There's a reason people say, "The book was better."
When we who love to read get involved in a story we see things a certain way, we experience the book individually. I've heard that the same book is never the same to various readers, and I believe that. Reading is a unique, usually solitary experience and the reader finds herself living that book in her own way until she discusses it with others and broadens her perspective on it. Maybe she'll agree with other opinions, maybe she won't, but she comes away from the book with her own feelings about it.
J.K. Rowling once said that a young girl standing in a signing line was a little upset that there were so many other people there, that she felt Harry Potter was her book. I love that! And it's one of the reasons that I sometimes have a hard time with audio versions- it's like the reader is intruding on my experience or something. I know, weird.
The reason I bring all of this up is because I was thinking the other day about one of my very favorites, The Count of Monte Cristo, and the movie version that came out in 2002. I have loved the book for ages. I suggested it for my local book club, we read it, and then went and saw the movie together. (Should have seen us all, a bunch of married Mormon women, staring at the screen with our mouths agape at James Caviezel).
But other than the eye candy, I was really unhappy with the way the story had been totally altered.
I mean completely.
Why does it have to be that way? Monte Cristo gets a happy ending in the book! Why couldn't Hollywood have stayed true to the story?
It's funny to listen to my kids say, "That didn't happen in the book," when they watch movies. And one of my favorite memories along those lines was when I was first married and my husband had read John Grisham's The Firm. When the movie came out, we sat in the theater with him muttering the that-didn't-happen litany through the whole of it. The reason I was so tickled by this is because my husband isn't a reader.
So, I'd have to say that overall, the book is better than the movie. My Junior English Seminar teacher at Ogden High School once told us that this was true for every movie she'd seen except for the movie adaptation of A Separate Peace. I hated both the book and the movie, so I can't say I agree with her.
What about you? Can you think of any movies out there that are better than the books? Have you seen a movie adaptation that made your blood boil because it was such a shame they slaughtered your favorite book so much?
4 comments:
My sister-in-law said "Princess Diaries" movie was better (cleaner) than the book!
I had friends who watched "The Passion of Christ" and insisted DH and I see it. We argued over the rating and why LDS should see it, etc.
Finally DH said, "The book is better than the movie." I thought that was VERY clever!
I'm totally with you on audio books! I just can't listen to them!
I'm still laughing over that one, Taffy! Yes, that book was definitely better. ;-)
Amanda, I'm glad it's not just me.
I thought the first Harry Potter movie was pretty accurate to what happened in story. Of course if they told the whole book, the movie would have been 6 hours. But I also think the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice is very accurate (and it IS 6 hours).
Post a Comment