Books Versus Movies

When someone says a movie was not as good as the book it was adapted from, I ask him or her, “What about the book made it better than the movie? Did the book have better cinematography? Did it have a better score? Were the visual effects as groundbreaking?”

The argument of books versus movies has always been one that I find rather pointless. Books and movies are separate mediums. One wouldn’t compare a painting to a sculpture even though they may share the same artist and be of the same subject matter. Is this because we are somehow conditioned to see them as separate?

Why should one medium be a slave to the other? Especially when the methods and tools used to create them differ. You wouldn’t build a house made of sand the same way as you would one made of glass. Even though sand and glass both share the same elements, the very nature of sand requires that one make certain considerations when handling it. Especially when it’s been used as building material. Ditto for glass.

As such, one wouldn’t measure a building made of glass using the same yardstick as they would one that is made of sand. One certainly would think twice before throwing a stone at one.

However, it can be argued that there are merits and demerits of both mediums depending on how they are constructed and consumed. If one wants to cultivate the habit of book reading, it is a hobby that has far fewer barriers to overcome and does not require a heavy financial investment. Telling stories using books as a medium only requires, at the bare minimum, a pointed tool and a surface to make the scratches on. Consuming movies, however, requires that one have access to a screen or a device capable of displaying one. This may be a huge burden depending on your socio-economic status. Making movies is a miracle. For one to make even a short movie requires a level of commitment, care and resources that many, save the most passionate and devoted, are willing to contend with.

Now one could argue that if one medium was not superior to the other then why are awards for best adaptation given? I would say that that is exactly the point. The best adaptation is given for a piece of work that has been adapted for film and has taken into consideration the limits and freedoms that the medium of film offers.

Both are used to tell and document stories. It is up to the storyteller to choose the one which best suits them. Access is also a huge part of choosing. You need to consider which medium your potential audience has access to. Having your medium limited to a small audience can have a huge impact on the financial remuneration you will get back from it.

Since the dawn of film, books have served as the litmus test for the viability of a story before it is made into a film. The film tries to capitalize on the audience established by the book while bringing in a new audience. A lot of stories have been given a second wind after they were made into movies. Many obscure literary pieces may not have made it into the limelight if they had not been made into movies.

You can therefore say that it is not a matter of books versus movies, but in what ways do both mediums complement each other. I think these are important points to consider when comparing one medium to the other.

Hene

Vocabulary

score (n) – the music that is written for a movie or play
ditto (n) [casual] – used to say that whatever you have said about one person or thing is also true of another person or thing
merit (n) – a good quality or feature that deserves to be praised [opposite: demerit] medium (n) – a particular form or system of communication (such as newspapers, radio, or television) (give / get)
a second wind (idiom) – to experience a renewed sense of energy, strength or enthusiasm after a period of fatigue or rest