Though other writers would have you think otherwise, there are a number of instances in which I will argue that the book behind a movie is better than said film.
Other individuals would have you believe that mere print can’t invoke all of the emotions that seeing a moment played out on a screen would. I’ve never really cried at a Harry Potter movie. I was shedding tears so much through the last quarter of Deathly Hallows the book that my mother told me to go upstairs and finish if I was going to cry because she didn't want me giving the story away. I would argue the reasoning stands better with feelings of anger. I read up to the death of Sirius Black in Order of the Phoenix and nearly threw the book across the room. I didn’t finish the book until nearly two months later because I didn’t want to come to terms that my (at the time) favorite character of the series had died. Upon watching Order of the Phoenix the movie, I began to harbor an intense hate for the face of the woman who played Bellatrix, and to this day I still dislike watching Helena Bonham Carter, although I realize she is a wonderful actress.
I was startled to read an article in my research on the decline of print media that stated books were unsatisfying to readers, because no matter how much you loved an author, you’d never be able to express it unless you met said author. I immediately thought of J.K. Rowling and how beloved an author she is, and I’d argue that sharing your love of an author with another is almost as good as telling the person themselves. Of course one author of a fantastic series can’t talk to all her fans. But sharing the love with others and having others read what you find, that’s an incredible feeling in and of itself. The way I think about it is almost spiritual, strangely enough: it’s okay if I don’t get to tell J.K. Rowling that I love her work because so many other fans already have. So many people appreciate her that I’m sure somehow she knows there are X amount of people out there that love her work even if she’s not met them. I recently read a quote somewhere, I think from Rowling’s interview with Oprah where someone came up to the author and said, “You are my childhood,” and she found it to be the most endearing thing. If I’d thought of it and I’d had the opportunity to meet her, I’d have said the same thing.
Then there’s just the fact that a film of a book will never equate to:
One—the experience of reading the book and the joy that one gets out of that (of course you would have to enjoy reading for this to apply to you, but given I do, it counts). Reading a novel lets you delve into a world both alike and unlike your own and lets you experience it as you so choose. If you imagine a character looks one way, your friend’s imagination very well might come up with another picture. Books, though creative themselves, allow the imagination to run wild.
Two—falls along the same line of thought; a director will never be able to perfectly match an author’s vision. This is especially true if the author is dead or if the story is especially fantastic and in need of CGI. Though Lord of the Rings the movie was beautiful, who can truly say if it was the late Tolkien’s real vision? And this is important because no one ever argues over the validity of a story. A million people will argue that Alice in Wonderland isn’t supposed to play out that way because it wasn’t like that in the book. If an author did the movie for their book, it’d be much less likely people would snap about whether or not things were “supposed to look that way” because the author, the person who invented the story fans cling to, made the visual for you. Though there might be the occasional argument that fans didn’t see some detail the way the author made it look, but the fault would subsequently fall on the reader/viewer for misunderstanding the text.
Three—many times a book is either too long or too short for a film adaptation, prompting cuts or additions that fans may or may not appreciate. Once again, this throws back to reason two.
Book-films are often enjoyable, even if they’re not done properly. It’s just a risky operation, increasingly so when the fan base of the story is bigger, because the filmmakers want to translate the story just right but they also want to be reasonable and cost-effective about it. I’m sure a “perfect” Lord of the Rings would have required about another two hours per film, but watching a 5-hour movie in a theater isn’t reasonable.
Then there’s the fact that some of my favorite films are based on books when I didn’t even realize they were. Bourne was originally a book series by Robert Ludlum. Yes it does make me feel a little bit like a hypocrite when I really enjoy a movie and then have no desire to read the book, but this often happens because I’m sure the book is more detail oriented and at this moment in my life I’ve not got the time for another book. (Excuses.) For cases like this, it’s more like I’m afraid the movie will let me down. I hold high expectations for an action-packed story like Bourne, but fear that the writing style may drive me away. Lord of the Rings, though a great story, the book was so heavily detail oriented that it was a struggle to get through. The story was still great, the scenes left out were wonderful as well and it made me sad that not everything made the cut. If I’ve watched a movie of a book first (especially if I’ve not realized it) it makes going to the book difficult because I’m afraid it will change my perceptions of what I thought was a great movie. (I will say my exception is with comic book-films. I happily flounce to the source material because I know it's easy to get through.)
Why do I do this? Maybe it’s because I’d like to think among all of the book-films that miss the mark, maybe that one is the one that did it. Maybe that one out performed its paper counterpart. Either way, book-films are sure to promote sales in both industries I love (which is something the book industry needs right now).
No comments:
Post a Comment