I asked myself this question the other day and I think the answer is a qualified "no". I've never liked the movie version of a book more than the book itself -- though some movies, like "2001: A Space Odyssey", certainly equaled the book. When a movie breaks new cinematic ground, as 2001 did, it's difficult to balance the heft of the movie against a simple story told in words. "The Exorcist" and "Jaws" also fall into this category, where the movie is so much bigger than life that it's virtually impossible to compare to the book. This is why I vote with a "qualified" no.
The other day, regular commenter Annie mentioned reading "84, Charing Cross Road" while watching the movie, and noted that it was, line-for-line, the same as the book. I've seen that sort of fidelity in a few movie adaptations. "Rosemary's Baby" is extremely loyal to the book. Even the visuals match what is described on the page. Although I love the movie, I can't say it's better than the book. Ira Levin, the author of "Rosemary's Baby", is one of the greatest masters of the English language, as far as I'm concerned. And Roman Polanski, who directed Rosemary's Baby, is also no lightweight, making a comparison of the merit of the two works no easy task. Still, I vote for the book. It seems I always do.
You don't see this sort of page-to-screen accordance very often. If you did, it would be easier to compare book to movie. In fact, many movies are so unfaithful that they sometimes lose the very concept of the book. The movie, "A Home at the End of the World", was a major disappointment. It's ending is so unlike the book's conclusion that I was shocked. It seems they excised the meaning of the story to avoid a slightly uncomfortable ending. I don't know how Michael Cunningham, who wrote the book (and is the best writer in America today), could have allowed this to happen. In any case, the book is far superior to the movie and I believe that's always the case (with a well-written book).
There's so much more in the language of a book than there can ever be in a visual experience like a movie. Cinematography is a far less exacting thing than language because visuals are an approximation. Words, on the other hand, are precise tools with exquisitely clear meanings. For this last reason, it doesn't surprise me that I can't think of any movie that seemed better than the book. Can you?
The other day, regular commenter Annie mentioned reading "84, Charing Cross Road" while watching the movie, and noted that it was, line-for-line, the same as the book. I've seen that sort of fidelity in a few movie adaptations. "Rosemary's Baby" is extremely loyal to the book. Even the visuals match what is described on the page. Although I love the movie, I can't say it's better than the book. Ira Levin, the author of "Rosemary's Baby", is one of the greatest masters of the English language, as far as I'm concerned. And Roman Polanski, who directed Rosemary's Baby, is also no lightweight, making a comparison of the merit of the two works no easy task. Still, I vote for the book. It seems I always do.
You don't see this sort of page-to-screen accordance very often. If you did, it would be easier to compare book to movie. In fact, many movies are so unfaithful that they sometimes lose the very concept of the book. The movie, "A Home at the End of the World", was a major disappointment. It's ending is so unlike the book's conclusion that I was shocked. It seems they excised the meaning of the story to avoid a slightly uncomfortable ending. I don't know how Michael Cunningham, who wrote the book (and is the best writer in America today), could have allowed this to happen. In any case, the book is far superior to the movie and I believe that's always the case (with a well-written book).
There's so much more in the language of a book than there can ever be in a visual experience like a movie. Cinematography is a far less exacting thing than language because visuals are an approximation. Words, on the other hand, are precise tools with exquisitely clear meanings. For this last reason, it doesn't surprise me that I can't think of any movie that seemed better than the book. Can you?
7 comments:
Forrest Gump... and every movie made based on a comic book.
Nope, I'm with you - Not one movie comes across as better than the book. I'm just pleased as punch when they are "like" the book, so that when you see the movie version of this wonderful book you read that it at least bears a resemblance to the printed story.
Some of the movies I felt were true to their book versions were: Revolutionary Road, The Reader and The Lovely Bones. Good movies all but not better than the books.
My problem if I see a movie that is not like the book at all I tend to dismiss the movie and remember only the book.
Oh and "The Ten Commandments" was much better than the written version.
Hey Brett, I hope the new blog is almost ready for prime time. I have great respect for comic books and I used to read them all. My stepfather owned a luncheonette, so I could get all the comics, dirty magazines and BOOKS that I wanted -- for free! Add cigarettes, candy and endless hamburgers to the haul, and I was one happy teenager. Plus I agree wholeheartedly with you that The Ten Commandments was far superior to the book. Funny.
What about seeing the movie before reading the book? And what about books that are based on a movie and written after the movie comes out? Now there's a weird category for you. I reminds me of one book that was based on a movie and turned out to be excellent: "Alien", of all things. The book (which is no longer in print, apparently) was actually better than the movie. And Alien is one of my favorite movies ever. I couldn't believe it. It had a whole additional storyline about what happened to Dallas, the captain, after he was caught by the alien, stuff that wasn't in the movie at all. (Which is ultra-weird when you realize the book was based on the movie. I think it must have been written before they axed that scene from the movie. In other words, it was originally there. So you get to read the outtakes too. Fun.
I abandoned the new blog for the old one. Maybe when I have the money for a real www.[blogname].com URL, then I'll have the motivation.
I'm glad you're back blogging, Bret. It's kind of hard to stop once you've begun, it seems. Maybe it's an addiction. Fine with me.
Post a Comment