“Movies based on well-known novels tend to catch more
attention from audiences and critiques,” according to both Richard Corliss, an
expert on movie. Since movie directors who are planning to make movies which
have bases on books tend to choose well-known literatures, it is not necessary
to concern whether to watch the movie or not—because we already read the books.
Sometimes, however, we find a new movie is based on a novel which we have not
read yet, and fall into agony concerning either to watch the movie or to read
the book. Which choice would be a better selection? What is the difference
between the movie and the book, and which points should be considered choosing
either watching the movie or the book? Considering abundance of plots, originality
of story, and imaginability, with examples comparing two movies and two books,
the better choice is reading the book instead of watching the movie.
Since movies based on books literally used the books
as their basis of story lines, the basic stories of the movies and the books
are similar. Both in a book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” and a
movie, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2,” for example, Harry Potter
and his friends looks for “Horcruxes,” which are containing soul pieces of
Voldemort, destroy them, and finally make Voldemort die. In another example, a
movie named “Il Postino (Postman)” and a book named “Neruda’s Postman” deal
life of both two main characters, Pablo Neruda—a great poet—and Mario—Neruda’s
Postman—in a beautiful countryside in Italy. In spite of the similarities
between basic stories of movies and books, as reviewed with the two sets of
examples,—the book “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” and the movie “Harry
Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2,” and the book “Neruda’s Postman” and the
movie “Il Postino”—there are plenty of noticeable differences between movies
and their books for basis; and it is why we should consider about whether to watch
the movies or to read the books.
The first point which should be considered is the
fruitfulness of story. Almost always, a book has more abundant plot than a
movie which is based on the book. There are plenty of examples. In the book “Harry
Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” Bill Weasley, an older brother of Ron Weasely,
talks to Harry the reason why Goblins never trust Wizards and Witches; in the
movie, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2,” however, Bill never
explains the reason. Because of this difference, the movie cannot explain to
the audience the reason why a goblin’s extraordinarily hostile behavior toward
Harry and his friends, while the movie cannot. In a book named “Neruda’s
Postman,” a fact-based novel about a great poet Pablo Neruda and a postman who
delivered posts while Pablo stayed in Italy, for another example, themes
related to the modern history of Chile is included; nonetheless, any parts
related to history of Chile is not included in a movie “Il Postino” which is
based on the book “Neruda’s Postman”. It is true that the movie “Il Postino” is
still understandable without the knowledge on the history of Chile; however,
this difference does not allow audience to have deeper understanding to the
story. A possible explanation of why the movies omit some plots of their book
bases is time limit: Since it is hard to play movies for more than three hours—because
of both by limit time of audiences’ attention and problems related to cost—directors
must condense the story lines of basis books. Even though with this plausible
reason for omissions in movies, the fact that books give deep understanding on
stories with detailed story makes books more interesting to read than watching
the corresponding movies. Then, what about the originality of stories?
Between movies and books, some differences in the
story line exist. Since the movies are based on books, audiences take it for granted
that the plots in movies are exactly the same to the books, excluding some
omissions. This idea, however, is wrong: There exist some plots which are
totally different from the original version. In the movie “Harry Potter and the
Deathly Hallows part 2,” Harry, on a bridge, with Hermione and Ron, breaks
Dumbledore’s Elder Wand into two and throws into a river that flows in front of
Hogwart. In the book, on the other hand, Harry goes up to the office of
Headmaster with Herminone and Ron, has conversation with Dumbledore’s portrait,
and use Elder Wand to repair his broken wand using the spell, reparo. And then, Harry talks to
Dumbledore in his portrait that he’ll put the wand back to Dumbledore’s tomb
and will never use it until Harry dies, so that there would be nobody who is a
real master of Elder Wand in the world. Also, such a critical difference also
appears in between “Il Postino” and “Neruda’s Postman”. Although the poet Pablo
Neruda dies and the postman Mario is arrested in the book while working for
their ideal, only Mario dies and Pablo hears the death of Mario when he visited
an island where Pablo stayed for about a year with Mario; this is not a subtle difference
but a great difference that changes the ending of the movie. So we can
understand that not only omission in story line but also manipulating the story
line is possible from these two examples. Probably, directors might change some
portions of stories having different intention from authors of the books used
as bases; nonetheless, such changes distort authors’ intricately planned purpose
with the story.
Finally, in addition to omissions and changes on
stories, movies and books have dramatically different characteristics on “imaginability”.
One of the strength of movies based on novel is that they can give audiences
vivid images and sounds. In the movie “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
part 2,” beautiful treasures of the magical history and spectacular fighting
scenes can be enjoyed. And in “Il Postino,” romantic vista of an Italian
coastline is quite well described. Books, in contrast, cannot stimulate human
senses as much as movies. Nevertheless, this fact brings books a powerful
strength. Because of such vivid scenes in movies, it is impossible to imagine;
to say more exactly, audiences never need to do. Even if we try to have further
imagination on scenes of movies, we cannot—due to the imprinted images. Thanks
to their letter-filled compositions, books, in contrary, allow readers have
infinite imagination on scenes with various descriptive words; appearance of
characters, voices, backgrounds, and everything. Their detailed description on
certain situations, moreover, helps readers to enjoy not only visual and auditory
information, but also olfactory, somatosensory information of the background where
characters are experiencing certain events, as following quote proves.
Harry looked down and saw deep green mountains and lakes, coppery in the
sunset. The landscape seemed to grow larger and more detailed as he squinted
over the side of the dragon, and he wondered whether it had divined the
presence of fresh water by the flashes of reflected sunlight.
Lower and lower the dragon flew, in great spiraling circles, honing in, it
seemed, upon one of the smaller lakes… They Agreed, Herminone a little faintly,
and now Harry could see the dragon’s yellow underbelly rippling in the surface
of the water.
“NOW!”
He slithered over the side of the dragon and plummeted feetfirst toward the
surface of the lake; the drop was greater than he had estimated and he hit the
water hard, plunging like a stone into a freezing, green, reed-filled world. He
kicked toward the surface and emerged, panting, to see enormous ripples
emanating in circles from the places where Ron and Hermione had fallen. The
dragon did not seem to have noticed anything: It was already fifty feet away,
swooping low over the lake to scoop up water in its scarred snout…
-J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly
Hallows
Thus, books provide
more chances to imagine a situation to readers.
Watching a movie or reading a book that is a basis of
the movie: a very hard selection to give a choice. Apparently, the best
solution for this question is both; watch the movie and then read the book, or
vice versa. For busy modern-society people, however, it would be not easy to
enjoy both forms of arts. A short, in-haste concern on this problem may lead
people to a movie. But think deeper, and consider the three points: omissions,
changes, and imaginableness. Then there would be no regret after choosing one:
reading a book.
