After binge-watching Big Little Lies last year (available on Hotstar in India), I knew I just had to get to the book. After all, the author Liane Moriarty is one of my fave writers.
The mini-series (especially the first season) was lovely, addictive, with high-class acting and amazing locations. The book was good too, in some ways better, some ways not as good.
Big Little Lies Description: The book and show
Big Little Lies stars Reese Witherspoon, Nicole Kidman, Shailene Woodley, Laura Dern, and Zoë Kravitz and tells the story of five women in Monterey, California, embroiled in a murder investigation. The series closely follows the book in major areas but diverges in others. I quite liked the differences for the most part because it made reading the book not feel like a repetitive experience.
So, if you have read just the book, or watched only the series, go ahead and do the other. I enjoyed both without feeling bored. The differences work well.
Where the series did good
The setting
The book is set in Sydney, Australia, and the show is based in Monterey, California.
When it comes to the setting, the show won hands down. Such beautiful houses, the beaches, the sunsets – I loved every bit of it.
The book is not as glamorous. Definitely, when I read it, I wasn’t visualizing or dreaming about the places in my head – something I tend to do.
Laura Dern / Renata, Nicole Kidman / Celeste
Laura Dern playing the role of Renata really hit it out of the ballpark with her acting in this series. Renata is one of the secondary characters in the book – not very memorable. But Laura? She stole every scene she was in. I couldn’t take my eyes off her.
And how wonderful was it to see Nicole Kidman again! I have always loved her acting, and it was great to see her at the top of her game.
Where the book was better
Reese Witherspoon / Madeline’s character
I felt like the mini-series diverged a bit too much from the book when it came to some of the characters. Reese Witherspoon’s (Madeline) character development was especially egregious.
In the book, she comes across as a really nice, direct person – an honest friend and a loving wife. She is a lot shadier in the mini-series – having an affair with the school play’s director. When I saw the show, I was not too fond of this part of the plot. It sat oddly, without enough backstory about her and her husband.
It was a relief to see that the most disliked plot point in the series wasn’t present in the book! Without it, the story seemed to flow so much more smoothly.
I can only assume that the affair was added to beef up Reese Witherspoon’s role in the series.
Abigail’s virginity auction
This was a plot point that sucked both in book and show. Madeleine’s daughter Abigail was a poorly written character, which came through in the show. The actress Kathryn Newton though did a lovely job fleshing out the character very well. It also helps that most of her scenes were paired against a shrill one-note Reese Witherspoon.
The ending
I liked how the book ended. It was a clean ending. The TV show unnecessarily dragged it out over a second season, which was nice but didn’t really add more to the story. This is strictly a series that should have ended with the first season.
So, which did you like better? The book or the show? I think all things said, the show worked a little bit better for me. Most of that had to do with the setting, the mood, and the acting.
I’ve stopped watching!
I’m a big fan of comparing movies and books, and after finally reading the book, I thought I would treat myself to the series while everything was nice and fresh.
I must say, I am brutally disappointed, and I can’t bring myself to continue watching, which of course means that my below thoughts may be incorrect…
I always expect movies/shows to not quite hit the mark in comparison to the book, after all, they can’t capture everything! Though a series should definitely have more of a chance at doing so than a movie with the significantly extended screen time for character and plot development. But I cannot get over how much was changed for the tv series… the main story arc of a petition to get Ziggy kicked out of school was completely rewritten to a controversial puppet show.. I mean, this was one of the biggest underpinning plots in the book…
I also feel that the relationship between Nathan and Madeline was over embellished in the series to be a typical divorced, not so amicable couple. Whereas in the book, although they had their problems, they didn’t come across quite as bitchy/immature. And whilst on the topic of Madeline, in the book she was fiery, but sweet, loyal and a loving wife and middle class, this was not how she was portrayed at all in the TV series. And she certainly wouldn’t have had an affair – her relationship with her husband Ed was quite broken in the series which was a shame.
Celeste’s character also missed the mark in my eye. Don’t get me wrong, Kidman was a great cast, but the storyline didn’t allow her to portray her as she had originally been written. Celeste in the book was often aloof, distracted, nervous and jumpy – all caused by the abuse afflicted onto her by Perry. I didn’t feel this came through in the series, or at least the episodes I’ve watched.
As a last little kicker for me, being from Sydney myself, I was sad to see that this was set in quite a glamorous part of America. Living on the coast, I can imagine the setting perfectly for the book, a small coastal town with a mixture of demographics, the rich, the middle class and those struggling to make ends meet. the series missed this completely. These women and their lifestyles aren’t all glamorous, that is why Celeste stood out so much in the book, it’s what gave her her edge, and really drove home the message about domestic violence happening to anyone… I wish I could continue watching, but I’m just so bitterly disappointed.
I would have loved the series to be truer to the book, which in itself was a best seller and a phenomenal read.
I am late to the party of “Big Little Lies”. I just watched the all 14 episodes recently because a friend recommended it to me – and I am a bit disappointed! I was very intrigued by the first episode, and I expected a satisfying murder mystery as well as a character driven drama. The ingredients for a great tv show were all there, and I really liked the idea of keeping not only the identity of the perp but also the identity of the victim under wraps until the final denouement. But unfortunately the show basically stopped paying attention to the mystery part of the narrative after the first episode and the show degenerates into a chatty and often whiny showcase for it’s mega star actresses! Don’t get me wrong – I love mysteries with a valuable message and well developed psychologically credible character developments. But there is no reason why BLS couldn’t have integrated both aspects. This would have made the viewing experience less of a slog. And unfortunately the characters of the tv show aren’t even all that credible. I concede that the acting is mostly great. But none of the actresses had the guts to look more like ordinary upper middleclass women. They are always dressed to the nines with perfect hair, nails and make-up.. They always look like glamorous movie stars – Madeline, Celeste and Renata look just like Nicole Kidman, Reese Witherspoon and Laura Dern on the red carpet! Jane, while she is still very beautiful in a more ordinary way, is the only character who is a bit more realistic. Why weren’t the other actresses a bit more courageous and less self-serving? Kidman and Witherspoon produced the show after all! They were the bosses! Why were they less brave than Meryl Streep in the second season! Lke Kidman and Witherspoon she is Hollywood royalty, but I hardly reckognized her. She was the grieving but scheming mother-in-law from hell and she didn’t shy away from looking unattractive, dowdy, and she was the villain of the second season!
Let’s talk now about the final denouements. The finale of the first season was actually mostly satisfying. Four questions needed to be answered: who was the murder victim, who was the perp, who bullyed little Annabella and who raped Jane and fathered her son Ziggy? And I have to say that we receive mostly satisfying answers which make sense. Yes, it’s a bit of a coincidence that Perry didn’t only batter his wife but also raped her new friend Jane. But it’s certainly a plausible scenario since many women beaters have a history of abusing more than one victim. It’s also credible that not Ziggy but Max was the kid who hurt Annabella. He had witnessed his father constantly battering his mom, and he was acting out his own trauma. It’s less credible, though, that a smart and perceptive girl like Annabella would accuse an innocent boy! If she was afraid of Max she wouldn’t have talked at all about being bullied – or she would have retracted her initial accusations when she noticed the negative impact on her new friend Ziggy. She could have simply said to her parents that she made a mistake and wasn’t sure anymore. Because of the incredibly stressful situation which had been initially created by a totally incompetent teacher Annabella would have been easily forgiven. But since the characters of the kids aren’t really fleshed out, I can let this go. But let’s talk about the person whose action led to Perry’s demise: unfortunately we learn far too little in the first season about Bonnie who accidentally killed Perry when she tried to defend Celeste from getting severely beaten by her totally unhinged and out-of-control husband. According to what we are shown in the tv show Bonnie was clearly defending Celeste and she had no intention to kill Perry, and the dilapidated condition of the staircase contributed to the lethal outcome. Since Bonnie had every right to defend Celeste and had not used excessive force the law was on her side, and it’s very likely that she wouldn’t even get community service. She also had four eyewitnesses who could corroborate what had actually happened. There was no need whatsoever to lie in order to protect Bonnie. Since Perry was a confirmed abuser, Bonnie might’ve even been seen as a savior. And even if the women initially panicked, it would have been far more plausible if Bonnie had turned herself in as soon as she had time to realize what really happened, and Celeste as a lawyer should have known better! I heard that the case is told very differently in the book: Perry had actually stopped beating Celeste, and a short conversation ensued which angered Bonnie so much that she pushed Perry from a balcony! Now, that’s really a far more serious offense, because Bonnie didn’t need to defend Celeste anymore and pushing someone from a balcony cannot be explained away easily as an unfortunate accident! Lying about what really happened in order to protect Bonnie does indeed make some sense, and it’s understandable that the investigating detective remained suspicious. Why did the tv show change these crucial aspects of the story? Did they shy away from making Bonnie look bad? If so, it’s a pity, because these changes undermine the credibiliy of the narrative. The stakes of sticking to the big lie versus facing the consequences are severely reduced, which makes the second season less interesting. And speaking of Bonnie whose character is far more important in the second season – I really disliked her revelation that she had never loved her husband Nathan. Not even when they married. If we consider what we have learned about this couple so far this revelation doesn’t really make sense. There was no previous indication at all that this marriage was loveless, and I have a hard time to believe that this was an intentional narrative choice all along. I think that Bonnie’s character and also her troubled relationship with her mother wasn’t handled well in the second season. It would have been better to flesh out Bonnie’s character more and wrap up the complete story in the first and only season – and stick with the far more plausible ending of the novel.
I enjoyed the show – even the glamor. But, I agree with you that Bonnie was underdeveloped. I should have named this post (season 1), as at the time I wrote it, there was only the first season. I particularly noted and disliked Madeleine’s character, which is completely different from the book.
Season two was all over the place. Bonnie’s character development sucked and her relationship with her parents was never fully fleshed out. However, I could believe her statement that she never loved Nathan. They seemed like chalk and cheese.
I was so so on the book but loved the show! I thought it wa amazing!
I enjoyed both, they were quite different. I agree the show is more memorable though.
Wow great comparison and review for us all. I love love love the show and now maybe need to read the book too
I’ve never watched or read it. I sometimes like to compare the book to the series too.
I loved big little lies! Well I only watched the show and it was amazing. I need to try to read the book because I know more times than not the book is always better!
Nicole Kidman is fantastic. I’ll have to check the book out! The show is a little intense for me but it’s good.
I’m not familiar with both the book and the show but I like it how you compared the two side by side. Quite interesting, I must say.
thank you 😊
I will look for this show! I love Nicole Kidman! I have to go look for the book, too.
Nicole Kidman’s really good in this show! You will like her.
I really need to read this book. I’ve seen every episode of the show, and I loved it. I was hesitant to read the book because I wasn’t sure if it would make me enjoy the show less. Thanks for the heads up on this!
The nice thing is that the book differs in some key areas, so it still remains interesting.
BIg Little Lies is an amazing show. I had no idea it was based on a book. I’ll have to give that a read. Thanks!
Yeah, it’s based on the book, which is a bestseller in its own right.
I watched, but have not read, Big Little Lies. I liked, but did not love, the first season (I kind of guessed the big secret early on), but I really liked the second season.
Now I’m having a dilemma with Little Fires Everywhere. I read and loved the book. Started the series, and while it’s well made, I’m not feeling it, maybe because I loved the book too much.
I usually tend to like watching movie remakes of books I love (unless the remake turns out to be awful), so surprised about this one.
I didn’t like the show Little Fires Everywhere at all. I couldn’t sit through even the first episode. It wasn’t that it was bad, it was just boring and didn’t spark my interest at all. I usually like watching shows/movies based on books too, but this didn’t really work for me.
Ah, so it wasn’t just me. One of the things about it was that I found Mia (Kerry Washington) in the show somewhat unlikable (her decisions as a parent seemed kind of selfish from the start) while in the book is is convincingly likable for longer.
I didn’t like her much in the book either, but I agree, I could empathize with her for a bit longer. Also, I have never liked Kerry Washington – probably because she chooses unlikeable roles. Didn’t like her in Scandal, and that dislike came through here as well.