Today’s Booking Through Thursday question is:
Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’™s the difference between a book and a movie?
I’ve come to the conclusion that you cannot compare books and films. They are different things entirely. I’ve been disappointed many times when a film of a book just hasn’t met my expectations or matched my vision of the characters. It would be impossible for any film to do that of course, except that Ian McKellen was just perfect as Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings films – the rest of the cast had varying degrees of success as far as I was concerned and beautiful as the locations were Lothlorien was nowhere near my vision of it from reading the book.
It depends too, for me, on the impact the book had on me, or how much of it I remember. I read Atonement a few years ago now and I think that if I saw the film I could judge it on its own merits. I’m hesitating though about seeing it as I did enjoy the book so much. Once I’ve seen a film it is those actors’ faces that stick in my mind over-riding my own imagination and I don’t like that.
Usually it’s OK if I’ve seen a film first and then read the book. The exception to that was Tenko, which was a TV drama series in the 1980s, with Ann Bell, Stephanie Cole and Bert Kwouk. The drama was good and the book was terrible.
I enjoy both books and films – both can transport me to another time and place and see things through someone else’s eyes, but I think books are more personal. Books are what the reader makes them, each person can read something different into the text, regardless of the author’s intentions, whereas films are someone else’s vision and interpretation.