I saw On the Beach back in the early 2000s when I was on an old movie/Anthony Perkins kick, and really enjoyed it because, well, Anthony Perkins, and I like end of the world things. I rented it because my dad recommended it, but he especially loves the book. I got a copy a few years ago and started reading it, but put it down for some reason. I've been reading some dark things lately, so I decided it felt like the right time to try the book again and, once I made it about halfway through, decided I'd revisit the movie as well.
The book was really interesting to me for many reasons... The writing is so dry and matter-of-fact. If you compare it to books these days, it's not technically good. The writing is nothing special—the baby, after being introduced as a girl named Jennifer, is called “it” multiple times, and the narration head hops a bit too much to be strictly third person or omniscient. There are a lot of details that don't further the story but the author clearly knew about submarines or the Navy or nuclear war and wanted to include, so it's all fine but I feel like editors could chop this book up if it crossed their desks these days.
Still, overall it works to tell a really emotional and all-too-real story. Parts of it made me tear up and it wasn't because the writing was so emotional that it forced me to feel something. Shute just presented these characters and made them seem real enough that the thought of what they were going through made me sad. And, honestly, the state of things right now makes it all feel too possible, so I'm not afraid to admit that some of those tears were probably because I could see it happening now, though the book was published in 1957 and we clearly haven't learned a damn thing.
Anyway, I was excited to see the movie again because somehow my Anthony Perkins blinders made me forget that Gregory Peck was even in the movie?! I don't know how that's possible, but it was a pleasant surprise. I do think everything was well cast, though there are, of course, some differences between the book and the movie.
The book is almost 300 pages long, so it makes sense that the movie would condense the timeline and cut some scenes... but the movie is still 2 hours and 15 minutes long! I grew up watching 90-minute comedies so this was a bit much for me. I think every bit of the book could have been used in over 2 hours of run time...
There are some significant changes in the relationship between Moira and Towers, which definitely seem more true to character in the book... and considering the movie doesn't even show a sex scene, I don't know why they needed to make that change. Also, John Osborne is related to Moira in the book, but in the movie he's Julian Osborn, and he used to be in love with her. It seemed like a random change that didn't add anything.
The submarine names also differ, and in the book, they make their way to Seattle, but in the movie, they only go to San Francisco. Again, not major changes, so I'm unsure why they were made. There are also a few changes in how characters die at the very end, I guess to have them killing themselves onscreen look more dramatic than simply taking pills, as all of them do in the book?
Overall, the movie stays fairly true to the book, and I recommend both of them. However, the book surprised me by making me more emotional than the movie. You'd think seeing the love and emotions on people's faces would hit harder, but something about the sparse writing style really made the emotions pop off the page for me.