Log in to become a member of Max Gaucho's Fan Club!
The books versus films controversy has been around for a long time. Some wish to discuss the relative merits of each as mediums in their own right and make claims and allegations about which form of story-telling is superior. The other side of the debate looks at the difference between a book and a film-adaptation of that book. Here I'd like to discuss a little about the latter idea and its relevance in contemporary cinema.
Although books have been adapted to film numerous times over the years it is now happening more often than ever. This is largely due to the possibilities that computer animation has allowed for and perhaps this, in itself, is something worthy of note in the discussion. Were it not for the possibility to turn a novel into a computer-generated blockbuster would we still be seeing so many book to film adaptations? It seems unlikely given how heavily these adaptations tend to feature special effects created through computers.
However, this in itself does not give us good cause to see film adaptations of books as something bad. So, what else is it that critics of these adaptations see as problematic? The answer is fairly simple: changes to the original story.
Books can take us many hours to read, but the film version of a book can only last two or three hours at the most. It is therefore inevitable that parts of a book are cut out of the story in order produce a film. Take The Lord of the Rings for example. The film version entirely removes the character of Tom Bombadil and the story that goes with it.
Critics see this as tarnishing the original story. Of particular relevance is the experience of those who see the film but who have never read the book - are they missing out, in some important sense, on the story of the original work and are they being misinformed?
The debate has now received further complication as graphic novels are being used more and more frequently as the basis for films. 300, The Spirit, and the new film The Watchmen are all adaptations of graphic novels. However, do these adaptations differ from those of standard novels?
All these questions are worth considering more closely before judgements are passed. There is certainly a degree to which these adaptations are successful, but they may also be damaging to literature. These issues will be examined further in future articles, but for now give the debate some serious thought, you may find that you surprise yourself with your conclusions.
Tired of being ripped off by high street bookshops? Sick of paying full price for books?Get your cheap textbooks, books and coupon codes at Gauchotexts.com
Very interesting article. I love to read; I love to watch films. But the one that could not be captured on film was Stephen King's Misery because in the opening of the first chapter, King describes the character's true pain and confusion in a manner that could never be depicted on a screen.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
