Have you seen the new __________ movie?
Yeah, but the book was better.
As usual.
In some sense of the word, it's true. Books are generally more detailed, tell a fuller story, and give the reader more freedom to imagine the characters and events in his or her own mind. But books aren't accompanied by musical scores, nor do they have the advantage of live performances. Movies do.
The point I'm trying to make is that comparing books to movies is futile, because they are so different. It would be like saying eating at Chipotle is better than eating at the authentic Mexican restaurant. Chipotle is, of course, inspired by Mexican food, but is a little bit of a different take on it. It is the product of Steve Ells's creative culinary license.
In the early 20th century, there was a scientist who suggested that as a human race, we had discovered all there was to know. We had reached the end of the discovery phase of mankind. (I could go on about that for quite some time, but will save it for another day.) While we obviously know that he was wrong, there is something to be said for the slow down in original ideas.
While I am by no means claiming to be an expert on the film industry, it does seem that the majority of movies these days are inspired by something else, whether it's a novel, a series, a comic book, or a real-life event. And when you're in the story-telling business some of the details always get changed. I love to tell stories, and it just so happens that I almost always have a story for every occasion. But I will also be the first to admit that I do some embellishing from time to time.
The important thing to remember is that the details that get changed never affect the overall outcome of the story. Let's talk Lord of the Rings. Those of you who know me know that, given the chance, I would go live out my days in Middle Earth, barefoot and drinking tea with hobbits, chilling and talking slowly in Fangorn with the ents, and riding all over Rohan and Gondor with the Rohirrim (on Shadowfax, of course, since Gandalf would be my homeboy and lend him to me whenever I asked).
So, when the LOTR movies were released, I bet you can imagine that I was initially disappointed at the exclusion of (among other things) Tom Bombadil, the Battle for the Shire, and what could have been the most epic cliffhanger in the history of cinema. (For those of you who DKDC about LOTR: at the end of The Two Towers book, we are left to believe that Frodo has been killed by Shelob, a giant spider, in her lair in Mordor.) But now I am able to look at the three films as a whole and see that while they do not tell every single piece of Tolkien's story exactly as he told it, they still tell the story. And beautifully so.
Okay, I'm trying to reel it in, since I could go on about LOTR forever, and you very well might not care, but I just have one more point to make.
Now that I can view the movies as a whole, I have come to the realization that my favorite scene from the films is something that never even happened in the books. In The Two Towers movie, at the Battle of Helm's Deep (which, btw, is only one chapter in the book), the army of elves shows up to aid in the defense against the orcs. I love that scene. I love that the elves are there, without question, to fight a war that isn't theirs to fight. I love their fancy helmets and bows. I love that they never seem to run out of arrows. I love that they don't think twice about losing their immortality for the greater good. That scene really makes that movie what it is.
And that, in the end, is the beauty of art. It's the realization that each genre is different. And, as with people, differences should be celebrated and enjoyed. The fact of the matter is that none of us would want to sit through a movie that was exactly like the book...because it would be a 72-hour film! I've decided to stop making "better or worse" comparisons between books and movies. Rather, it should be a question of "Was I entertained? Was it a good performance (either written or acted)? Is it thought-provoking? Does it evoke an emotional response? Would i read/watch it again?
We spend so much time complaining about how movies aren't as good as their inspiration that we fail to see that they are, in their own right, works of art.
In the early 20th century, there was a scientist who suggested that as a human race, we had discovered all there was to know. We had reached the end of the discovery phase of mankind. (I could go on about that for quite some time, but will save it for another day.) While we obviously know that he was wrong, there is something to be said for the slow down in original ideas.
While I am by no means claiming to be an expert on the film industry, it does seem that the majority of movies these days are inspired by something else, whether it's a novel, a series, a comic book, or a real-life event. And when you're in the story-telling business some of the details always get changed. I love to tell stories, and it just so happens that I almost always have a story for every occasion. But I will also be the first to admit that I do some embellishing from time to time.
The important thing to remember is that the details that get changed never affect the overall outcome of the story. Let's talk Lord of the Rings. Those of you who know me know that, given the chance, I would go live out my days in Middle Earth, barefoot and drinking tea with hobbits, chilling and talking slowly in Fangorn with the ents, and riding all over Rohan and Gondor with the Rohirrim (on Shadowfax, of course, since Gandalf would be my homeboy and lend him to me whenever I asked).
So, when the LOTR movies were released, I bet you can imagine that I was initially disappointed at the exclusion of (among other things) Tom Bombadil, the Battle for the Shire, and what could have been the most epic cliffhanger in the history of cinema. (For those of you who DKDC about LOTR: at the end of The Two Towers book, we are left to believe that Frodo has been killed by Shelob, a giant spider, in her lair in Mordor.) But now I am able to look at the three films as a whole and see that while they do not tell every single piece of Tolkien's story exactly as he told it, they still tell the story. And beautifully so.
Okay, I'm trying to reel it in, since I could go on about LOTR forever, and you very well might not care, but I just have one more point to make.
Now that I can view the movies as a whole, I have come to the realization that my favorite scene from the films is something that never even happened in the books. In The Two Towers movie, at the Battle of Helm's Deep (which, btw, is only one chapter in the book), the army of elves shows up to aid in the defense against the orcs. I love that scene. I love that the elves are there, without question, to fight a war that isn't theirs to fight. I love their fancy helmets and bows. I love that they never seem to run out of arrows. I love that they don't think twice about losing their immortality for the greater good. That scene really makes that movie what it is.
And that, in the end, is the beauty of art. It's the realization that each genre is different. And, as with people, differences should be celebrated and enjoyed. The fact of the matter is that none of us would want to sit through a movie that was exactly like the book...because it would be a 72-hour film! I've decided to stop making "better or worse" comparisons between books and movies. Rather, it should be a question of "Was I entertained? Was it a good performance (either written or acted)? Is it thought-provoking? Does it evoke an emotional response? Would i read/watch it again?
We spend so much time complaining about how movies aren't as good as their inspiration that we fail to see that they are, in their own right, works of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment