Books v. Movies

It’s curious to me that, anytime you’re talking to someone about a movie you saw which is based on a book, their reply is inevitably, “Yeah, but the book was better.”

I mean, of course it was. The book is always better.*

Whenever someone says this – “The book was better!” – I interpret this to mean, “I’d like to show off the fact that I read popular books.”

Good for you. I’m glad that you do.

Really though, why is it that the book is always better?

There are, I suspect, a few obvious answers to this question, and also a couple less obvious ones.

For starters, books are much longer than movies. If the director were to actually film every scene just as it is in the book, you’d be looking at an 8-ish hour movie (for approximately a 400-page book). And no one wants to see that. This means LOTS of stuff is going to get cut out. And that scene you think is super awesome in the book? – yep. It’s on the chopping block.

As well, the narrator’s voice goes completely mute when tackling a movie. If your book is in first-person POV, how is the film going to relay that? How can a director express an inner-monologue (without the use of a voice-over, which, let’s call it what it is, should never happen in a movie)? And all those cool philosophies and ideas that the character and/or narrator expresses all throughout? – this is just not how movies are made.

I can still remember the first time I saw the movie The Matrix in the theatre. The Matrix, of course, is not based on a book. As far as we know, it was always and only ever meant to be a sci-fi movie.

And let’s get real: the best scene in the whole movie? –definitely the lobby shooting spree. Amirite?

Can you imagine reading that scene, though?

“Neo cartwheeled to his left as he emptied a full clip into the guard right in front of him, then ran sideways along the wall…”

…psh. Please. How boring is this? Even coming up with that sentence felt lame.

I mean, sure, sometimes a book needs its action scenes because of the way the story progresses. That’s fine. But movies give us so much more to experience all at once. And, especially when we’re talking about heavy action or large set pieces, films are actually much better for these sorts of elements. Some stories all but require the visual element offered by electronic screens.

Really, what all of these things ultimately lead to is this:

The elements that make a book good are, very pointedly, NOT the same elements that make a movie good. They’re different mediums. They have different strengths and different focuses and different ways of relaying stories.

When a director decides to take a book and turn it into a movie, what he has to do is convert the story from one format into another. Some things will be lost in this conversion. Some things will be added. The fact is that, if it’s going to be a solid, effective movie, it has to be different than the book.

So when people complain that “they ruined the book [by turning it into a movie]!” I think they’re sort of missing the bigger picture.

Thoughts?

*This isn’t strictly true. Right off, I can think of at least five examples of movies/shows that are actually better than their books. (I’m sure there are others; these are just the first five that come to mind.):

1. The Hunger Games – This is because of exactly what I was just explaining: the plot relies too heavily on action for it to really work effectively as a book. The world and stories of The Hunger Games basically beg for a strong visual element.
2. The Da Vinci Code – This is largely Dan Brown’s fault. See Content and Form for an explanation why.
3. Thirteen Reasons Why – This is actually NOT at all Jay Asher’s fault. The book was great, and very well-written. The show just gives us so much more of everything that made the book great.
4. The Arrival – The short story (which is actually called Stories of Your Life) was good. The movie just covered more territory, and wrapped up everything in a slightly more cohesive package.
5. The Shawshank Redemption – I would never want to be the one to put down Stephen King. The novella (Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption) is good. The movie just rearranged a few things for the better and gave us a much more satisfying ending.