Is the Book Always Better?

The other day I was reading this article about Hollywood's poor history of adapting anime into film. And it got me thinking about adaptations in general. I mean, most of us have said (yelled, whined, screamed) "the book was better." But I'm curious... Is the book always better? Is it even fair to judge a movie against a completely different medium? And what is it that makes us (I'm sure I'm not just speaking for myself) absolutely furious when a film botches its source material?

Image Source: www.flicker.com
I've been assured by multiple people that this is the worse adaptation. Ever.

Ultimately, I think a lot of this comes down to opinion and taste. One of the amazing things about literature is how extremely personal the experience of reading a book can be. This is true of any medium to an extent, since all experiences require some kind of interpretation, but more so for books.

The non-sensory nature of text means the physical appearance of characters and settings are much more fluid. The atmosphere is also more variable since we are not fed an emotional music soundtrack, colour palettes or even background noise. There's also a lot more content in books to be interpreted than in many other forms of media. What each person values and retains can be different than another person reading the same book. These things result in a very personalized vision of the story presented through the text. A film interpretation is limited to a single visual presentation and unable to cover all material in the course of two hours. What the director portrays in those two hours may be exactly how one reader imagined the story, while nothing like what another reader envisioned. 

Of course, there are certainly adaptations that are objectively poor in terms of accurately representing the original story. Movies in which the story has been changed beyond recognition or so much has been left out that characters or elements of the plot have been left undeveloped. But again, there is still an element of opinion required when determining how a movie stands up against its source material.

Image Source: www.wikipedia.org
My favourite book and film, though the two are nothing alike.

For instance, Hayao Miyazaki's film Howl's Moving Castle, based on Diana Wynne Jones' novel of the same name, is a beautifully crafted and complex tale of love, magic and self confidence. It is, however, almost nothing like the original story. It is almost impossible to compare the two and determine "which is better" since they are so unalike. Miyazaki has taken the basic premise of the novel and some elements of the overall theme and turned it into something entirely his own. 

This, of course, again raises the question of whether film and literature can actually be compared. We must remember when viewing film adaptations that they are often not solely intended to be a straight shoot from page to screen, but the interpretation of a story that the director/screen writer wishes to present. The Lord of the Rings films are not the children of J.R.R. Tolkien but of Peter Jackson and his team, based on his personal experience reading the books.

But, that doesn't mean we can't have an opinion about a film's loyalty to its source. An example I often cite (and will bring up in another post in the nearish future) is My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult. I don't want to give any spoilers because I highly encourage you to read this novel on your own, but I will say that what happens at the end of the book changes the perspective of the entire story. It gives meaning to what has been happening and deals an intensely emotional blow to the audience. The movie simply skipped the ending. On top of that, they even included a line saying "there was no meaning" to what had occurred. In my opinion, this is disloyal to the original novel. Even though the movie My Sister's Keeper probably has more in common with its source than Miyazaki's Howl's Moving Castle does, I would argue that this one change makes it significantly less effective at accurately portraying the overall story.

Image Source: www.jodipicoult.com
Highly recommend this book. The movie? Let's just pretend it doesn't exist...

I often find that my favourite adaptations are those where the screen play has been written by the original author. This is probably because anything the author chooses to include or omit will create an overall story still in keeping with their original theme and intentions. Some examples are Anne Rice's Interview with The Vampire, and Peter S. Beagle's The Last Unicorn. There are also authors who remain involved with the film and consult on the script. J.K. Rowling was relatively involved in the Harry Potter movies and Neil Gaiman produced Stardust (as well as the upcoming Graveyard Book adaptation).

Image Source: www.wikipedia.org
Nostalgia anyone?

 
So we come to the question: "Is the book always better than the movie?" In my opinion, there have been films that presented a story more enjoyably and effectively than their literary counterparts. And I reiterate, this is my opinion. As an example, I was not a fan of Audrey Niffenegger's The Time Traveler's Wife. Yes, I'm aware that puts me in the minority. I am intrigued by the premise, but I found most of the characters shallow and unlikeable. I didn't like the way the main characters dismissed Henry's ex-girlfriend, blowing her off as psycho instead of in need of help. I hated Clare's acceptance of Gomez and his obvious sexual advances. The film adaptation did away with both of these elements, writing out the ex-girlfriend and making Gomez a likeable character, loyal to both Clare and Henry. For me, the film presented exactly the parts I enjoyed about the story while removing those that were unappealing. Obviously, a person who found all of the novel appealing, would highly disagree with my preference of the film.

Image Source: www.goodreads.com
I just really didn't like it...

A fan of Niffenegger's novel may even be angry with me for saying that I enjoyed the movie more than the book. We've all been there. "You liked it!? Really? But the book was so much better!?" And the worse of all, when someone responds: "I never read the book." That's when you rush home and lend them your dog-eared copy immediately, unless it's signed of course... then you'll just have to pick them up their own copy for Christmas.  

Honestly, I don't think this is an attitude we have solely for books. We feel ownership and allegiance to anything we like. Whenever someone says something negative about something we enjoy, it makes us feel uncomfortable. We have an urge to show them just how mistaken they are. Whether by passive-aggressively getting them to read a book, or by having a full scale debate about how the original Matrix was better than the sequels. We associate these opinions with our identities, and when someone challenges them, we see it as a challenge to our self-image.

Image Source: www.imdb.com
Seriously...

At the end of the day though, we have to remember that it is opinion. We can discuss and debate, but if someone doesn't agree... oh well. If we all liked the same things, then we wouldn't really have much to discuss in the first place.

Of course... this is always easier said than done... and I'm sure most of my friends can call me out on doing the same. What do you think? Share your opinion in the comments. Or feel free to disagree with me and tell me what I got wrong below.