After seeing this movie again the other night on TV, I decided to reread the novel, which I hadn't read in almost 50 years. What I discovered was that the movie is RADICALLY different from the novel, in the following ways:
1. Characters
Edward Everett Horton's character was a complete creation of the script writers; in the novel there are only four Europeans on the plane, not five.
Conway's brother is, in the novel, a younger colleague.
The woman, rather than being a lady with a questionable past, is a woman member of the London Missionary Society.
And Conway himself, though he has largely the same character as in the movie, is in the novel just another undistinguished minor government functionary, not a distinguished author and diplomat about to be appointed foreign secretary.
Only the American, played by Th Mitchell in the movie, is about the same in both works.
There is no real romantic interest for Conway in the novel - which, by the way, has a recurring homosexual hint to it. Jane Wyman's character in the movie was a complete creation of the script writers, as was Horton's.
2. Plot
From there on, more is similar. In the novel the High Lama had not chosen to bring Conway to Shangri-La because of his writings, but once he gets to know Conway he decides to make him his successor, as in the movie.
Again, the purpose of Shangri-la is to provide a place for contemplation during a forthcoming holocaust. The novel's Conway was deeply affected by World War I, an element left out of the movie, and that makes the desire to avoid the terrors of the next one easier to understand.
Since there is no romantic interest for Conway in the novel, his desire to return to Shangri-la after he agrees to accompany his colleague and the young woman out is strictly a result of his eagerness to be part of the Shangri-la community; he is not going back to a lost love as in the movie.
The character in the novel, Lo-Tsen, on whom the movie's Maria is based is a much less important character; we never actually see her speak.
Nor in the novel do the other Westerners who decide to stay in Shangri-la develop that very Frank Caprian love of helping their fellow men. The missionary wants to convert the "heathens" and the crook wants to mine the gold.
Rather to my surprise, I found that I enjoyed the book less than the movie. This is one case where the Hollywoodization was an improvement.
1. Characters
Edward Everett Horton's character was a complete creation of the script writers; in the novel there are only four Europeans on the plane, not five.
Conway's brother is, in the novel, a younger colleague.
The woman, rather than being a lady with a questionable past, is a woman member of the London Missionary Society.
And Conway himself, though he has largely the same character as in the movie, is in the novel just another undistinguished minor government functionary, not a distinguished author and diplomat about to be appointed foreign secretary.
Only the American, played by Th Mitchell in the movie, is about the same in both works.
There is no real romantic interest for Conway in the novel - which, by the way, has a recurring homosexual hint to it. Jane Wyman's character in the movie was a complete creation of the script writers, as was Horton's.
2. Plot
From there on, more is similar. In the novel the High Lama had not chosen to bring Conway to Shangri-La because of his writings, but once he gets to know Conway he decides to make him his successor, as in the movie.
Again, the purpose of Shangri-la is to provide a place for contemplation during a forthcoming holocaust. The novel's Conway was deeply affected by World War I, an element left out of the movie, and that makes the desire to avoid the terrors of the next one easier to understand.
Since there is no romantic interest for Conway in the novel, his desire to return to Shangri-la after he agrees to accompany his colleague and the young woman out is strictly a result of his eagerness to be part of the Shangri-la community; he is not going back to a lost love as in the movie.
The character in the novel, Lo-Tsen, on whom the movie's Maria is based is a much less important character; we never actually see her speak.
Nor in the novel do the other Westerners who decide to stay in Shangri-la develop that very Frank Caprian love of helping their fellow men. The missionary wants to convert the "heathens" and the crook wants to mine the gold.
Rather to my surprise, I found that I enjoyed the book less than the movie. This is one case where the Hollywoodization was an improvement.