When is the book better than the movie?
July 16th, 2015Almost always it seems. Part of the problem is that Hollywood destroys book plots when they attempt to transfer them to the silver screen. I, Robot and the Bourne series of films are examples. The first turned Asimov’s cerebral study of human-robot relations, carried to its pinnacle in Caves of Steel and The Naked Sun, into a futuristic action film and vehicle for Will Smith that had nothing to do with the original stories. Same for the Bourne trilogy, where all the memory lapses were resolved in the first book, leaving the only thing common between movies 2-3 and books 2-3 the titles. I could only enjoy the films by trying to dispel all memory of the books.
Want some non-sci-fi examples? Consider all the Bond films. The first films tried to follow the Ian Fleming originals; later ones, even in the Sean Connery era, not so much. One film that seemed to follow the book well (I’d read the book ages ago and didn’t reread it before the film) was Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; that was probably what killed it at the box office. It’s not uncommon for a movie based on a book to do badly.
Reason 1: The visual and psychological. The first is clear. Movies are visual media, books are written. You might finish a book and say, “That would make a good X movie,” where X doesn’t stand for X-rating but sci-fi, thriller, romance, mystery, adventure, etc, but if the book doesn’t translate word experience to visual experience well, it can be disastrous. The psychological aspect is more subtle. While a great actor like Patrick Stewart or Jack Nicholson can express thoughts and emotions with tone of voice, facial expressions, and other mannerisms, and a great score can add to that, it’s hard to get into the head of a movie character and easy to do in a book.
Reason 2: Action. Nowadays this has become something where movies excel and books not so much. Even if you’re a minimalist author like I am, describing characters and what they do in action scenes just enough so the reader can participate in the creative process by filling in details in his mind (many writers don’t realize how powerful this is—the imaginative power of the human mind is virtually infinite), you won’t grab many people’s attention nowadays because action movies, video games, and TV shows have made many people passive. Some people only react to the visual. Some people never learn to read creatively. But turning that around, the action on the written page, especially for minimalist writing, becomes so distorted and amplified in the movie version that all fidelity to the book is lost. Ludlum never had a scene with Bourne jumping to cover a gap between two buildings. In fact, Ludlum’s Bourne was more the cerebral spy than action hero.
