How many times have you walked out of a movie, or talked about a movie you’ve recently seen or heard about, and heard someone say - “The book was much better.” Fair enough statement usually, except it is often followed with a phrase like “The books are always better.” I can’t stand that. Why should filmmakers bother adapting literature for the big screen if, in fact, the book will always be superior? Besides the fact that popular book adaptations such as the Harry Potter or Twilight films will gross nine figures regardless of whether or not they are any good, why should anyone bother with anything else? The truth is that the film is often better than the book.
Now I am not arguing which is a superior art. Literature is much more important to intellectual thought than films are, and I would not ever open that statement up to argument. Part of it has to do with the work that’s placed on the reader with books; another part is the rich history of literature, compared to films which are only in their second century. However, there are several easily citable examples of when books have been adapted into far superior films. The most infamous is Mario Puzo’s 1969 crime novel The Godfather. The book was popular and successful; however, no one is making the argument that it was better than Francis Ford Cappolla’s adaptation of it. The film and its sequel usually rank at the top of all greatest film lists, only behind Citizen Kane or Casablanca. 
I might as well officially start giving Stanley Kubrick a featured paragraph in every article I write, because it seems as if everything I write comes back to him. Every one of Kubrick’s films after 1958 has a book attached to it, and it is difficult to argue that the books were better than his movies. Some people prefer the original ending to A Clockwork Orange; personally, I agree with Kubrick over Burgess on this issue, as I think it is unrealistic that Alex would have matured on his own, the way the character had been developed. Stephen King believed whole-heartedly that his novel The Shining was superior to Kubrick’s film, and having read the book and seen the movie I am inclined to disagree with him. I suppose it must be difficult though, to see another storyteller dramatically alter the story you have written. As for the rest, not many people have read Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Red Alert, The Luck of Barry Lyndon, The Short Timers, or Traumnovelle, and with all of these books he made fantastic film adaptations. The only counterargument that I will concede is Vladimir Nabokov’s controversial novel Lolita. Kubrick wanted to adapt the story of Lolita, a thirteen year old nymphite who seduces the middle aged Humbert Humbert, straight to the big screen. Naturally, the MPAA had a problem with this. The book is a symbolic story of the elder European culture’s condescending infatuation with the younger, sexier American culture, but the film was so watered down that you could barely tell that the two are even having their secret romance. Lolita is the one exception in Kubrick’s filmography where the book is better than the film.
Yet again, as I often do, I have strayed away from my original point. In doing so I hope to illustrate that there is no definitive answer to arguments about book / films adaptations, I just wish to inform the reader on the complexities. Film and Literature are different mediums, and that is something that should be remembered before people dismiss one or the other’s version of a story. I recently read John Steinbeck’s East of Eden and saw Elia Kazan’s adaptation of it. Both of these men are considered to be genius in their respective fields, and both tell different versions of the same story. Whereas the book certainly is more epic, at over six hundred pages and spanning sixty years, it is unfair to say that one is simply better than the other. James Dean’s acting brings Cal’s character to life in an incredible way, whereas the character of Cathy is far to complex to be a mere supporting player in a two hour film. It is much better to appreciate them both as separate works of art than compare them in an effort to call one “better”.
I agree with your point that they are two different mediums and I believe therefore that they should be treated as such, especially with regards to how a story is told. Being a writer myself (unpublished) and also someone who enjoys a film regardless of the merits of the book it was based on, I would never expect anything I write to be transferred to the screen faithfully. I don't believe that that is the point of making a film at all. A film needs to tell its own story as the Director sees it. I really believe a Director is cheating, or compromising their own artistic vision if they pander to the feelings of an author, or how the book tells the story.
ReplyDeletePS. I didn't know Forrest Gump was based on a book, and Mum just informed me that The Graduate was based on a real life event.
You hit my feelings exactly. Sorry I haven't been over on the forums lately, I got a new computer and can't remember my password! I really don't want to make a new account though haha if it ever comes to me I'll be back
ReplyDelete