetry and stream of consciousness are best left in the novel. One of the most touching scenes in the book is after Ted arranges a reunion of Marty and an old romance when they are returning from Brooklyn and recite Walt Whitman’s “Crossing Brooklyn Ferry” to each other. One of the things that book does better than the movie is show how these two men – estranged for so long – were so similar. Even with all the things Marty had never given Ted were the things he had: a love of baseball, a love of writing, a love of poetry and a character trait of being oppositional. It’s a nuance that is missing from the movie. Yet, I cannot imagine in the movie that reciting poetry would feel anything but contrived, but in the book it is very natural with the groundwork laid in advance.
Finally, the novel style is of internal character dialogue and Ted’s internal dialogue is stream of consciousness. One of my favorite paragraphs in the book begins “What a day for a daydream.” I think it was wise of Duchovny not to fill the movie with poetry or try to capture a stream of consciousness approach. It does make the book a wonderful distinct thing (filled with words and wonderful writing) from the movie. If you’ve read the book, you can bring all of that to the movie and, if you haven’t, the movie stands alone.
Summary
Returning to my earlier example of really enjoying Grapes of Wrath the movie and yet knowing that the book was far superior. In the case of BFD vs. RTC, I can make no claim of superiority. I will rewatch the movie. I will reread the book. In some ways the things left out of the movie, means the book remains dear because it is an experience so different from the movie and, yet the movie is visually appealing, and the actors bring forth the emotions in a way that words might not adequately express. They are the same story told in different ways to fit the medium in which they are being told. It is the rare example of adaptations where it is possible to love each version of the story more because you have experienced the other version.
If you haven’t read the book or seen the movie, I encourage you to do both- maybe read the book first. Congratulations to Mr. Duchovny for this achievement.
