Are novels really superior to movies as an art form?

[Kire]

Yeah, but the Book Is Better
ESSAY
By Thane Rosenbaum
December 23, 2005

Whenever a film is adapted from a favorite novel, serious readers of fiction are prone to say, "Yeah, but the book is better." True partisans of the written page are always in conflict with those who like their stories cinematically revealed, projected onto wide screens that illuminate the darkness and pierce the quiet with Dolby Surround sound. The magic of movies, for so many in our increasingly visual society, is a far more stimulating and efficient storytelling experience than the labor intensity of reading.

I've had to think about this recently because one of my novels, "Second Hand Smoke," is being developed into an independent feature film, and I was asked to co-write the screenplay. I had never written dialogue that was naked of narrative, and so I learned a good deal about what goes into a screenplay and what has to be taken out of a novel in adapting it into a film.

While certain novelists have successfully written screenplays from their own books — John Irving received an Academy Award for his adaptation of "The Cider House Rules"; Vladimir Nabokov wrote the screenplay for his "Lolita"; Robert Stone co-wrote "Who'll Stop the Rain," which was adapted from his novel, "Dog Soldiers," and E.L. Doctorow lifted his fictional Rosenbergs from the page and brought them to the screen in "Daniel" (from "The Book of Daniel") — I'm not sure that there is, generally, a great advantage to having the author of the novel become part of the filmmaking team. After all, the novelist may know the story best, but perhaps he or she knows it too well.

Those who maintain that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery have obviously never been imitated; any ego boost is offset by the nervous laughter from having all those tics, gestures and intonations exaggerated to the point of caricature. The same is true with a film adaptation. Giving art a second life sometimes creates more of a mutant than a clone. This explains the natural impulse to preserve the story in its original form. Any adaptation results in something new, and thereby false when compared with the original.

More: http://www.forward.com/articles/7043

[villager]

1. good article, thanks

forwarded (pun?) to some author pals...

[applegrove]

2. Thanks for posting! n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

3. well, considering the "Ten Commandments" movie...

is roughly based off of only around 4 1/2 pages out of the book of exodus, then i could confidently disagree with the assessment (edit: clarification, assessment being that the book is better than the movie always). as a work of literary art those 4 pages were entertaining, but they are nothing compared to the sheer campy genius of 'the ten commandments.' i mean, yul brenner, charlton heston, and edward g. robinson? in a biblical story filled with *the* most famous mythical plagues, in all their pre-CG FX glory, and *begging* for over-the-top acting? surely, this is nowhere near a fair comparison... the movie takes the cake all the way. the movie is a scream, a work of art (for me, a comedy) that'll be shared for generations to come.

there's probably several other movies that fair better than the book, in other's estimation. i'll start off: i think the movie jurassic park is far better than the book. a good rollercoaster ride, and thankfully ends in under 2 hours. but then, one could almost finish most crichton works in around 2 hours...

[edbermac]

4. Not necessarily...

Godfather and Jaws for example were better movies than books; Clockwork Orange was a great book and a great movie...

[petgoat]

6. If you see the movie before reading the book your judgement

can be warped, but I'd suggest that somebody who wishes to avoid disappointment
read "McCabe" before seeing "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" and read "Do Androids
Dream of Electric Sheep?" before seeing "Blade Runner".

I'd submit that "Presumed Innocent" was much better as a book than a movie.

Congratulations, Kire, on having your work in development (and your talent in
development by working in a new medium). Quite clearly in writing you are
not wasting your time!

[Kire]

10. you talking to me?

all I did was copy an essay by Thane Rosenbaum

I knew I should have used blockquotes

[petgoat]

13. I was talking to you, but I'm an idiot and though I noticed the

title and byline somehow I didn't comprehend them.

Shoulda used blockquotes for us blockheads, Kire.

[JuniperLea]

19. I would say they are very close to being equal

but in no way would I think the movies were better.

[Burning Water]

5. I think it is

because the movie maker so often changes, not just the details, but the basic thrust, the theme, of the book. An example, Starship Troopers by Heinlein. An excellent book, although I did not agree with the basic themes in many regards. Then the movie. The screen writer and director were so intent on showing the fascist ideas that they thought were behind the book, that they completely destroyed the original meanings. They debased a serious, if flawed, social analysis into a cartoonish farce.

As a specific instance of the movie's distortions, in the movie the recruiters were extremely hard-sell in their approach to enlist you in the army. In the book, on the other hand, they did every thing possible to discourage you from joining up.

On the other hand, The Lord of the Rings was an almost perfect adaptation of the themes embodied in the books

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. Kind of like comparing apples and oranges, really

I like to see movies of books I read because I'm interested in the casting but then I usually am disappointed in how much they left out.

For example, in Gone With the Wind, the book, Scarlet has three children. In the movie, just one. This is a big part of what made her who she was, so I think it was a bad decision.

[WinkyDink]

8. I think fidelity to the novel helps make a great movie.

Examples: "The Godfather". "Jaws". The Connery Bonds.
And a little-known "The Return of the Native" with C-Z Jones perfectly cast as Eustacia Vye.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

9. Probably one of the biggest problems

is time. Mini series might have a better chance at staying true to the book, but then there is the whole tv show genre problem. I'd love to see HBO take a good book and really do it up the right way.

[NuttyFluffers]

14. they did a movie about "The Return of the Native"?

huh, now i gotta go find it and watch it. i read the book in high school and found it pretty lame, except for a few touching scenes at the apex of the love triangle/trapezoid/polyhedron... probably another to add to the list of movies that are better than the book i bet, since i disliked the book tremendously.

[OneBlueSky]

11. novels cultivate imagination . . . movies appropriate it . . . n/t

.

[JuniperLea]

20. There ya go!

Excellent point!

[terryg11]

12. just depends on your tastes

of course it's all subjective so different tastes will decide what people prefer. I typically like the books better but do really enjoy the flicks too.

[LWolf]

15. Not as an art form.

They are two different things. I'm one of those who generally grumbles, "the book is better." And, it generally is. Why? Because of how they are "consumed."

Watching is passive. Everything is done for you. You don't have to build the setting in your mind, or create your own "filmstrip" of action. Reading is active. You not only build the setting and create the filmstrip, but there is more complexity. Not limited to a set amount of time that people can sit and view a screen, all those small parts a movie deletes adds nuance and layers; different levels to understand the story on.

As a teacher, I grumble a lot. Why? Because reading grows neural connections, and helps develop thinkers. If young people can see it on a screen, they don't need to read. They can be passive.

All that said, film is a true art form, and I appreciate it. It's just a different art form. There are times that film can say much, in a different format. My biggest complaint has been this: Why don't screenwriters write their own original stuff? Why do they have to rewrite great books? I think there should be some things that you have to read to experience. And I'm always outraged when they change lines, decide which events can be left out, and generally "butcher" a great book.

After all that, here is one film derived from literature that I think is worthy of the book:

The Grass Harp (Truman Capote)

[pitohui]

16. depends on the book, depends on the movie

someone mentioned "do androids dream of electric sheep?" which i consider to be one of dick's weakest novels, yet it made a fine movie, "bladerunner"

many books are involving because of what's going on inside the character's head, this is why stephen king movies are often so trivial compared to reading the novels or stories, (yes, i'm aware of the exceptions like "misery"), so the movie is simply a different experience, and in the case of king, there are zillions of horror and suspense tales out there, the only thing that makes him special is the stream of consciousness and the crazy thoughts he captures in people's heads, so it's rare for movies to equal the book, just look at superior reads like "cujo" and "pet semetary" and the resulting shitty movies that you've forgotten before you hit rewind

another example would be carl hiassen (spelling?), his books are all about the speed of action and his sense of humor, but his humor is v. over the top and only works well because it's zipping by so fast, so a fun book like "strip tease" becomes an embarrassingly bad movie of the same name when everything is put in front of you visually and you have time to think, this is really kinda stoopit

[Jim__]

17. I don't think so.

They are different art forms. Most novels are probably better than the movies that are made from them. But then, they were created as novels, not movies.

One of my favorite movies is "Digging to China." I don't believe it was based on a novel; and I've often wondered how certain of the cinematic effects could be done in a novel. The movie is about a young girl (I think 10 years old) who falls in love with a retarded man - about 21 years old. The girl's "mother" runs a motel. The camera somehow catches the emptiness of her life; the dry, dusty country, the drab settings. This visibly changes when she starts to fall in love; the blowing dust disappears, there are blue skies; the sets are brighter. At one point the film is shot upside down as the girl spins around on some sort of teeter-totter with her head hanging off the end.

In short, a lot of the story is told through visual effects. If someone tried to make a novel out of this movie; it would not be the same work of art. I believe the same is true of novels that are made into films; it is really a new work of art based on the old.

[JuniperLea]

18. My imagination is far better than any old director's!

I have never, ever in my life thought a movie was anywhere near as good as the book from whence it came. My imagination is whack! There is no special effects wizard who can keep up. And as for telling a story, a book can give you the thoughts of a character so much easier than a movie. Whenever I see a movie trying to do this, it ruins the whole deal for me. It's like when you become aware that an actor is acting.

One example would be Lord of the Rings... loved the films! Love love loved them! But as for telling the story, nothing beats the books. And Gollum is nowhere near as scary in the movies... they really ruined him, imho. Far too Muppets-esque for me!