Is it Foolish to Try to Compare the Movie with the Book?
The crowd is beginning to rise on their seats, leaving empty popcorn buckets and sticky floors in their wake. The lights come up as credits roll on the screen. So, how was the movie? Was it as good as the book? Should this comparison really be the first concern of a moviegoer? Is it logical, plausible, or meaningful to compare a movie adaptation to the book which it spawned? There are more than a few issues that arise when trying to compare literature to film.
Image via Wikipedia
Firstly, a film like this is a visual adaptation of a form of media that is assuredly not visual. The looks of the characters based on the novel are formed in a reader’s head. Despite the quality or quantity of description in said novel, each reader is doubtlessly going to have a different variation on the color of the heroine’s hair or the crook in the villain’s nose. It is almost impossible for a film’s casting team to find actors for the movie that will suit everyone’s tastes. One person might say “The lead wasn’t right at all! His eyes ought to have been darker!” or “The fisherman’s wife was much too skinny!”, but are these comparisons fair? All that those who cast the movie can do is to find a real-life person who resembles a fictional being as closely as possible according to their own mental picture. When the imagined appearance of a character is something that can be so varied to so many people, is it fair to be critical of those actors selected to portray said characters?
Another common critique heard in the comparison of movies to books is something akin to “They cut out the best part!” or “They skipped over half of the plot!” Realistically, one cannot expect a movie adaptation of a book to contain every nuance of action and plot development that is found within the novel. Books are something that can be taken slowly – over hours all at once, or sometimes in five-minute intervals at a doctor’s office or in line at the DMV. A reading experience, depending on the length of the novel, can take days, weeks, months, or even years to complete. A filmmaker simply does not have this time to give the audience. When a movie goes into theaters, it has to be compact enough that it can be seen at one instance. Many people choose to see a movie rather than read a book because they simply don’t have the time to read or they prefer a shorter experience. Imagine the complaints one might hear during a six-hour movie! Surely, a movie that contained all of the plot elements of a book would not be widely accepted. It goes without saying, then, that some elements are going to be lost in the transition.
While a movie and a book can be compared in some respects, there are aspects of art that are specific to only one form or the other. You wouldn’t hear an orchestrated soundtrack in a novel, for instance. Music can only be found in the film adaptation. And how much would be lost without music in films! On some occasions, music can help to build a tone and mood like nothing else can. Where drama or fear or tension can be built into a film with the right composer, authors simply do not have the same tools. A good author can establish tone with language, surely, but often music becomes synonymous with a movie. Consider the music featured in the Harry Potter films. It is striking, iconic, and can be seen as representative of the whole of the franchise. Other films that can be seen as strongly tied to music are the Mission Impossible series and the James Bond films. Music is a part of a film adaptation that has no analogous element in a novel.
What, then, with all of these incomparable aspects of the two art forms, can be critiqued when comparing a film and a book? Are there any elements between the two that can be expected to remain stable or unchanging? There may be more than one.
A good movie adaptation retains the tone, feel, or general genre of the novel. When one goes into a film adaptation of a Gothic horror novel and finds that it has been developed into a romantic comedy, one has a right to be disappointed. On occasion, a film maker may take too much license with a story. There has to be some point where the director of a film based on a novel comes to a compromise between his artistic vision and the expectations and desires of his audience. The vast majority of individuals who find themselves excited and eager to see the film adaptation of a novel are fans of the novel itself. These people expect to see some continuity between book and film. Nobody wants to go to a movie based on their favorite book to find that it is nothing like the literature that they love. Parents don’t want to take their children to an adaptation of Fluffy the Happy Bunny to find that the lead character has been transformed into a homicidal maniac. These people are simply left with a bad taste in their mouth and a possible aversion to the book itself.
A second way in which movies and the books that spawned them can be compared is in basic plot continuity. While it is to be understood and expected that a film cannot plausibly contain all the elements of plot in the book, a movie that entirely changes the story can hardly be said to be an adaptation at all. Instead, it becomes a new story that has stolen the title of a work of literature in order to garner larger ticket sales. It is well within reason for a moviegoer to be upset when the movie that they paid to see, believing it to be based on a novel they loved, winds up seeing a completely altered and unrecognizable story.
In some ways, it is ridiculous to hold a movie accountable for all of the elements found in a story. Comparisons like these are unrealistic and silly. Other elements establish quite plausible expectations for a film adaptation. These elements can be compared, critiqued, and hated without trepidation. When going into the film adaptation of a novel, you should keep an open mind about omissions and visual surprises but also hope to be able to retain your love for the book.
