Critiquing a Film – Should the Book Matter?
I live around all kinds of people who want to do nothing but argue me down on how books are better than movies, and in turn when I watch a movie based off an acclaimed and beloved novel, they like to correct every single tiny detail of the book the film left out. While I do quite like to read, I am a movie fan first, so it is needless to say I always favor the movies in general. Many people have come up to me and said certain things such as “How can you say a movie is good when it is not at all like the book? A good critic would criticize that!” And I forever give the same response explaining that there are different aspects to film and books that make them great, a movie (usually) just cannot entirely follow the lead of a good novel.
However, the reason of me posting this is I recently read an absolutely brilliant book, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, and it really got me thinking about my review of the film. Was it accurate? If I break it down and think about it for a bit, no, it wasn’t. And I realized if I had read the novel before seeing Hugo, (a film that I loved with everything in me) I could have had a much better knowledge and understanding of the background of the book and why it was written, and eventually made a movie. In fact, as I am writing these words I stopped a minute to delete my review of Hugo (a new one coming soon). I actually loved the movie even more once I finished the masterful piece of art, written by Brian Selznick. Which finally leads me to the question that I will attempt to answer for you today. When critiquing a film, should the book it is based upon play any reason in the love or hate a critic (or fan) gives a movie?
Initially the answer is simple, each person has their own taste (and love for books) so everyone will respond differently to how inaccurate or accurate a movie is to the novel. But then again, don’t we all owe it to the writers of the world to care about if a movie follows the footsteps of their vision? I know some people who think so, yes. I personally think the answer is no, no, no, no, no! My favorite book of all time is probably To Kill a Mockingbird, and while the movie leaves out much from the book it is also one of my favorite films of all time. Now this is just one example, but To Kill a Mockingbird (film) has an incredible performance by Gregory Peck and the two child actors, a great and touching story (like the book), fantastic characters, a beautiful musical score and perfect direction. Whether it is like the novel or not does not change any of that, and my opinion stands firm on that matter. As of now I have felt this way about every movie/book combination that I have read and watched. Still, I respect and understand the people who disagree with me on this point.
Here is where it gets juicy. After reading The Invention of Hugo Cabret I believe that in many cases if a person wants to properly critique a movie it is smarter to have already read the book, and the same goes for professional critics. Like I mentioned in paragraph #2, there is a certain amount of understanding and knowledge that comes with reading a book before the movie comes out. Sometimes they complement one another, sometimes they don’t, and sometimes a person nearly cannot understand the purpose of the movie if they have not read the book. 2001: A Space Odyssey is a great example of this. Unfortunately I hear this all the time, but so often someone says “it is one of the greatest movies ever made, I don’t understand any of it, but it’s freakin’ awesome!’. I hate that. First, if the person read the book before. or even after watching the movie they would understand it far more. Secondly, Kubrick clearly meant for a lot fo the film’s mysteries to be decided by the viewer, but to say none of it is understood, yet it’s the greatest movie ever, well that just doesn’t make sense and is a critiquing flaw in my opinion, but that’s another story and another post.
The moral of my post is obvious, if you haven’t read the book then you clearly cannot have an opinion on the movie. Enough said! No, i’m only kidding, there is more to cover on the topic. One could ramble on such matters for hours, days, years and lifetimes; in fact, some have. The problem is my statement “man cases if a person wants to properly critique a movie they should have already read the book” is true for me, but actually quite flawed when you look at it closer. It could be said that the majority of movies come from something of a book, short story, graphic novel, etc. and if that’s true, then in my opinion I, and other professionals and fans alike, would have to read every single one of them in order to form an opinion on a film, which is undeniably over-the-top on my part.
So my conclusion to this rather long post is whether or not someone has read the book, or if the movie is anywhere close to the book, should ultimately not matter when deciding if a movie is good. However, there are some cases (Hugo for one) where if you’re going to criticize the characters, story, etc. then you must read the book first, because it is the only way to fully grasp the meaning behind all of it. After all, the original story came from Brian Selznick, not Martin Scorsese or John Logan. In the end though, this unanswerable, forever long debate all goes back to one person’s opinion, not being proper. I personally believe it is better to read the book first, but that’s just me, I’m not going to always read them and you don’t have to either.
So, give me your opinions! Disagree or agree? comment and let me know!
Like this:
187 Responses to “Critiquing a Film – Should the Book Matter?”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- - January 3, 2012
- - January 4, 2012
- - January 4, 2012
- - January 4, 2012
- - January 5, 2012
Leave a Reply
I think that the key is to respect each art as a separate entity. If a filmmaker was to translate a book onto the screen most films would be five hours long. It’s also important to remember that readers are endeared to the characters in a story partially due to the time they spent reading the books. Authors have the luxury of making that connection over hundreds of pages. Directors on the other hand have to make those connections quickly or they risk losing the audience. I say live and let live when it comes to these arguments.
So we’re basically in agreement. Heck, Jackson made all three Lord of the Rings films three hours plus and still left out a lot from the books.
Thanks for the comment!
I agree with Jeff above, that each medium has different benefits and limitations, and that they should be considered separate. However, I also believe that movie adaptations that claim to be based off of (as opposed to inspired by) the book should honor the book by trying as hard as possible to keep at least one overarching theme or plot from the book intact, and should attempt to sketch the characters without completely altering their personality or motives to the point they are unrecognizable.
With one noteable exception, Ken Kesey’s “One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” i have never seen a movie based upon a book that surpassed the book. In contrast, I have seen many films where the movie wasn’t just as good, it was an embarassment to the book, Jon Ronson’s “The Men Who Start at Goats,” being one noteable exception. The audience is different (there are people who love reading and who love movies, but I’m guessing most people who watch a great deal of movies don’t read nearly as much), the end-game is substantially different (there’s a lot more money to be made in films, so the empasis is on entertainment rather than content), and there are so many people involved with a film that it can very easily render the book’s strengths impotent. I don’t think it’s essential that a film critic should be inimately aware of the book. They are different animals. As a theater reviewer, I rarely read a play before I see it. A living theater production on the stage is far different than the words on a page. Fortunately, in theater, the playwright’s primacy remains relatively strong, as opposed to film. Even screenwriters bitch and moan about how their work is twisted for the screen; why wouldnt novelists?
I mean that Jon Ronson’s book was a nobable EXAMPLE of a film joylessly thumbing its nose at the book.
I agree with Jeffro (Jeff Ro?)! Movie goers have a much smaller attention span and they expect to be hooked in the first few minutes of a movie (esp. w/ Hollywood blockbusters). They also expect long-winded action scenes, acrobatic fights and car chases – all of which are painfully boring in a book. I think movies could learn from books in terms of building characters and making you care about them.
Oh and Gone with the Wind (the movie) is 5 hours long and I love every minute of it.
Yup, I agree with you; a book is a book and a movie is a movie and they should be judged separately.
Unfortunately, that’s not always a thought that’s embraced by general fans of a franchise, as readers of the books will have developed their own impressions of what the story, setting and characters look like and in that way it becomes intimate for them (a more ‘active’ relationship). Fans of books may not enjoy movie adaptations as movies are simply an expression of someone else’s impression of the story (ie, a more passive relationship for the viewer). In that way, I find that fans of movies who later check the books out tend to be more open to storyline differences than fans of books who later check the movies out.
I think that’s also why you prefer to read the book before seeing the movie, and I’m with you on that one too.
Thanks for the comment Shane, good to know we see eye to eye on this matter!
I’ve always tried to treat films and books as separate mediums (which they are) – sometimes, if a film is being adapted from a book or a play then you need to cut and cull the source material and there is nothing wrong with that – sacrifices have to be made and what works on paper sometimes doesn’t translate well to screen at all. I’m guilty of sometimes judging aspects of a film on how well it was adapted from the books however…(I do try to stop myself though!) For instance, I watched Fellowship of the Ring before I’d even picked up Tolkiens works, but read the rest of the trilogy before the other two films were released. I love the books so much and I think if PJ hadn’t been true to them I wouldn’t have enjoyed the movies as much. But then, I can’t imagine not following the books as much as he did….am I making sense? haha And sometimes, turning a book into a film, but ignoring the bulk of the source is a terrible idea! I’m just re-reading the Inheritance trilogy (which I quite enjoy) and remembering what a terrible film Eragon turned out to be – but it’s a terrible film even to non-fans of the book!
I’m just going to add that I didn’t even realise that Hugo was a book first. I probably won’t even bother reading it.
Okay so we definitely agree, and yeah sometimes it is hard not to judge a movie by the book.
Aww well it is quite fantastic!
Inheritance cycle I should say, there are four books (originally planned only three)
Yeah, not a bad series for sure! I have read them as well
I love to read the book before I see the film but only if I think the story sounds REALLY good and worth investing a lot of time into reading it. However film and book should be judged seperately. It’s very difficult to do this. 2001 is a good example… watched the film… didn’t get it, read the book and loved it! Sometimes it depends which way round you do it. Loved Fight Club the film more than the book but perhaps that’s because I saw the film first. Another wierd example is LOTR. I first read the books and found them incredibly slow and boring. Then I saw the films and loved them so I re-read the books and LOVED them! Interesting post!
I can agree to that. I have not read all the way through 2001, but we had a similar experience. After seeing the movie I was like “huh?” and how so many people say there is no direct meaning to the film is incorrect, and I realized that after reading a ton of Kubrick interviews and a lot of the book.
Thanks for the comment Pete!
Very thoughtful post. I thought Scorsese captured the spirit of The Invention of Hugo Cabret brilliantly, but it helped that the book was so cinematic to begin with…
He did so very well, I agree. But yeah, 200 pictures doesn’t hurt
Interesting topic. However, I don’t think someone should have read the book beforehand. But it all comes down to what audience the director is making the movie for. So will actually make the film with the fans of the book in mind as the audience, like the latest Harry Potter movies. Though keep in mind that the number of Harry Potter readers vastly outnumbers readers of almost any other book.
But even then I would argue that the films should be stand alone entities that exist in and of themselves, and as such should be accessible to all audiences (or at least age appropriate audiences). Movies shouldn’t come with instruction manuals.
Oh I most definitely don’t think someone should have to, I simply think it is often better in order to understand the movie.
Thanks for the comment!
I agree. I feel movie adaptations shouldn’t be too faithful to the books, otherwise there is no point. I feel an adaptation should always bring a completely new cinematic element to make it worthwhile.
ie. Blade Runner – sooo different from the original story, it didn’t even have the same general ethos. But the atmospheric and plot adjustments were cinematic and interesting. The book and the movie are so unique they are difficult to compare, but I preferred the movie.
I have heard that, though it seems in such a case Blade Runner was very, very loosely based off of its source material. Still, I think the Bourne movies and books would fall into that category as well!
I think both types of reviews are needed. As with all writing its more about he reader than the author. I think that movies based from books or historical accounts need to be reviewed for what the artists contributed. The filmakers vision and what they bring to the table deserves a fresh look with a preconception of the comparitive.
Good thoughts, thanks for reading!
I don’t really read novels much anymore, but when watching adaptations of books I have read, I can’t help but make comparisons. But I don’t allow for it to get in the way of my views of the film if they’ve changed things, I judge the film by it’s own merits rather than how closely it sticks to the book
Good, that’s the way I think
Many of the movies based on books that I have watched I haven’t read. The few times that I do read the book and watch the movie, I tend to dislike the movie more because of the differences between the story and the screenplay.
Same here. Though I really don’t care too much if the movie leaves out elements from the book.
With Jeffro and a few other posters here. A novel is already a different medium from a short story, let alone from film. Film as a predominately visual medium has to engage with images in a way that a novel absolutely does not. When it comes to adaptations I tend to look for inventive work that understands the differences between the mediums and uses the material as a source from which to ad-lib or improvise. There is no such thing as a faithful adaptation and I feel quite strongly about that particular issue.
More recently I have become a little more critically perturbed by the need to recreate works in different mediums even when the taget medium is clearly ill-suited to auch adaptation. I have had many, frequently pointless and rather rude, arguments with George R. R. Martin fans about the relative pointlessness of the HBO series adaptation of Game of Thrones. Martin’s original source text was very literary in its use of multivocal narration, which presents massive problems for the kind of ‘authentic’ or ‘faithful’ adaptation that I despise. Amazingly HBO doggedly stuck to a rather pedestrian and limited narrative understanding, rather than looking for visual ways to approximate, or reinvent the narrative structure of the novels.
I think your point about 2001 is a very valid one, but I would strongly suggest that Kubrick has, as he did with Barry Lyndon and The Shining, made his very own version of those novels, that are uniquely cinematic. Arthur C. Clarke actually had an interesting creative process on 2001, as if memory serves he was actually writing and editing the novel as Kubrick directed the film, which kind of negates the whole argument above about reading one before the other (although granted the story ‘The Sentinel’ was around long before).
Good article anyhow, that maybe could use some editing to clarify and condense your argument. Keep it up Matt.
Whoo, thanks for the comment! I think for the most part we are on the same side here, and yeah it certainly could have used some more editing
I hate when people see a movie and compare to the book version, like in the Harry Potter series. I am huge Harry Potter fan and I’ve read all the books. I’ve seen the movies and they did leave out a few things but I reminded myself this is the “movie” version and you can’t expect to put everything in the film. I’m a movie fan and I’ve been to the movies enough times to understand how the business work.
Also, on a personal note, I nominated you for the 7×7 Link Award. Check out my last blog entry for details.
Yeah, the Harry Potter book fanatics get on my nerves too
Again, thank you very much!
Hey Matt! I loved this post, such a great argument. A book kind of hits all the highlights of a whole segment of time for as many or as few characters as desired. A movie is the cliff notes, built up around a single character (of course keeping in mind the other characters but only as they pertain to the MC).
I for one believe there is absolutely no way to duplicate a book in movie form. What can be done is to be authentic to the original text. For example, what is discussed over many dialogues through a book has to be boiled down to about a minute to three minutes of screen-time.
I do believe the actors involved should definitely read the book, discard everything they read and interpret from there. I really dislike when an actor says I only read the script, eh the book doesn’t matter.
The thing about fans is they want to see a physical representation of what they experienced, not really duplicatable except maybe by accident. But you can remain true to the spirit of the book. The thing that really upsets fans is when details are changed that would work perfectly fine in movie/visual form. The director, producer or writer only changed that detail to put their own stamp on the work. As a fan we didn’t go to see a movie based on a book to see the (director, producer or writer)’s slant on the work, we came to see an adaption that is truly based on the work it says it is and not some wannabe’s (wannabe the one who wrote such a popular work) interpretation.
All this said every moment in a book can not be put up on screen (as much as I wish it could be). If the book and movie are exactly the same it would be boring. Still there is a line some (directors, producers or writers) cross that is all about their ego. If you as an artist are doing a portrait of a person then more than likely the person sitting for the portrait wants it to resemble them in body and not you. The artistry comes in in how you paint, not what you painted.
Cheers!!
Haha very good comment! I think you hit the nail on the head, much more to the point than I was
The key is that the movie should stand on its own. Case in point: Twilight. For the vast majority of us who haven’t read any of it, the movies look completely laughable but for many who have read Stephanie Meyers’ novels, the cinematic experience doesn’t seem to be nearly as unsatisfactory (how could you explain the franchise success otherwise?).
But from a cinematic point of view, the movies are garbage and one shouldn’t have to read the books to fill in all the blanks that the filmmakers were unable to plug.
Good point! However, I have actually read the first Twilight book, and I honestly cannot say it’s much better… if at all.
Thanks for reading!
Ya man I do like the book better then the movie most of the time but I think when people fall in love with a book then they see the movie..People are always going to knock the movie most of the time…but anyway I like your writing skills. Keep doing your thing kid…
Yeah that’s just the way it has to be I guess. Thanks!
I think most of us can agree intellectually that the ideal is to keep the judgement of the movie and the book apart. But when it comes to reality it might be a bit trickier.
I think often we end up liking the medium we first encountered most. If we read the book first, that will have set a lot of images in our head that can be pretty hard to disregard of. And if we see the movie first we can find the book underwhelming, too drawn out, not giving us the emotional response we got from the movie.
There are always exceptions though. I remember reading Into the Wild and liking it well enough, but thinking the film was even better, despite the fact that I watched it later.
Honestly, I like Lord of the Rings movies better than the books, but that is one of the few cases you are right. Most of the time book before movie we love the book more. Thanks for the comment!
I am not a great reader of books. I couldn’t fit them in even if I wanted to!
Films, family, the website and sleeping come first.
So I think that although it is nice to do both, the film should stand up on it’s own! Have it’s own identity.
I enjoyed this post matey!!
Happy New Year!
Haha that’s the reason I quit reading! But hey, New Year’s resolutions right?
Happy New Year!
Matt,
You are exploring something that I think about and debate with people all the time as well. When a person reads a book they actually make a movie in their head, even if they don’t believe they are doing it. When they see the film they are comparing what’s on the screen with what was in their mind movie. It gets more complicated as favorite scenes or details can be left out and that automatically causes the viewer/reader to drop the stock price of the film. It’s natural.
I loved Hugo, the book and the film and read it with my 7 year old son. We then went to see the film and loved that as well. I’ll be interested to read your revised Hugo review. Link back to my site and read my Hugo assessment. Would love to hear your thoughts on it. I tried hard to review the film aside from the book.
The bottom line is books are books, plays are plays, movies are movies, etc. An artist who is trying to tackle the source material and interpret it for another medium will always have to make tough decisions. It’s useful to remember that even original films start with the printed word.
Steve
Agree, the bottom line says it all. For such a long debated subject, it really is just that simple. Thanks for the comment!
Great post, Matt, quite thought-provoking. I think it depends how one feel about the book whether it matters or not, but generally I try to separate the two because film is such a different medium that what works in the book might not work in the movie and vice versa. So I think I tend to judge the film on its own merit. 9 times out of 10 though, the book is usually better than the film.
I’m glad you mention To Kill A Mockingbird, lots of people I talked to seem to have the same view that the film is as good as the book and certainly that’s a testament of what a great actor Gregory was and Robert Mulligan’s skill as a director. I haven’t read the book but after seeing the film, I might pick up the book.
Thank you very much Ruth!
Oh, so you are one of the ones who sides with the book, eh? I can agree that a lot of the times it is better, but for me it is more like 5 out 10, and even if I would think more highly of the book I still usually enjoy the movie more.
To Kill a Mockingbird is a brilliant book by any standards, I recommend it very much!
It is funny, I used to laugh at people when they told me to read the book instead of watching the movie. Of course I never did. Now that Marvel makes movies based off of their comic book heros I can understand where some people get vocal about reading a book first and having more insight though. Not sure if that counts though. LOL
Haha I get you, try reading the books sometimes
I think it can sometimes be good to read the book first, but on the other hand, where there are major changes or omissions from the films, it can spoil your enjoyment of the movie. I know I would have enjoyed V for Vendetta less had I read the graphic novel before I saw the film. The same goes for other films of books too. That said, sometimes it doesn’t matter, and it’s fun to see how it plays out with the foreknowledge from having read the books.
I think in the end, when you read the book doesn’t matter, but that if you enjoy the film, you probably SHOULD read the book. I also think that when it comes to critics and reviewers, they should read the book before doing the review. I think that it’s generally beneficial when reading a review or critique if the author points out any major differences between the movie and the source material, since it’s not only relevant to fans of the books, but also to the movie process.
Omitting or changing material is not always a bad thing, in terms of pacing, visuals and so on, some things don’t work so well on the screen as on paper. Tom Bombadil in Lord of the Rings would have dragged the film to a crawl, and a five hour running length. The original ending to Watchmen would probably have looked pretty ridiculous on screen. There’s many other examples too.
That’s the biggest thing for me too, when reading the book first it really can hurt one’s view on the film, even when it shouldn’t.
Thanks for reading!
great post. it really got me thinking really how reading the literature affects my own critiques of the movie. Often, the movie suffers in comparison to the book or comic book because the literature has the freedom to explain the logic behind the stories but when filmmakers are able to interpret and give life to the contents of the reading material, its an awesome experience.
Agreed. The thing I love most though is when the movie is nearly exactly like the book, that’s the best
very true
Personally I think that there are two different questions to be asked when critiquing a film that was adapted from a book.
a) is it a good movie?
b) is it a good adaptation of the source material?
When you’re answering question a, having read the book is, ultimately, inconsequential, since the movie should stand on its own and work on its own.
When you’re trying to answer question b, you have to be familiar with the source material, of course. You can analyse whether or not the adaptation was faithful/literal/creative or not – and whether those things were appropriate choices for the adaptation or not.
Answering question b does of course add depth to your understanding of a story, just as re-reading a book at a different point in life will add depth to your understanding of the book or reading two scientific articles on the same subject will broaden your view as well.
But I think that if you can’t understand a film without having read the book on which it is based, it’s a short-coming, if not to say failure of the movie which – as its own piece of art should be self-contained.
[It would be different if the book and the movie were planned as companion pieces, made to complement each other - but that's again an entirely different story.]
Interesting thoughts, and yes when they are made to complement each other that is another long post
I think you’re right that reading the book before seeing the film is not a necessity, but it can often enrich the experience. They can definitely be viewed as two separate entities. A good example for me was A Clockwork Orange, as I read the book after watching the film and enjoyed both more as a pair. If you’re interested I did a similar post on this. I think it’s quite an interesting topic. Good stuff.
http://mostlymotionpictures.wordpress.com/2011/11/14/from-page-to-screen-novels-adapted-into-films/
i appreciate this approach to a common area of strong opinion. i think it’a humble perspective, to say you can appreciate the movie, even if it doesn’t follow the book exactly. my most recent experience is with The Help, in which I enjoyed both the film and the book equally. Thank you for sharing this.
Interesting post. I think a book and a movie (even a movie based on or inspired by the book) are different and individually complete art forms and so knowledge of one should not be presumed necessary for commentary on the other. Having said that, if you have read the book in question, yes of course you will have a deeper understanding of the movie, but be warned: the director is well within his rights to modify characterizations and plotlines to suit his medium or style. So don’t go complaining that things aren’t exactly as intended by the writer of the book!
I’m glad I saw this post because I was debating this notion just a week ago after seeing “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”. During my debate, I was aggressively pushing the idea that a film should be judged on its own merits and not on the book. After all, the film adaptation, despite sharing characters and plot points with a book, is inherently someone else’s vision and understanding of the source material.
By all accounts, a film should be judged as its own entity as best as it can. I think it’s certainly legitimate for anyone to use the book as a filler guide to the film adaptation, but that shouldn’t be an exercise that entirely weighs into a film’s quality.
Furthermore, if one has to go back to the book in order to understand a film, well, then the film should be viewed in a negative light simply because the film didn’t do its job of streamlining the story in a way that is comprehensible.
I don’t envy screenwriters who have to adapt a book. It’d be like walking on eggshells. You’d know that the fan base has certain expectations, but you’d also want to make sure the adaptation rings true to what you believe the book to be about. What is more stifling is that each fan of the said source material has mentally created their own world while reading the book. They know what it looks like, how it feels, how it smells, etc. and when that vision doesn’t match up with the film adaptation, well, then the film is a letdown. This doesn’t happen all the time, but sometimes a book’s fan base can be insufferable simply because someone has altered their “world” so to speak. Definitely one reason why I try to separate a book from its adaptation…and now my mini-tangential comment is done.
Great post!
I’m with you, mmonty86. For the record, so is Roger Ebert, who will not read a book before reviewing the movie because he believes the movie should stand alone. I think that the movie has the responsibility to stay true to the spirit of the book, if it wants to use the title and other identifiers from the book. But any other details the scriptwriter or director sees fit to change are their business.
An incredibly interesting viewpoint on this is that of John Irving, who changed his book The Cider House Rules enormously when he wrote the film script. It is, ironically, a very faithful adaptation. He wrote all about it in My Movie Business. I would recommend that to you as well, Matt.
The Cider House Rules (film) is one of my all time favorite. I might venture as far to say it’s the most underrated movie I have ever seen…
I’ve been in this position too. It can be frustraiting for book lovers when the film changes something, but not all that works in books works on the big screen. Honestly, I thought LOTR could have been a lot shorter. People say the books are big and the movie cut out enough as it was. I ask if you really want to spend another 30 min. watching them fight ork. I don’t.
Happy New Year – 2012
Interesting take on the movie vs the book as it relates to “The Invention of Hugo Cabret”. Typically I like watching the film first, then reading the book. It usually leaves me with a win-win scenario. If I liked the movie, then reading the book only adds more detail. As for “Hugo” though, I enjoyed the film much more than the book. I think the only other time that has happened is with “The Godfather”.
Thats a tough question and you make some good points.
I read a lot and will typically have read the book before I see the film. Although I can apprecaite the film seperately from the book I can’t help but compare them. There is an art in capturing the book within the film, and there are opportunities for losses and gains as the story transfers to another medium.
Thanks for posting. The issue of film adaptation to books is something I’ve put a lot of thought into myself – I critique books professionally. The issue is that book and film are two different media, and the priorities of what makes them ‘good’ differ. A book precisely transliterated into film – like the first Harry Potter effort – usually turns into a bad movie. Phillipa Boyens, scriptwriter for the Lord of the Rings movies, told me that this was why even their script wasn’t precisely according to the book – and they are fans.
To me a good movie should also be explicable without reading the book. Space Odyssey – one of my favourite films – was extremely opaque in that regard. However, I think Kubrick was deliberately creating an obscure film. The book was only semi-similar; it plotted out quite differently with voyage to Saturn. Ultimately the question, to me, is ‘does this entertain’, and ‘is it good as it stands, for its media’? Is it good, when seen on its own merits irrespective of how it has been represented in the other media? And, in the end, there is a lot of personal taste about it.
Thanks for a great & thought provoking post.
Matthew Wright
http://mjwrightnz.wordpress.com
http://www.matthewwright.net
I will get to your blog soon!
I am also of the opinion that you should read a book before seeing the movie. However, when I critique a movie based on a book, I often let my thoughts on the book guide me feelings on the movie. As much as I want to judge the film on its own merits, it’s difficult for me if I read the book first. This truly is a never ending debate. And congrats on being freshly pressed!
I believe that books and movies should be reviewed as both separate, and apart. There are definitely some types of books where you simply cannot get all of the content of the book into a 2 hour movie, or need to for that matter.
very interesting, and i think the book should matter.. thanks for sharing the great post..
I actually don’t think the book should matter. The movie should be judged on it’s own merits. I’m a huge geek-nerd so I always like the book better. I get less disappointed with the movie if I don’t worry about how great the book was.
Let alone the film vs book discussion, I’m still struggling with the term critiquing . . .
Agreed! I tend to read the books first, but I try very hard to manage my expectations and treat them as the separate entities they are and not the films as an extension of the books. I often think books do a better job of telling the story, but not necessarily always. “To Kill A Mockingbird” is a good example; “Gone With the Wind” would be another.
I’ve always struggled with reading a book — my preferred method of absorbing a story–and then watching a movie of a book without spending the entire viewing critiquing the filmmaker and writers.
What helps me, however, is that within a couple of weeks of reading a book, I’ve completely forgotten what the book was about. Ask me the name of the main character in a novel I read last week and I’ll draw a blank. My brain is like a sieve — holding onto a few bits of interesting information and dumping the rest. As a result, if I wait long enough after reading a book to see the movie, the material becomes largely new to me!
I agree with many of the other bloggers who said that a book and a film can, and where possible, should be allowed to stand on their own merits. “Everything is Illuminated” comes to mind as an example of creating two distinct works of art from the same root, as does Joe Wright’s “Pride and Prejudice.”
I am envisioning myself directing the trailer for your blog. Do I pan the comments first and then cut to the header? Do I have a male or female do the voice over? Could I get Morgan Freeman? Would you boycott the set if I chose Ray Romano instead? Do I simply change the font and change everything to Italics? I don’t relly know except that I love the question “Book or Movie?”. Now that is entertainment. Good job!
Wonderful review
Thanks for the article. I’ve often wondered it too because you often hear of people stressing a film be ‘true to the book’. Sometimes it does, sometimes it meshes tried-and-true bits from other movies. I’ll admit I haven’t read the novel about Hugo Cabret but I liked Hugo.
If possible, I always read the book first. Written words cleverly masterpieced often paint the canvas, play the music and set the props.
For myself, the biggest problem that I have between critiquing a book and critiquing a film is that often the theme of the book and the theme of the movie are completely different and that is where I start to lean towards one or the other. When a movie, and “Hugo” is a great example of this, illuminates the same themes as the book then both mediums are equally effective, regardless of how closely they movie “follows” the book.
I was planning to write a blog on a similar theme as this- is it OK if I quote your post?
Here is a proposal: a movie based on a book that takes massive liberties with the plot, especially the ending, should not call itself the same name as the book (regardless how much they paid for the rights to same). It should have another name (playing on the book name or character name is okay) immediately and obviously subtitled “based on the novel/play/trilogy NAME by AUTHOR.” This would immediately warn fans of the book that they are getting a screenwriter or director’s vision and give a major nod to the original story posed by the writer. This would make the movie experience much more enjoyable. As examples, two such book versus wrenchingly different movies are Children of Men (2006)and the literary classic, The Painted Veil (2006), (FWIW, I enjoyed the Twilight author’s ability to write cliffhanger chapter endings but if I adapted the books, my version would have a completely different outcome.)
book with words on paper is just a totally different way of telling the story as images, movement, music and sound on the big screen, I think both are powerful tools if being utilised well.
well, books mostly rely on words and writing techniques, but film is a collaboration of visual art, acting, colours, music, sound, editing, montage, writing etc but much more than a simple combination of all…
I have to say a lot of films adapted from books were bad not because they weren’t like books at all, they were just badly made, that’s all. e.g. loved the book One Day and just didn’t think the film worked at all. nobody cricising Lord Of Rings simply because the film were just as brilliant…
I had the same thought concerning “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” adaptations. I think movies and books are totally different mediums so they need to be considered separately. If you compare them to the point where one “ruins” the other, then I think you’re trying too hard.
i agree they’re seperate and should be judged seperatly…but it’s almost impossible to judge a film without bias if you read the book. the book sets the standard…you imagine each scene, you create each character in your mind…and if the film doesn’t deliver what your mind has already created it can be a let down. sometimes i hold out reading a book just so i can enjoy the movie more
http://www.icouldntmakethisshitup.wordpress.com
In general I agree with most of the posters that movies and books are two separate mediums, and one cannot accurately be judged by the other. At the same time, when a movie takes on the title of a book there is an implied trust that the movie will represent the story, intent, and nature of that book (even if it does not follow the book exactly). For instance, there is a vast difference in similarity between the Lord of the Rings Books/Movies and the Book/Movie Starship Troopers. While the LotR movies did not follow the books step by step, and did not contain every facet of detail contained in the books, they did represent the overall story and intention of the books well. On the other hand, the movie Starship Troopers had little in common with the book beyond its title. Not only details were changed, entire characters were deleted or added, and (more infuriating) the entire nature and theme of the book was ignored in the making of the movie. So, while I don’t think that a movie can be judged completely on how well it follows a book, there is some degree of similarity that should be required.
Ditto.
The negative commentary during viewership by fellow on lookers is quite an annoying experience; having been subjected to this type of atmosphere know first hand the grueling nature of having to bite the tongue in turn. In closure to the discussion I would merely point out that they should have bought the book and waited until after the theatrical release to read it.
An easy, meaningful way to look at the subject is that if you read a book you read it to read. When viewing a multimedia production of the story the entire span of the history covered by the work has to be truncated/edited down to 1.5 hours on average. It is highly unlikely that many will sit in a theater beyond 2.5 hours with movies like Transformers being a rare exception.
Maybe the critics should think about producing a mini-series based on their favorite work if they have so many complaints and can do better.
I tried to read the Lord of the Rings trilogy before watching the movies, I only read half of the first book and never picked it up again after watching the movies. I guess I’m a visual person, I needed to see and hear the characters and settings inorder to keep track of it all while reading. I often use the actors voices in my internal dialog while reading a book, so it’s easier when I know whose voice to use! Another attempt was Dan Brown’s novels, thriller/mystery novels are probably easier to read first, especially Brown’s, but the movie will seem very predictable and you already know who-dun-it. Right now The Lost Symbol is on my iPod, waiting for me to finish. Are they going to make this into a movie? I’ll probably rent it.
I reviewed/critiqued films for several years and I’m an avid reader of novels. I’ve also written screenplays and novels, and they’re two totally different beasts. I don’t think you need to read the book to review a film adapted from a novel, but it doesn’t hurt either.
I think the general scenario when a person reads the book first and watches the movie based on the book is that they have already visualized what the characters look like, etc…so they are disappointed when they see a screenwriter and director’s vision, which differs from theirs.
So I critique movies for the sake of cinema. Does the story come across, how are the performances, do the visuals help in telling the story or just act as eye candy and ditto for the soundtrack.
I try not to compare, but I will say this about the French movie “Hedgehog” in that it brought the novel it was adapted from to life. I enjoyed the visuals of the movie and the sympathetic acting as much as I enjoyed Muriel B’s turn of phrases and dialogue when I read her novel.
A movie is merely an evolved version of a story. Stories evolve from ideas or experiences to sentences to short tales/fables then further evolve into novels and or series of novels then maybe into play performances or into movies. (etc)
While reviewing a movie the book should objectively be taken into consideration. It is in fact where the movie came from. I say objectively because it is more often that someone claims the book was better than the movie or the movie was nothing like the book. That is where one goes wrong in a review. Analyze the story fully. Recognize how the film maker interpreted it and why it was interpreted in the way it was. Once every aspect of the growth of a story is recognized then a good review is born.
Different forms of art evolve into different forms of art. This evolution should be recognized.
I’ve rarely enjoyed a movie more than a book. Its too tough to condense all of the complexities of a movie into a book. An interesting twist on this is “Where the Wild Things Are” — I thought it was a pretty brave adaptation of the book, especially considering that the book is like 100 words long.
I agree that it’s best to treat books and films as separate species. Having said that, I’ve just blogged about ‘The War of the Worlds’ (the novel), which I read years after watching the films (both the original and the remake). I can’t pretend I didn’t enjoy the book more, though that might be because it’s set in London and Surrey and I happen to be British! Maybe I’ll change my mind if they make a British film version. (That’s a hint to any would-be filmmakers by the way!)
I believe that in different cases the importance of reading the book varies. For example: As a kid, I grew up reading the Harry Potter novels. I grew up with them, the faces of the characters were embedded in my mind. Their features, both psychological and physical. These book made a bigger impression in me than many people that were close to me.
Suppose I was to make a review of the movie? It could be the greatest masterpiece of the century, and I would still hate it.
I believe movie reviewing should be constructed from a standpoint in which the more knowledge there is, the better. In most cases reading the book would add to the opinion of the movie, but in some, it could endanger it.
One thing I disagree completely with you, the knowledge of a particular book should never (EVER) be required for the full appreciation of a movie. If it is so, it is the movie that is flawed.
Echoing most of the comments already, books and films should be considered on their own merits and faults. Enjoying or experiencing the source material and an adapted text can be done in relation to the other when the consumer deems it appropriate or worthy. Eg, “Oh, I wouldn’t have filmed it like that at all” or “Oh, I couldn’t have staged that scene better.”
Shakespeare is somewhat of an exception, isn’t he? His works have been adapted, re-interpreted into a variety of formats and so many times (in several languages) that it is difficult to consider the character of Hamlet without conjuring images of Kenneth Branagh, Laurence Olivier, lines from the play, etc.
Movies and books are two separate entities, and each should work on their own terms. The key to a film adaptation is not religiously duplicating every detail of the book, but to respect the source material. “Lord of the Rings” changes a lot of the aspects of the books, but Peter Jackson understood what the books were all about and made the films as cinematic pieces of art, knowing that certain things from the books could not translate onto the big screen. There’s also the problem of running time and other considerations. Why duplicate the multiple-year time span of the book in “To Kill a Mockingbird” when you can tell the same story in a more condensed time period? Otherwise you’d have to somehow show the kids getting older, which is difficult.
It is possible to love the books and the movies, despite their differences. Rob Reiner’s “Misery” toned down the violence of the book and added characters for comic relief and to open up the movie from the one setting the book depicted. These changes were necessary to make a movie, and they worked. The Harry Potter books streamlined the stories to reflect only Harry’s plot, ditching all the subplots with the supporting characters. For many book fans, this was sacrilege, but it was necessary in making films that were focused and not five hours long.
If you have a movie that predicates having read the book to understand the movie, then you’ve failed as a filmmaker. The movie should be stand-alone. I had to watch David Lynch’s “Dune” twice with people telling me what was going on (they had read the book) before I could finally watch it for the third time and enjoy it. When that film first hit the theaters, companion packets were handed out to the audience so they could follow the story. This is a failing.
Some changes to movies are unnecessary and random, and leads to fans of the books to hate the movies because it seems the filmmakers were not respecting the source material. In particular, when an ending becomes more “Hollywood” (i.e. a chase or explosion where there was none in the book), the audience feels cheated. With three adaptations of “I Am Legend,” there still has yet to be one true to the book. Same goes for “Planet of the Apes.” However, does that make the films any less entertaining? It is possible to appreciate the source novel but enjoy the film based on the book as a separate artistic work.
filmverse.wordpress.com
I’ll catch your blog soon!
I believe that for people who have not read the books the movies are based on, it doesn’t and shouldn’t matter. But if you’re somebody like myself, who takes what I imagined while I was reading and seeing what is on the screen, it ruins the experience for me. Only because what I imagined was so vivid and unique, it’s impossible to satisfy that original interpretation that occurred in my head.
I am a movie buff and I also love to read books. Sometimes I read the book before I see the movie based.on the book. Sometimes I don’t. I don’t see the two mediums as complementary. They necessarily convey different visions: the book conveys the author’s vision and the movie, the director’s vision. I understand a movie can’t convey everything that was in a book because of time and accept that when I watch the movie. Also I understand that my like or dislike of a book is based upon MY perception or my view of the characters developed from spending hours with them and their thoughts. So I don’t think one should take the book into account in critiquing a film. That would be comparing apples to oranges! (FYI: people who “How can you say a movie is good when it is not at all like the book?” just want you to know they read the book!)
For me it all boils down to one crucial related issue: Am I sitting next to a fan of the book who is whining and bitching and ruining my experience of the movie WORSE than the movie’s deviations are?
Which is damaging my enjoyment more: Tom Bombadil’s absence or the adenoidal whining of the LOTR geek sitting behind me whinging on and on about Tom Bombadil’s absence? Chances are, it’s the latter.
Sorry, but I’m a stickler for the book.
Yeah, yeah
I will admit it. I often walk out of a movie disgusted by how terrible the movie was compared with the splendor of a book. I guess that I have the expectation that the same feelings that the written word brought forth in me are going to be there in the movie as well, and then I just leave disappointed.
I guess that it is an unreasonable expectation to have the same high expectations for a movie because you really do not have the same opportunity for character and plot development as you do in a book. In addition, unlike a great book, a movie does not allow you to use your imagination because you are relying on someone else’s imagination and creative interpretations when viewing a movie.
However, all of that said, I still judge a movie based on the book – and in the rare case where a movie is better than the book, I then end up asking myself why the author couldn’t do what a movie director could.
Thanks for the great post!
Nice post. I remember seeing Starship Troopers when it first came out. I absolutely hated it. The film had zero redeeming features. And I was supposed to root for the Nazis? No thanks. The people I spoke to that defended the movie most strongly were those who had read the novel and told me how deep the story was and knew all the symbolism and allegory. My response was that none of that made the screen. What I watched in the theater was junk and they could defend the book all they wanted, it was a very different animal in the movie. I think that reading a novel helps understand a film but the bottom line is you have to judge what you see on the screen. After all, that’s what you are judging, not the book.
I think if reading the book was necessary for understanding the movie than the movie was poorly made. Ultimately I think the book should bare no importance on the review of the movie, and for a review or critique it may be helpful to not have read the book to not color the review.
Invariably with prior knowledge of the books events the review will have to compare and contrast the two, and not then judge the movie solely on the movie’s own strengths and weaknesses as a separate piece of art.
I really just wish that movies would say “inspired by” as opposed to “based on” in doing so would encourage people to separate the two in their minds.
hey, dropped in to congratulate you on getting freshly pressed
great job!
Thank you very much!
Books and movies are separate entities that succeed or fail on their own merit. They do however compete for the same space in the mind of the reader/viewer. There are obvious reference points in any comparison to book and movie covering the same story. Depending on the story a book or movie may hold an edge over the other as it lends itself better to one medium or the other. Then comes the vision and presentation of the author or producer/director/actors, etc.
Sometimes A Great Notion is a good example here. The book with its stream of consciousness writing style was not going to be easy for any team of screenwriters and director to bring to the screen adequately. Still, the film could have been better than it was. But, Kesey’s One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest did lend itself better to the screen and was one of the best movies ever made, in my opinion.
That said, I do believe that the author has an advantage over film makers. He can create complex characters, scenes, stories and worlds that never have to be reproduced with preconceived notions of the movie goer that has already read the book.
Great topic and discussion.
I think the book should matter in judging a film’s success as an adaptation, but shouldn’t be the end-all-be-all. What could be judged as a failure in adaptation can still result in a wonderful film. I would also say that faithful adaptations can make for terrible films, but that true successes in adaptation are those things which (generally) retain the key content and authorial intent of a work, while still inviting in a new audience and being cinematically palatable.
For me, sometimes I want both in order to see how will my imagination compares to what the directors see. And with this, I can say that I would love to read the book first. But there are some of those movies that I watched before even reading the book yet. Anyway, it depends because maybe I can say that there are some film makers that wanted to let others know ‘their’ version of that particular book they read in a movie. So that’s (I think) why most of it are no where near from what we read.
theothertuesday
It can be so hard to separate the movie’s story and the book’s story in my mind sometimes. It always bothers me when directors leave out parts that I saw as essential to the story, or don’t seem to have read books later in the series and make otherwise minor changes that will ultimately kill the movie’s chances of having any sequels based on the books. “Eragon” being this classic example of this.
Hi Matt,
I am more of a reader than a movie buff. Hence my preference do lie with books in general. But I don’t overlook the fact that there are many movies that are better than the books on which they are based. The one basic issue I think about is when a director takes the characters from a book and use them in a movie, does he have the right to make the storyline completely different from the book. After all the characters and the basic story are not completely his creation. For example when a story gives importance to a particular character especially in a series (say Harry Potter), does the director have the right to give more importance to another character in the movie? Of course it depends on the understanding between the author and the director, but the audience might feel betrayed.
My article on a related topic can be found at http://indianblogworld.com/2011/07/potter-mania-books-versus-films/. I would love to know your opinion about it.
Parvathy
I will get to that very soon!
Great article and it’s something I often think about as well. But ultimately I look at films and the books they are based on as two seperate entities because it simply isn’t fair to judge these two outlets of entertainment when they give the viewer different types of entertainment. Reading will always be my first love but film is such a close second for me. With books you get so much more detail and can really get into the worlds. But at the same time, films are such a sensory experience and if you look at movies like Jaws, James Bond, or Jurassic Park, could you imagine a world without such famous theme music? It completely adds another level to the original story. Thought provoking piece!
I agree for the most part. The book “The Help” gave me insight to the movie. The movie The English Patient helped me figure out the book.
Yes, films and books are two completely different entities. But still a reviewer can say which one gave more pleasure to him. Like in case of Harry potter I felt like reading the book was much more entertaining than watching its movie. It may vary from viewer to viewer and along different books. So while writing a review you can write your feelings.
Really great article & good points made here. I saw The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo film without having read the book. I decided not to read the book afterwards but it would be interesting to see how it works in reverse.
I am trying to decide whether to see Norwegian Wood. I’m just not sure I will be able to get the book out of my head sufficiently to appreciate the film in it’s own right. Tricky one.
Worst film & most disappointing experience I ever had of book to film was Captain Corelli’s Mandolin.
Books aren’t movies! The closest you can possibly get is “based on”. My own article on this same subject was posted Dec.15th. This topic is SO tired.
The topic is SO tired simply because you wrote about it? Do you think you’re the last word on the topic?
Haha if the topic is so tired why did you post on it?
I read the book Oliver Twist, and when i get tired of it, i watch the movie, and go back to read the book, and the movie, and it goes on and one. In the end i never finished reading or watching it, but in my opinion, definitely some movies really can’t well-express the book. I will never understand Oliver Twist if i didn’t read the book. The characters, are know-able in the book, not the movie. It’s just my personal opinion.
I personally feel that the similarity between Movie and the Novel should not matter to decide whether the Movie is good or not. What should matter is the acting of the Crew, the way incidents were played/directed, background score and dialogues.
We can put plenty in books, which cannot be covered in a 3 hour movie easily. Hence its completely correct on part of directors and others to decide what is to be included in the movie or not.
A Critic must criticize what is their in the movie, not what is left out from the book.
I agree with you. If the movie is good, it’s good. I’m a book person first, movie goer maybe never. But I hear you.
val
http://valentinedefrancis.wordpress.com
Some people can’t read. We should not discriminate against them.
Ha…
While I love both books and films, reading is the greater of my two passions.
Therefore, I often find it extremely hard not to compare a film with the book it was based on (if that is the case). I am one of those annoying people you mentioned who sit and say “this isn’t right, this didn’t happen in the book” – particularly if it is a book that I love.
I often think that films that have been derived from books are great, stand-alone pieces of cinema, but as an adaptation and visual representation of a book, they fall short.
In saying that, sometimes you’ve just got to appreciate the book and the film separately – otherwise you’ll go mad
Hey, congratulations on getting freshly pressed! And Your article has quite a point. I’ m currently writing my bachelor thesis on adapted screenplays and the difficulties that arise in the process of adapting a book. I think peope often forget that a book is a different medium than a movie, and that they both have their own rules which must be obeyed. So, if you read Harry Potter, don’ t expect every detail of the book to be in the movie, since it’ s just not possible and also it’ s not the point of the movie to quote everything from the book. Of course, from a good book you can transfer a lot to the screenplay, such as the characters, the main plot, some strong lines etc. However, I think a book should be judged as an individual piece of art, and if the book has that right, so should the movie. (Spoken as a screenwriter and director, of course:-))
The films never seem to be as good as the books
Disagree
The Godfather, Casablanca, Fight Club, Trainspotting, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, Psycho, The Shawshank Redemption and the list continues, on and on…
http://azevedosreviews.wordpress.com/
goood page::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.omnibazar.com/
Books and films are two seperate media. If a movie is based on a book it shouldn’t slavishly follow the book. It should keep the spirit of the book but not be over reverental to it.
Food for thought. I have the same argument with my friends. I’m a movie buff so I tend to lean toward – just respect each genre for what it is – type of answer. But I get your point. Thx.
As a film reviewer I definitely fall into the category of not really caring about the book and whether the adaptation if ‘faithful’/. I wouldn’t want to see some of my favourite books adapted, and wouldn’t care much to read the novel of my favourite films (they’d undoubtedly suck).
Definitely all about the medium and what works best for it.
Can apples be compared with oranges? Nope. Sure, they are fruits and one might be tastier than the other (of course, purely opinion based), but I find that they are just too different to compare. It’s the same thing with books and movies.
I used to be one of those people you pointed out, the ones who harshly criticized movies which were based on books. However, I came to the realization that movies could never incorporate every single detail that resides within its novel. The movie would be too long and people would complain anyways, so there is no winning. Just enjoy the movie and the book as they are, in their own right, fantastic forms of media.
I always watch the film first as if it’s the other way around I’m always left dissapointed.
I think the book should matter because the movie is based on it. If the directors weren’t staying true to the story then they’re not interpreting it correctly.
Summer
As a die hard Twilight fan I don’t think there can ever be any dispute about the book mattering – of course it does!! Don’t get me wrong I love movies but books are just so much more emersing.
Seems to me to be a clear case of apples and oranges. Books and films create characters that our imaginations fill with life and nuances that are as unique as we are, however, they are very different experiences. Quietly filling your head with written words that blossom into characters is a very different process than the explosion of seeing and hearing larger than life characters. Imagine someone reading a book to you and how the tones and inflections they use help create that picture for you. Consider that an intermediate step between a book and a film. Each should be judged for what they are albeit books are often the inspiration for the a film interpretion.
in a word, NO. The book and the movie are quite distinct forms of art and each can and should be viewed in their own right. Nothing irritates me more than “oh the movie wasn’t as good as the books”.
You bring up a very good point. I belong to a movies meetup group as well as a book meetup group. Some of the same people are in each group, so there is always conversation about the book vs the movie. I think for the most part they are both meant to entertain – if they are fiction – and therefore it shouldn’t matter so much. It’s all about personal preference.
Interesting post. I would agree that the demands of the visual and the written medium are different, and that what can take pages to explain in a book, can often be given to a viewer in a handful of frames (and vice versa).
However, I am also on the side of readers whose long beloved stories are grabbed and remade by studios not remotely interested in them as stories – I would offer the Earthsea miniseries or The Dark is Rising as two catastrophic examples of the genre. LOTR worked because Jackson knew the story well AND knew how to tell a story in film AND he cared about telling that story.
And in reply to an earlier commenter, just because a topic has been discussed a lot, does not make it tired.
yeah…you gotta take them on their own merits. for better or worse.
I find I seem to prefer whichever one, book or film, I see first. See my stuff on this topic, bad movie novelisations, Johnny Depp, Hunter S Thompson and alcohol. http://jonkenna.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/the-rum-diary-fear-of-getting-old-aged-22/
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to your webpage? My blog site is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my visitors would definitely benefit from some of the information you present here. Please let me know if this okay with you. Thanks a lot!
It is very much okay! haha.
I usually prefer to read the book before seeing the movie because I know the movie could possibly cut out a lot of parts from the book that may change how I feel about the story in general. Also, they are usually better.
However, in the many years I have learned I have tried to treat the movie and the book as separate matters. A movie doesn’t have to be completely accurate, but if it’s going to be based on the book they should either:
1. Stick to the details on the book as much as possible
Or
2. Make a remake that can be appreciated on a stand-alone basis.
It’s a habit of mine to always criticize, but if anything I’d like to think that a movie is a way to help more people read books, so I guess it’s a good thing?
I read One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and loved it SO much, I watched the film immediately after. There were so many things missing from the movie BUT I gained respect for Jack Nicholson immediately after. The film can never be like the book. At the end of the day, it is simple the director’s interpretation of the book.
That being said, I think one film that does justice to the book is Stuart: A Life Backwards. Written by a British author and adapted into film by the BBC, this was such a wonderful film – almost as perfect as the movie, That is also where I gained respect for Tom Hardy. He is a very good actor!
*almost as perfect as the book* not the movie.
It’s all about imagination; our individual interpretations of the details of the book we are reading that form with each written word we read. That’s the whole idea of print (other than to inform)… to take us mentally somewhere we are not likely to go, or experience events we are not likely to ever experience. One might say that the first “movies” were in fact, our individual imaginations playing out the stories we are reading… with books being the screenplay. Books, after all, provide a helluva lot more detail than a movie ever could simply because written words form images within our minds that can extend beyond the words themselves. I think what might be discussed here is not movies vs. books but rather how close a movie might follow the plot and form of the original book. With the movie it’s all about making money for the investors, no ifs, ands or buts about that. If making the hero of the story live at the end sells more movie tickets than killing off the hero as it was originally written in the book then so be it. The book will always be better than the movie version. The exception to this is action films… I rather enjoy seeing guns blazing, bullets flying, and things blowing up in the movies rather than reading about it in a book.
My biggest personal “gripe” is when a movie is presented as historical fact when it’s intentionally mixed with fiction. That’s one reason I never saw Stone’s “JFK”. I was “afraid” I might watch the movie thinking there might be some true revelations here and there that I didn’t know about, and find out later that was a fictional part. I don’t mind someone taking dramatic license to fill a story but I can’t say I enjoy some director screwing with my head on historical fact unless I know up front.
Hi
Congratulations on being Freshly Pressed.
I agree to your views regarding movies that are adapted from books.
It really is upto what is our real passion, books or movies. And one is bound to gravitate towards liking the one over other in accordance.
Last year I had posted a similar blog with observation on three books that I really love and the respective movies.
http://sbhagwat01.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/blog-1-gone-with-the-wind/
Share your thoughts
Regards
Shweta
Very intriguing concept. I’m a strong believer in the idea that books are usually better than movies–at the same time I think you make a good point that one does not have to have read the books in order to form an opinion on the movie. I saw the LOTR films without reading the books and loved them. I appreciate the differences between film and literature. Sometimes a movie that deviates from the book can still be a great movie. What bugs me is when a film cashes in on a good book and completely mutilates the tone, characters, and themes in order to make a buck–like the Narnia films.
Anywho. Great post!
Nice perspective. For me, the problem comes from being both a movie buff and an big reader. I hated the Harry Potter movies because they changed the essence of the characters. That, in my view, is simply not acceptable. You cannot change the story line when you are making a movie from a book. Else, you just say “loosely based on that book you read”.
Lord of the Rings on the other hand is one of my favorite movies, as is Chocolat, which has a very different ending than the book.
I guess the reaction depends on the book/plot rather than the movie. Some books are better as movies and some are best left to individual imagination.
In my humble opinion, I would say that it largely depends on the particular book. Take Harry Potter for instance. The books were great and so were the movies. They deviated from each other, but the same themes remained, as well as the general feeling of the two. Both can be understood and enjoyed separately or together, but you can have a deeper connection with the word of Potter if you both read the books and watch the movies.
Now, take Lord of the Rings for example. The story is so vast and so expansive, that to really understand the characters, the story, and the world of Middle Earth, one must read the books (Preferably The Hobbit first). Tolkein’s world is so vast that I feel that it is essential to have read and understood the book to fully understand The Lord of The Ring trilogies. The same could be said for Peter Jackson’s upcoming ‘The Hobbit’.
I feel the same way for The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. The movie can be enjoyed (for the most part) without having read the book, but certainly not understood. I have not read the book, but have recently watched the movie for a second time after several years and I must say that I felt lost. I will probably never read the book (though one may never really know) and so I don’t expect that I will truly be able to understand that particular movie.
Upon contemplating, the movie The Notebook (based off the novel by Nicholas Sparks) was a wonderful work of art and a beautiful movie. I enjoyed it fairly well (romance movies of that sort are not on the top of my list) and though there may be some differences between the novel and the movie, I do not need to read the novel to understand the characters and their plights. With that said however, if I was a professional movie critic, I do believe it would be necessary to read the book in order to more adequately and competently give a review.
Also, consider the new release “War Horse”. Beautiful movie. Very well treated by Spielberg. Touching, tear jerking, and heartwarming. I have not read the book (though when I have the free time it is on the top of my list) and enjoyed it immensely. The trails and stories that the main character/horse Joey went through while bringing a certain heart-felt connection to all whom he came in contact with touched me deeply. Because the movie is adapted from a children’s novel, I am curious to see how the novel affects my take on the movie. If its anything like Black Beauty, I expect to develop a deeper connection with the story and its characters as a result.
A lot of people say “The movie can never be like the book” and I find that true. I am a diehard novel-fan and more often than not will say that the book was better than the movie. But to be fair, the movie can never be exactly what the book is. They are two different entities and though they share commonalities, must be treated as such. Whenever I watch a movie that I know was first a book, I walk into the theater understanding that somethings will be changed or left out for the sake of movie-making.
In the end, I respect both for what they are. Two separate entities sharing a commonality. However, for the most part, I find that I am able to further enjoy movies that have been adapted from novels once I have read the original novel (irregardless of whether I have read it before or after).
On a professional level, I would trust and believe a critic who had read both the novel and watched the movie over one who had only watched the movie. Also, on the other side of things, if I were a critic I would think it my job to understand the whole aspect of the movie before critiquing it, which would include its original novel format.
~Jessica
I agree that books and movies should be considered seperately. Is is my opinion that books often outshine their film counterparts. I think that people who read the novels probally identify with the characters presented on paper much differently than those in movies. Just like the re-telling of any story or joke certain words and actions are changed each time a new person tells the story. Basically, they are two veiws of the same event. Personally I would like to see the two forms compliment or enhance each others effect on the veiwers. Great article. Really gets me thinking. I’d love to hear your thoughts on my blog as well.
Hey Matt! Looks like you stepped on a live one here! Two different art forms, two different audiences, two different business models.
An aside on one of your post points: The book of 2001: A Space Odyssey was actually released after the movie came out.
I don’t think it is viable or necessary for a viewer to read the book before seeing the movie, especially a reviewer. This could cloud the perception of the movie and how well the story is delivered by the filmmakers.
I am a reader first and in my lifetime I have only seen two movies that were better than the book they were adapted from: “Fight Club” and “Jaws”.
Matt, here’s a thought for a new post: If you’re going to watch a remake of a movie, should you see the original first? When I saw “The Departed” I couldn’t help thinking how much better the original, “Internal Affairs” was. And I just saw Fincher’s remake of “Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” and couldn’t help comparing it with the Swedish version. Any thoughts?
Great post! Cheers
I find that if there is a movie out already, I want to watch it before I read it. Otherwise, I am disappointed. I would much rather see the piece, then expand on it by reading.
“…there are some cases (Hugo for one) where if you’re going to criticize the characters, story, etc. then you must read the book first, because it is the only way to fully grasp the meaning behind all of it. ”
I absolutely agree with this point. Since film and literature are different mediums, the way in which details are revealed also differ. Gaining insight by reading a novel and seeing its film adaptation allows one medium to speak to the other, which I think is brilliant.
Thanks for posting your opinions on this.
Nothing relating to film versus book greatness is absolute. I recently read the book Benjamin Buttons. And the movie outweighed the book version by tons. Sometimes it is the reverse but it is not always a universal truth. A book goes into more detail, provides more depth and presents the characters form and physical worth individually different for each person that reads it. A person reading “To Kill a Mocking bird might not see Aticus as having black hair or being tall as his film character played by Gregory Peck was. And the film’s scene of the rabid dog being shot could was so intensely vivid, more than the reader could have made it inside his mind. Some win, some lose the battle of the best…. not all are always equal. That’s my ten cents worth. Keep doing both.
I recently posted something similar on my blog, as to whether you should read the book before you see the movie, or vice versa. I concluded that you should see the movie for what it is: an adaptation. Some things might be taken out and some things might be added that were not in the book. You won’t be able to enjoy the film if you spend the entire time nit-picking where it deviates from the book. I think you have to look at the two separately and appreciate the strengths of each.
This is an interesting debate, kinda like the chicken and the egg. You cannot really have one without the other.
When it comes to books and movies BASED on books, the key word there is “based”, can you really use one to compare the other?
I loved the Harry Potter books and up until Half Blood Prince I enjoyed the films. The movie 6 and 7 (part 1) were a disappointment to me because they cut so much of the good parts of the book out. I asked a friend of mine who had seen the movie Half Blood Prince, but didn’t read the book, if he understood the movie. He said yes and this shocked me, but he was going by the movie alone and how the story and plot unfolded. I could not enjoy the movie because I had read the book and was furious that they would start a story line and then just drop it with no conclusion.
Some movies are better than the books that they are based on. One thing that I know is that when there is a movie based on a book most viewers go out and buy the book, which is always a good thing!!
Good post. I grew up a book person who is getting an English M.A., but with a focus on Film Studies, so I’ve experienced both perspectives. Honestly, at the end of the day, I’m a fan of the narrative–it’s the story that hooks me. That’s why I don’t particularly care to see Avatar, for example, since the story is just so much rehash. And there are qualities to a novel that a movie cannot reproduce, like getting inside of a character’s head in order to make the audience have to infer motivations, etc. Then again, there are things a movie can do that a novel cannot, and that’s exactly why I’m looking forward to the Hunger Games movies–all the action that was described (very well!) by S. Collins has a chance to be amazing on film. But I already know I’ll prefer the novels. How can they possibly hope to capture Katniss’ internal struggles like the novel did?
What about adaptations, though? Like the new Let the Right One In being adapted already into Let Me In, or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo (amazing original movie, awful new movie that are based on books), or Oldboy. Well, forget about Oldboy. It’s going to suck.
I agree that usually the book and movie should be critiqued without regard to each other. They are different mediums, have different purposes and constraints. I do think that a movie fails when it is difficult for the viewer to understand or appreciate the story if he or she has not read the book. Then, it seems, the movie maker has failed to tell a story through sounds and visualization. I guess, also, a book that reads like a movie can be an enjoyable read, but not fulfilling, like when a popular author seems to be writing for his or her next film, rather than for the book alone. To truly enjoy a movie based on a book, one must just accept that things will be left out and things will be added, and that casting has be to done with box office and marketing concerns. It’s just the way of the world. Once these things are accepted, than the movie can be quite enjoyable and critiqued, without regard to the book (except in the case of a clearly miscast star which makes the movie difficult to believe). I’ve noticed a disappointment in my kids eyes when the movie veers from the books too much and I’ve tried to explain it. They understand that putting everything in would make the movie too long (i.e. Harry Potter movies) but they were clearly bothered by the Percy Jackson movie which aged the characters to teenagers (I suspect this was a Hollywood move to appeal to a broader audience). This had nothing to do with having to cut for time, and that was bothersome to them. Books make an excellent source for material for movies but they are quite different. Enjoyed the post!!!
Ummm… As an artist and a writer who copyrights all my works, and consider them a part of who I am, a part of my soul self… Well I guess you can see where I am going with my opinion. How can you separate the two? It is my story or the writer of the books story that the movie is based on, so how can you as a director take any artistic license with the movie my story? That is like buying one of my paintings, leaving my signature on it, and then painting over part of it and changing it. Then hanging it up in a museum with my name in big letters both inside and outside. Just some food for thought?
Here is a challenge for all you readers and movie buffs: How about coming to my blog at http://the777man.com where I am hosting a writing contest, and submit some chapters and really feel what I feel when I write! We are writing a Murder Mystery, and the proceeds from the sale of will go to charity. The readers will be voting on each chapter! Come and have some fun with me!
Blessings Sallyjane
as with many things, it really depends. on many things. Some books are easier than others to be interpretted into movies. Peter Jackson made many changes in his adaptation of the Lord of the Rings, but they were made out of need. Some parts were dropped because they would have slowed down the movie (already a lengthy view), and other parts because they were not integeral to the story (Tom Bombadil, for instance). While those parts were great in the books, they were not necesary to the films. The films still stayed pretty close to the books, and one could watch them without ever knowing a thing about the books, and still enjoy it.
The original Total Recall, which I understand is only loosely based on its novel inspiration, was a great movie. I have never read the book, and I doubt that many have, so the film maker had more leeway to make changes. I do look forward to the new version next year, which is supposed to be more true to the book, and will provide a whole new way to look at it. However, someone who had read the story before hand might not agree with this at all. Take The Running Man, for instance. I read Stephen King’s short story and loved it, was excited to see the movie. It was nothing like the story, and I hated the flik. But then, that movie sucked regardless of whether I had read the story or not.
When it comes to movies they must be able to stand alone without having read the book. If one must read the book to understand the movie, or its characters, it doesn’t matter how much someone who has read the story likes the adaptation. The movie probably bites. To me 2001: ASO is a prime example. Having never read that book, I found the movie to be one of the most boring things I have ever seen, and it left me with no interest to go find the book.
Bottom line, if a film maker wants to aapt a novel that has been widely read and loved, especially if it has been around for any length of time and is read and loved by multiple generations, he had better stay as true as possible to the book. He must also make a movie that can be viewed by someone who has not read the book, so that person will understand the story and characters, and enjoy the film. That is a precarious balance, to be sure.
I think that if a film maker is going to claim that a movie is based on a specific book, then they have a responsibility to remain true to the book. If they dont want to follow the book’s story, then dont claim that it does.
I do agree that there are some very good movies that are very poor adaptations of very good books.
And then there are movies that make no sense whatsoever. Like The Lawnmower Man. Have you read that short story and seen the movie? Yeah. Exactly. Somebody was smoking something.
In my opinion, whenever I watch a movie based on a book, I tend to like the book better. The book always has explicit detail, while the movie skips scenes, just to make it fit into an hour 1/2. But just think about it: if you were to watch the movie before reading the book, you might think it the movie was great!
It is a question of form.
Books are written as books. The form is what makes them books. There is a an absorbing quality to the written word. You must work to access it. You interact with the author, even over hundreds of years. Your mind must supply much of it, no matter how detailed the text. The words themselves aid you, the letters and the formatting.
A film is another thing altogether. It is a passive experience in which you are driven through the story. You are a hostage and you are freed from any expectation. You are only required to stay awake.
There are stories that can be told in both forms. But not many. It is like doing a cover version of a song. Can the artist add something to it or sing the song better than the original artist? (“All Along The Watchtower” for example.) Likewise, will the film add to the book or will it become something else entirely? “Planet of the Apes” was a great book, but “Planet of the Apes” was an even better movie. It did not follow the story exactly. In fact, the ending is quite different, but it worked beautifully in both forms.
(For the record “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy of films was a poor substitute for the books. It is like grape juice instead of wine.)
I think a good critics should have enough information before giving reviews. So that means he must read the book, as the book is one of the reliable sources.
BUT, the book mustn’t be used to judge whether the movie is good or not by whether the movie follows the novel’s detail or not. The movie must be enjoyed as a separated entity, and the critics who watch it must leave the book details behind.
But let me emphasize this: a great movie can (and MUST be able to) be enjoyed whether if the audience read the book or not. If the movie clarity is highly depended on the explanation in the book, then in fact it’s not a good movie, because not everyone likes to read.
For the ideal review situation, I would recommend that for each film based on novel, the critic must watch the movie first, then read the book, and then re-watch the movie. There they can produce an objective and thorough review.
I feel that a movie and a book are different mediums for the expression of how one views a certain narrative. The book gives you all the ingredients, you’re the chef. Your imagination, or what runs in your head, is stronger than what any film is able to replicate, yet each film is also a reflection of how the director see’s the book. The film allows me not only to just enjoy the director’s interpretation of the story, but also lets me view is as a different form of art.
While I am a book lover, I do love films equally if not just as much. My stand on this? No, a book shouldn’t matter really. Both are different ways to convey a story, one that’s packed with detail and expressions and allows you to create your own scene, and another that is presented to you – a different perspective of the same narration.
“to say none of it is understood, yet it’s the greatest movie ever”
This is so true. How can you possibly justify the “greatness” of the movie if you didn’t understand it? What you probably meant was that you were awed by it and you really liked it.
Personally, I think that there are times when you have to keep your opinion on the book and your opinion on the movie quite separate. It’s good to have read the book beforehand, but since film is an entirely different medium, you have to forgive the filmmakers when they take artistic liberties. For instance, the Harry Potter movies had to edit a lot of subplots simply because including all of them would take too much time, or because some scenes wouldn’t transition well to the big screen. But they were still really good adaptations.
Movies will never live up to books partly because we see things differently. The characters and scenery are made of as we go with every turn of the page, then leaving out several scenes from the book and it makes for an upset reader.
Movies will be judged by the book as long as books exist. ( Unless, you don’t read) When a movie strays to far from the book it takes away from the emotions you felt in the book.
Should one have any basis on the other. Yes! The book came out first. The book was the vision for the movie. The movie should be close to the book, and therefore judged by how well they brought the book to life.
I definitely think the two things are completely separate. And while they sometimes meet, there are times when the book is just inspiration, like I Am Legend, which was nothing like the book (but I absolutely loved it). There are other times when the movie tries to be more faithful to the books, like Lord of the Rings (which was super long, but could have been still longer if they’d included everything from the books).
I have learned throughout my life that the movie is rarely better than the book. There are limits to the form, both in time and technology (though special effects have gotten amazing). But it’s okay. That doesn’t make the movie bad, just different.
I have actually refused to read the Harry Potter books for this very reason. I enjoy the movies and I don’t want to ruin my enjoyment of them by reading the books first (I’m a few movies behind at this point). When I’ve seen them all, I’ll start on the books. But I never want to be one of the people that go to a movie and spend the whole time complaining about the things that weren’t in it. Or about the way that so and so didn’t look like I envisioned. Or about anything really that isn’t about the movie itself, rather than the movie in comparison to the book.
I tend to suspect that filmmakers and authors of books are both attempting to convey certain things to their viewers and readers. I have noticed that a great film has power to convey certain ideas far more concisely than the books upon which they are based. Likewise, a great novel has power to convey certain thoughts and ideas that are difficult for filmmakers to represent.
I recently viewed, “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” I enjoyed this film, and wanted to check out the book upon which it was based. I learned that it was actually recommended that an individual first see the movie. In fact, there had been reports by readers (of the “Men who Hate Women” Trilogy) that the beginning was difficult to get through, causing many readers to put the book down…initially.
I sometimes dabble in writing fiction, myself. And I must admit that my last novel was EXTREMELY SLOW TO BOIL. It was a fantasy trilogy. Truth be told, I would just as soon have seen the entire trilogy published, and then placed into the hands of one of our great filmmakers—because that very first book in my trilogy, though necessary for setting events in place, was an eye-rolling irritation for me to have had to write! And I had authored it! This could have easily been remedied, if the entire trilogy had been transposed into a film.
When you think about it…most authors are not offended by the transposition of their novel into a film. It is usually us—the fans of a great book—who express our disappointments about discrepancies between the two.
Oh—and by the way! I am currently reading Robert Heinlein’s, Stranger in a Strange Land. Although it has been attempted by the television industry (and I have been well advised not to waste my time on that disappointment), I would LOVE to see a gifted filmmaker turn Heinlein’s words into an audio-visual affair for me! In fact, there are aspects, in my current reading, where I literally pine for something more than printed word is capable of providing for me.
Anyway—great post. Got me to thinking about my own thinking on these matters.
Katie
I really try not to read the books of films I’ve watched and vice versa because I so rarely enjoy a film once I’ve read its book (it always feels so shallow and incomplete and I’ve already cast all the roles in my head) and it seems redundant to read the book once you’ve already got the main points in the film.
Harry Potter is the only exception – that and Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet!
A movie shouldn’t have to rely on you reading the book, it should work on its own. I also am not a purist when it comes to staying faithful to the source material. If you have a good reason to change something, then do it. If I wanted THE Jurassic Park Book experience I wouldn’t watch the movie, I’d read the book. Why watch a movie that is the EXACT same (exception: Sin City).
Also I think its irresponsible as a critic to have deleted an entire post/review on a movie. Keep the review. Validate your other opinions later, in a separate post. I watched The Tree of Life and said certain things, but after seeing it a second time some of my opinions changed or I had a clearer opinion on other things. I didn’t delete the original post (however I never did get around to writing my second opinions one either…) I think it would be more interesting to read the original opinions then the later ones from a different point of view.
Hi. I love watching movies just as much as I like reading books. When I read a great book and know there is a movie coming, I do not expect it to catch all the details. What I expect is that charm in terms of emotions or the story captured well. If I feel that the story or the great characters are not represented as well as they were in the book (and it does happens often, not for their screen time but for their quality) I do feel that movie was not that good. I have seen some great adaptations and also some amazing movies, 3 idiots from Bollywood, which were loosely based on some book but were amazing. It is more about personal opinion and expectations set….ultimately our judgement is based on that.
I agree, books and movies are spearate. However, it is easier for me, as a reader, to appreciate that when the movie says it is “based on” or simply “inspired by” the book. Example: the recent Alice in Wonderland movie. The Alice books are my favorites in all the world, and I think I would have hated the movie if it tried to follow the book(s). But since it didn’t pretend to be following the original tale (being a sort of sequel instead), I loved it. Even though it diverged from the originals, in my opinion it stayed more “true” to them than other adaptations, since it used things like the Jubjub bird, Bandersnatch, frog butlers, and the Knave, with even a wink to the original Tenniel illustrations. So instead of feeling like they confused the books, I thought they paid them due homage while forging a new, different story.
sorry matt, but you’re contradicting yourself. you’re allowed to love the film even more after reading the book, but that doesn’t mean that the film is suddenly better and you need to write a new review. each must be judged on its own merit. a filmmaker does not have the right to assume that the audience has read the book. a filmmaker, in fact, must do the opposite and expect that the audience has NOT read the book and thus tell as much of the story as possible through the camera.
I am really not sure where I contradicted myself, and no reading The Invention of Hugo Cabret did not make the film any more technically better (acting, effects, etc.) but I feel after reading the book that I understand certain aspects of the movie like the characters and the story so much more.
I just read over my paragraph that talks about my thoughts on the book and movie, and I believe I said I loved the movie even more after reading the book, I don’t remember using the word “better”. Apologies if I did.
Again, I am not entirely sure if you read the whole article, or if you did maybe you misunderstood me. I did say some movies cannot be understood if the book has not been read, and I still stand by that. However, it is simply an opinion, I haven’t read all the books in the world and I haven’t seen all the movies in the world, like I said I won’t always read the book first. My purpose of the article was not to tell everyone to read the book first, I simply said if a person wants to properly critique a film there are cases when it would be smarter to read the book.
Thanks for the comment.
I am often a fan of reading the book first, but I have seen many examples where a movie just as excellent. Lord of the Rings and the Phantom of the Opera are good examples. The movies became masterpieces that could stand on their own. I wouldn’t call them better or worse than the books, but equal in their own art form. I have also seen movies that surpass the book. For instance, Jumanji takes a story with no narrative and few pages and expands it into an amazing movie adding characters and theme. Another example where the movie surpasses the book is the Boy in the Striped Pajamas; this movie conveys the emotions, color, and reality of the holocaust in a way that the book entirely fails to do.
What I have to say isn’t overly deep or insightful, it just came up recently for me so I’ve been thinking about it. I don’t really agree or disagree with your comment. I do enjoy reading the book before I see the movie, and often I enjoy the movie even as I point out all the flaws. An exception to this would be The Other Boleyn Girl – what an amazing book. I feel bad for anyone who watches that movie, because it is dreadful and will probably take away their urge to read the book. For one thing, how about hiring people who actually are British, or can at least fake the accent reasonably well? For another, if you’re going to do a Henry VIII story, can you really shy away from immoral sex details?
Additional kinda-half-exception is The Bourne Identity. This was one of my absolute favourite movies and years after I had seen it (10 or 12 times) I decided to read the book. The book, for those of you who don’t know, is phenomenal. The movie, even though the screenplay was actually written by Ludlum, is meh in terms of storyline. Jason Bourne is no longer the schizophrenic David Webb with a tragic past scrambling to convince the goverment of his innocence, he’s just Bourne, this assassin dude who loses his memory after the trauma of being shot twice in the back. What’s more, Marie is a dumb German transient instead of a brilliant Canadian doctor of economics. Maybe I should write my own post about this…
Anyway, I guess I agree with you on the Hugo issue, but only if the movie is actually intended to be a somewhat (and necessarily) watered-down version of the book. Sometimes though, they just take a popular series, slap on the title and main character’s name, and make a whole new, generally less sensible, story out of it. Phew, sorry about this! I’m just gonna go turn this into a post of my own now.
I agree with JEFFRO517 both are separate and should be understood as two different forms. As you said the original story came from the author, a director will tell the story but of course with their own take on it.
At the end of the day most books have one meaning understood by all but all the smaller details are enhanced by our imagination, by how we interpret the words written on the page. What you see in a film is just a selection of people and how they interpret it, it is more than likely never going to be the same as yours.
So glad you brought up this topic. It’s always going to be a subject for heated discussion. My personal opinion: I think it can be helpful to read a book to further understand a film based on it. But a good film should stand on its own, whether or not it’s trying to stay close to the source. The relationship between any source (book, short story, play, graphic novel) and the film based on it is always a great topic to discuss, but the final film product has to stand on its own..
In my class, we talk about the biggest challenges to someone trying to make a film based on a book, especially a popular one. You touched on several challenges. But my thought is that the biggest two are audience expectation (which cuts both ways) and trying to use film language to make a successful film out of something that was created as a literary or theatrical work. Books are books, plays are plays, and films are films. There’s a translation going on here–not just a matter of putting a story on a screen.
I was raised with the old-fashioned idea that the book is always somehow “better” than any film version of it could be. Now I completely disagree. What about Vertigo, or Rear Window (MUCH better than its original source) or even Gone with the Wind, which I think is better than its book? That’s just a start. In fact, one the joys of a second-rate movie source is the freedom the filmmaker has to improve on it (The Godfather, anyone?)
I love books a little bit more than I love movies, but I don’t like to think about which is better/worse.
They are two different forms of expression and that’s the most important – as some others have already said on comments to this post.
The factors that make a book to be worthy of reading is just different form the factors that make a movie good worthy of watching – even if the is any common factors, the essences are not the same and the form we evaluate them should not be either.