A BOOK IS NOT A MOVIE—FRANKLY I HAVE ALWAYS REGARDED THAT AS SELF EVIDENT
One of the commonest statements made about movies adapted from books is: “The book was better.”
It’s a reaction that irritates me greatly. I have always thought that you have to judge each medium on its own terms—and not compare them. They are different experiences.
A good example of this is CATCH-22. The book is a work of genius—though contains passages I found quite boring. In contrast, the movie is consistently entertaining but doesn’t—and shouldn’t—contain all the complexity of the book.
Which is the better? It’s not a helpful question.
Having cut and re-written extensively, I’m currently reaching the stage where I’m asking: What can I do in the movie that couldn’t be done in the book—and will it help the movie?
I’m not sure I’ll find the answers, but I’m confident I’m asking the right questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment