The Battle Of The Mediums - Can A Film Really Match A Book? (The film of the book)

Member Name: Peakly

Product:	The film of the book
Date:	17/11/00 (161 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Brings The Book Into The Lime-light For Once

Disadvantages: Usually Not Very Good, Very Rarely As Good, Never Better (?)

'The Film Of The Book', much like the 'Game Of The Film' for the computer-minded of us all, is usually just a straight definition of 'disappointing, boring and littered with anti-climax'. Usually.

The first point here that we must remember, is that the written word and the screen are two very different things indeed. It seems obvious when you think about it - how long is your average film? A couple of hours? And how long to read of book. An hour or so a night for a week, and that's if your fast. To use a popular example of both book and film - let us look for a moment at the Alex Garland novel 'The Beach', and it's film equivalent.

I can't remember exactly, but I reckon it probably took Alex Garland, in total, maybe ten pages worth of text to describe to us his 'beach'. The film starring Leo Caprio simply gave it to us on a plate, allowing us to absorb the scene all at once, instantly as it were. Quicker? yes. Easier? certainly. Better? I'm not so sure. As detailed? Not a chance. For anyone who had already read the book (myself included), actually seeing the films version of the beach could only really be a disappointment. The simple reason is, reading the book, one's imagination was forced to come up with the image of the beach that best suited the readers own mind and character. If I imagine Bilbo Baggins from Lord Of The Rings, the fellow won't look a bit like how you imagine him, or how the planned film will show him. The films version of what you have read in a book will never match what you conjured up in your own thoughts - and there is the first disadvantage that a film of a book will always face. Would a person reading the book of a film they had just seen feel the same disappointment? I suspect in most cases they would simply find things better. But then, that's not the issue here.

To really understand why films of books are generally crap, I thi
nk you have to look at the difference in the two mediums. It may only be my opinion, but it's an opinion I feel confident I can back up well - books, are better entertainment the films. Have I lost some readers already? Well first, let me explain.

The first thing - 'some people just aren't cut out for reading books and prefer films'. Personally, I hate that argument. People don't read books today because, mainly due to TV, they are taught to be lazy from an early age. When your a child, books have a persona as 'uncool'. Society is lazy, and the films provide instant entertainment (I'm not condemning that, I'm just pointing it out). Books, require work and discipline - things greatly lacking in people today I think. Films are quick entertainment, books are quality entertainment. Is that too much of a generalization? I don't actually think so. Of course you get good books and bad, but the same applies to films, and let me make this comparison for a second - which of these two activities will, ultimately, have a greater positive impact on the user - watching the film 'Titanic' (winner of several Oscars and things I believe), or reading an equally great work of fiction, such as Catch-22 by Joseph Heller or The Hobbit by Tolkien? Adapt that example to suit your tastes and I think the answer will be clear for most people - reading the classic novel has a greater impact. There may be exceptions, but I'm talking on average.

Now, with this in mind, how can a film adaptation possibly be as good for the viewer as the book on which it is based? It just can't. Now don't get me wrong, I love films. I've watched a lot more films in my life then read books, but I remember 'The Catcher In The Rye' before I remember 'American Beauty'.

Now I have explained why, I think, films will struggle to match the quality of books, let me give you some clear examples.
<
br><br>THE BEACH - I've mentioned this before, it's an obvious one. If you have seen this film and not read the book, I suspect you probably enjoyed it. But then again, to the viewer who hasn't read the book, 'The Beach' isn't a film based on a book but a film in it's own right. I am yet to talk to a single person who wasn't let down by this film after the novel. It simply was not as good. The lead character Richard was far from the complex creature Garland depicted, he was simply a cocky American who, even by film standards, never enjoyed much depth. The most thought-inducing and memorable chapters of the book were left out the film, such as the one were the inhabitants get food-poising and come close to death with server vomiting and diarrhea - it simply wouldn't make attractive cinema and was left out. Myself and my friend, both fans of the book, left the cinema feeling almost cheated.

ANGELES ASHES - One of the most drawn-out and tedious films I have ever seen, actually came from a very moving and well-written novel. I left the film with a yawn, while after reading the book I felt touched. I know this film may be good in it's self, but it's the comparison with the book we are discussing and this was terrible.

ALL THE JAMES BONDS - I love the James Bond flicks, I have the collection on video. But while the films simply make you feel like a very privileged spectator, the books made you feel as if you were acting the adventures out themselves.

THE BFG/THE WITCHES/DANNY THE CHAMPION OF THE WORLD - Dahl was my favorite writer as a child, the same with a lot of us I suspect, but having watched all the film or cartoon equivalents I felt let down. DTCOTW was an excellent 'feel good' children's video, but I think every kid would be a lot better off reading the book first. Again, it comes down to observation and involvement - the two don't compare.

THE SHINING
- Another brilliant film, but Stanley Kubrick simply created a slick horror film - not the emotional roller coaster Stephen King presented us with. The film scared you, but the book scared you and managed to find your heart. I still recall images from the book, but the film I only recall with effort. It can't be helped, but King took inside the mind of the little boy in the story, while the film could only show us what it was like on the outside.


These are the examples I can think of, all the others I'm sure will follow suite. The simple fact is, a writer can go anywhere with his story. He can explore the thoughts of the characters, and actually confirm the emotions - not just simply hint at them like cinema. With all the special affects in all the world, Kubrick couldn't hope to visit the places within his characters that King could.

Of course, with every rule, there are exceptions. I have seen movies of books that are truly excellent, and, for me, match the quality of the book. I am yet to find a film I enjoyed more, but there are two movies I enjoyed as much for similar reasons.

FORREST GUMP - The book is witty, touching, and so wonderfully narrated it's unbelievable. The book, thankfully, is the same. I have never known an actor match so closely the character I've read about in a book, but Tom Hanks does it perfectly. I have never witnessed a single greater acting performance then his in Forrest Gump. The film also avoided another common downfall - it left all the right bits in. The book sees Forrest go on a whole range of adventures, even into space and back, so the film couldn’t realistically cover them all. But the ones it does cover are the best - the experiences in Vietnam with Bubba, the ping-pong and the shrimp-boat. I love this book because it makes me laugh and moves me in that order, I love the film because it moves me, and makes me laugh.

MISERY - This is my favorite Ste
phen King novel of all time, and it's film version, unlike The Shining, The Green Mile, Cujo and Thinner manages to match it for suspense. Because really, all Misery is is a giant suspense trip - the film is exactly the same. The only other one I suspect may come close is The Shawshank Redemption, but I haven’t read that book yet.

There you go, the only two exceptions I know of. The truth is, film is just too restricted a medium to really match the power of the book. A writer can go anywhere and do anything, while the director can only do so much within their limitations. Films, I think, can only really hope to take a good idea from a book and make a film that is good within it's own right. They can never realistically hope to match the impact of the book, nor portray things in quite as much detail or with quite as much depth.

Let's keep books and films separate, because separate is what they are. Every film of the book raises the enviable debate - which is best? pen or camera? The answer is summed up with this undeniable fact - while films or books are an indication of the quality of the book, the rare 'book of film' will always simply be a cash-in.

Summary: