The ages long debate of which medium is better, truer, or more sustaining – especially with regards to characters – rages on. As geeks, I’m sure most of you have thought about whether a movie stayed true to the book, whether you would prefer reading the novels instead, or how blasphemous an adaptation was. I’ve done a bit of all of those over the years and I’m ready to make some conclusions. You may or may not agree, but I’d like to hear your take on it.
Properties derived from film are typically superficial and derivative.
Most of us were exposed to the dual nature of most fictional properties as children. Sure, we had our Sesame Street books and watched the show, as well as our hoards of He-Man and She-Ra paraphernalia, or our Disney® Cinderella books. These were mostly made from film properties. In these cases the shows or movies came first and then some marketing guy got wise and made money with merchandise. In most cases here the books are derivative of the film and don’t really add much to the property.
I’d say the Star Wars novels are a huge exception to typical film derivations. I’ve not personally read them, but I have enough friends deeply involved in “The Expanded Universe” to tell me that there are characters and plot far beyond the films,1 and that some of these are excellent fiction on their own. If you want to read about adventures beyond Return of the Jedi – about the new Jedi school and characters like2 Mara Jade – you have to look to the novels and a range of writing talents including Timothy Zahn, Michael A. Stackpole, Aaron Allston, and Kevin J. Anderson.3 Star Wars’ Expanded Universe is a good example of a group of authors contributing to a universe together. Of course they all have different styles and abilities, so while the quality of the contributions vary, there is a lot out there for you to sample. This is also an easy way to take an accessible established world and create a marketing windfall. Either way it results in more fan goodies for us.
Properties derived from written fiction are typically better than film.
As I grew and became more adept at reading I realized that some of my favorite fantasies4 were actually based on books. Eight-year-old me resolved to delve right into L. Frank Baum and decide for myself. I spent the better part of a summer reading The Wizard of Oz. It was instant love. I felt like a traitor. I had always loved the movie, but now I5 equally enjoyed the novel. It was my first introduction to the clash between the fictional worlds of film and print. The movie is far less than canon here6 but each has their charm. There is something fantastic about the color revelation and proceeding munchkin merriment that is spellbinding – but could it touch the unaltered mind’s eye view of the same events? I only thought about this shortly. I accepted that the book was “right” and the film had changed that. The film was never “bad”- they just co-existed. Typically, I’ll still take the written earlier version of a world as the “truth” and anything that comes after that just can’t measure up.
Of course there are exceptions. The Fight Club film added layers to the original printed world. It took a mildly successful novel and added so many cultural and visual overtones in the same anti-culture vein as the book theme it created an entity unto itself. The book gives you the characters of Tyler, Marla, and Bob and the basic structure of the plot is intact. It’s the visual medium that adds so many complex layers. The snapshots of Tyler’s apartment in Ikea catalogue form, the edgy thrift store clothes, the amazing voice over, and “blink and you miss it” film jumps. Each of these add to the anti-culture you couldn’t experience in the print version. Chuck Palahniuk himself admits that David Fincher did more for his world than his book did.
When you have read a property in print first – can a film ever meet or surpass your imagination?
Reading these printed precursors to films I already loved opened a new avenue for me – other chapter books my mom had stashed away with them. These I wasn’t so familiar with because they didn’t have movie adaptations. When I was asked to write my first book report the next school year I quickly chose Shadow Castle from the stash. I know it’s probably unfamiliar to you. It’s a childhood chapter book centering on the history of a castle through it’s magical and royal inhabitants. Turns out, this was my mom’s book and it was a first paperback edition. I wish I had kept it in better shape, but I read it on and off for the next six years or so. The best loved books become dog-eared. It was pure fantasy and followed fairies, queens, and goblins for generations of their history. It was the first time I had no visual or plot basis for the expansive fictional world I was creating while I read. I’m kind of glad there was never an adaptation of this, I’m sure I would ponder the relentless discrepancies and wonder if it tainted my beloved childhood reading.
Which brings us to the issue with any adaptation – Does it sully the written version? Does it change our minds about which is true? Can the written and film versions co-exist peacefully? I guess I should start with the current benchmarks for fantasy adaptation – Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. Both excellent series in books and in films. Both of these try to stay as true to the written as possible in the allotted times for their film versions. Both also have the same problem – the allotted time doesn’t allow the world to be fully explored. I tend to think of the films as good primers to or synopses of the written works. There is so much rich detail inside these novels that unless your films become extensively long7 you lose details, side characters and plots.8 So although you can get excellent adaptations that keep the heart and soul of a property alive, I don’t think it’s possible to keep the entire fictional world intact when you transfer it to a screen.
Does it matter if you read the book before you saw the film, or vice versa?
I’ve done this both ways. I have a few tips on this one, though not an entire answer. Again, purely my point of view – but it may be enlightening if you are wrestling with this issue yourself.
If you are a deep thinking, picky, intellectual beast – I would go for the book first. I tend to fall on this side of the line, and although the movie may never live up to the book, you will always have an idea of where it’s coming from. I tend to use my prior knowledge of a book to fill in where a movie may be lacking on explanation. I also enjoy the inside nod to the previous readers – Marvel adapted movies do this extensively – and that makes me feel like the people who made the film appreciate my prior dedication to the property.
If you are looking for pure entertainment, don’t want to have to think to intently, or expect very little from a property, I would go with the film first. I fell into both Dexter and True Blood this way. I had little to no expectations from either of them and simply wanted something I didn‘t have to think about.9 I have now read more True Blood10 than I have seen11 and I’m currently entrenched in Darkly Dreaming Dexter12 and loving it.
Now let me address some issues you may have with my essay:
You are not nearly inclusive enough in your references.
Intentionally so. I’m drawing on my personal experiences, and hope you would discuss more about this subject with me in the comments.
I don’t agree with your assessment of a property.
That’s life, dude(tte). Maybe your response to my assessments comes from the fact that you came into it from the opposite direction than I did. People are entitled to have different likes and dislikes – at least in this country.
You have a literary background and that makes you a written word snob. Purist.
Yeah, probably. I tend to respect the written word more than the filmed version. I do watch an obscene amount of film for someone who doesn’t respect it though.
- yes, even old school [↩]
- bad-ass girl! [↩]
- I have read some of his Dune contributions and tend to think he’s astute at continuing an established universe [↩]
- The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory [↩]
- maybe more than [↩]
- assuming you take the older printed version as gospel [↩]
- LOTR thought about it – and still couldn’t include it all [↩]
- I’ve heard this complaint about the newer Potter films many times [↩]
- Especially True Blood – I’m notoriously non-endeared by all things southern or country [↩]
- Sookie Stackhouse novels [↩]
- have yet to see season 2 – don’t spoil it for me! [↩]
- the first Dexter novel [↩]
6 Responses to “Fiction vs. Film : Which is Better?”
I liked your essay and agree with most of your points. For me, however, if I have not yet had any experience with something and then learn there is a film based on a book, I much prefer to watch the film first, then read it. If I do it in this order I am much more likely to enjoy both. I’ll be able to appreciate the film on it’s own terms, then delve into the full world and get the “true” experience. If I do it the other way around, I am much more likely to approach the film with a cynical and critical eye and suffer through it with exasperation rather than actually enjoy it. Even keeping in mind that some things must be changed or left out for time, or to get across the same ideas/emotions/core, I usually feel as though the story has been cheapened and they could have done it better. Or, worse yet, believe that they really weren’t basing it very much on the book at all, just took a popular title and some character names and made an entirely different story.
I still have to watch movies based on books I loved as a child, though. I try to keep my expectations low, go into it knowing it will likely be terrible. That way I keep my frustration to a minimum, and if it turns out they actually did do a decent job of adapting the story to the new medium, I will be pleasantly surprised.
Nicky – reading your comment couldn’t help but be reminded of my experiences with Memoirs of Geisha. I read the book first and then watched the film. I could only see thin threads of the actual story remaining, and had actually been told by several people who saw the movie first that they liked each as their own story, while I could only shake my head and wonder how the adaptation did such a disservice to the novel.
While I can’t give a definitive answer on your question, I will say that I have been disappointed in film versions of books. Namely “Christine”. But I’ve also been satisfied with some.. “Harry Potter” comes to mind.
I believe that if the production stays true to the heart and soul of the story then the film can be wonderful.. no matter how much is missing. Sadly this isn’t the case in all circumstances.
I will just go on reading books (not often enough) and seeing movies and enjoying both mediums.
Thanks for your essay Heather!
It’s interesting, as I was reading this I can’t think of many films where I’ve read the book or vice versa. I guess I either just like to keep them separate or I don’t read much that is later turned into films that I bother to see. And, I rarely see a film and then want to read the book.
I’ve seen Star Wars films and Star Trek films, but never read any of the peripheral material like books or comics. I do know people who love both, but there’s never been any draw to the printed material for me. I am however very interested in any peripheral Harry Potter stuff that Rowling comes up with.
The main ones I can think of that I’ve both read and watched are Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Wizard of Oz, LOTR, Alice, and Harry Potter. For HP and LOTR (except the first 2 HP movies) I read the book(s) first. I have to say that for Wizard, HP, and LOTR I really enjoyed both. I enjoyed the books for their ability to develop character more and to flesh out the world to a higher degree. Where the films really do it for me is with creating the physical world setting. Those three really exceeded my expectations when it comes to creating the world.
For Wizard and Charlie, I saw the films first, like most Americans. Even with Wizard being ancient in the film world, it still evokes the “proper” Oz for me. The same goes with the original Willy Wonka film (while the new one is good, the original is better to me). Though, those feelings could certainly be just because I saw them 20 times before I read the books.
Alice is a different can of worms – there have been enough adaptations that it’s hard to say. I guess the standards are Disney’s animated one and the newest release – both do a good job with the settings, but I think the animated one does a better job with recreating the sense of silliness in the world. While the new one has some really nice character work, but the world felt less engaging. Anyway, this isn’t an Alice review
So, I certainly can’t answer any questions here, but that’s my personal experience – which I guess is what this really boils down to – no clear answers, just personal experiences and preferences that are often different for each property.
Bethany – It’s intresting you should mention a Stephen King adaptation. I have read quite a bit of his work, and I’ve seen all of the movies. Christine is the rare note that I have seen the movie, but not read the book. On the whole I think that film adaptations of King are rarely on par with the books. I quite enjoyed The Standand The Tommyknockers, but again, nothing on film comes near his bookds. His books aren’t flawless either; I actually get annoyed at his endless descriptions(although, I will say I thought The Dome was free of those).
Jon – You have a point about the finer points of both Alice’s – although for an older/ more modern audience I think Burton’s rises to the top. I suppose that is a case of the first Disney film being the “bible” for that world – and anything after it is held to that standard. I have much the same take on The Wizard of Oz and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory that you have. My early exposures to those orginal films have set them as the best – despite the beauty of th books. I’ve just learned to enjoy each on it’s own merit. While I liked Tim Burton’s Charlie, I felt like the added element about family was heavy handed and ultimately unnessecary in a classic famil romance story.( Here’s my lit leaning popping out again…)Although I MUCH prefer the book’s/ Burtons squirrels to the original movie’s geese, overall I tend to imagine the book as the first movie’s setting with minor tweeks here and there.
#^%@ Purists…
I agree with Nicky on this one.. I’m much better at watching a movie before I read the book. Then, they can co-exist, because I don’t think of them as adaptations. Especially true of the Stephen King works.. I can’t watch his movies seriously, except for Kubrick’s ‘The Shining’, which I saw before reading the rest. In fact, my only reason FOR watching them is to find his Hitchcock-like cameos.
There are exceptions, but only very obvious ones that I KNOW can’t have everything just so: LOTR (Dammit, I wanted Bombadil and the barrow-wights!) or are just too good otherwise and become their own version: Coppola’s Dracula (It was close, but not quite – If you know of a Dracula film that actually follows each scene of Stoker’s work, please.. let me know!)
Hmm.. I guess I am a purist after all. LOL