Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’s the difference between a book and a movie?
What’s the “difference” between a book and a movie? Well, you see, Billy, one of them is textual and typically consists of several hundred pieces of paper closely written with text, bound together between cardboard or stiff paper — the other is a visual medium and is originally imprinted on strips of plastic film and then can be digitally encoded and transferred onto silver disks for personal playback purposes…
Okay, I know that’s not what the question meant. But it’s kind of a dumb way of putting it.
Moving on.
I think that the biggest difference between books and movies — and between how they portray their contents — does have a lot to do with the different media that they use to tell the story. (So maybe my first answer still stands). Because they are so vastly different in the way the story is presented (entirely visual versus entirely un-visual) books and movies must by necessity tell their stories in very different manners.
Consider first a book. Contracts and editors aside, a book has more or less an unlimited space in which to tell its story. Books can be as long as the author needs them to be for the story to be presented; stories in fact can run through multiple books. This leaves plenty of space for “non-action” bits of the story: descriptions of scenery and history, character development, characters’ internal musings, etc. I think that text above all best crosses the boundaries between a character’s internal bits and the reader. And the visual elements of the text, even if a text has occasional illustrations, depends entirely on the reader for their creation. A book can tell us that the main character stands 5’10″ and has wavy brown hair — but those words don’t mean anything until absorbed and pictured by the reader. Reading is a highly imaginative process, and, while the text certainly doesn’t disappear when it is unread, requires a reader to make it truly what it is.
Movies are entirely different. A movie doesn’t need to use words to describe scenery or the appearance of its characters; it shows them to you, and you know what they look like. Zero narrative space is spent on telling the audience how things look — which in itself could cut not a few novels right down to size! As well, movies tend to be less internally-oriented. Unless a film has a voice-over, it is hard for the audience to get inside a character’s head. (It can be done implicitly — soulful glances and the like — but I do not think it can be done explicitly). So by necessity, movies must focus more on the plot and its action. This is by no means always a bad thing. As well a movie, unlike a book, is nearly always confined to a specific time-frame, usually in the vicinity of two hours. Extraneous scenes must sometimes be cut out in order to fit within the appropriate time.
All of the above are just differences between the two, and neither good nor bad in themselves. But there can be problems with books and movies and the ways in which they tell the story: specifically, with movies made from books, and with books made from movies.
The former is what I hear the most complaints about. I don’t think it’s particularly unusual for lovers of a book to see its film interpretation and leave more or less disappointed. I think one reason for this disappointment is having an unrealistic idea of what a movie can do with a book in the first place. It’s in the nature of films to skimp on internal characterization, maximize action, and ruthlessly cut out scenes or even characters that don’t add enough to the plot to justify their space on the screen. This often makes a movie into a better movie. It cannot make a movie into a better interpretation of a book. A book-book and a movie-from-a-book simply have to be different — it is in their very natures. Book-lovers will often moan that the movie was “different than the book!” I say: get over it. Of course it was different. Different doesn’t mean bad (although if it was a bad movie, that is certainly a cause for bewailing).
The other problem with movies made from books is that, if you read the book first, the characters will probably look and sound wrong to you — after all, they are different from how you had imagined them. Again: get over it. This is the nature of the beast. And to expect the movie to be the same as the book is hardly fair to the movie.
The other half of this equation is, of course, the piece of work which was first a movie, and then a book. These are rarer, but you still find them out there. In my experience they’re not very good, mostly because they tend to try to be a movie on paper. They often portray the action and adventure of the movie, but they don’t add in the internal aspects which are so crucial in text. When that happens you might as well just rent the movie, because it’ll be better anyway.
Books and movies are very different. By expecting the one to be like the other, we sell both them and ourselves short.
I think one of the problems that comes when a book lover goes to see the movie is not only does the reader have expectations about what the characters should look like and be like, but with wanting the whole spirit of the book to be present in the movie.
I don’t mind watching movies based on books, but I need enough time lapsed between the two so I don’t have the book fresh in my mind. That enables me to enjoy the movie for what it is.
True. Books and movies are different. Let them stay that way.
Here is my BTT post!
Can you think of a film that has then spawned a good book? It may be that I haven’t been looking for this and so am not the right person to be asking the question, but I can’t. Which might say something about the quality of the narrative in a film.
[...] comments about the ‘difference’ between a book and a movie. I was tempted, but it has already been done. To me, the biggest differences between a book and a movie come from the way the medium influences [...]
Well said. I used to complain about films that changed the book until I realised that it’s just not possible for the two to be the same – different techniques etc. I can’t think of a book that came from a film – I’d be interested in your examples.
Yeah, books and movies are different. Until movies incorporate aspects of virtual reality. Then again, I’m not sure if that could be called a movie anymore.
But some movies are better adaptations than others. Of course they are different. Often I find movies clean up books considerably.
I think, more to the point, is that books are interactive while movies are passive. With movies, you’re visually presented with characters, scenes, etc. With books, you have to imagine things, and it is the reader’s imagination that brings a story to life.
Lol, love your first paragraph analysis
[...] let me reword the last question, to get the silly answer (a la She Reads Books’ initial response, which by the way, I thought was a great way to begin it) out of the way: What is it different that [...]
[...] let me reword the last question, to get the silly answer (a la She Reads Books’ initial response, which by the way, I thought was a great way to begin it) out of the way: What is it different that [...]
I hear that! I have been reading “Which Lie Did I Tell: Further Adventures in the Film Industry” by William Goldman, and it made this stuff a lot clearer for me. He devotes some time in there to talking about what works on film versus what works on paper, and what he’s had to do to make different stories work on screen, especially with things like Misery. And I trust his word all the more because he wrote The Princess Bride and then had to do the screenplay and work on the movie, so he’s really seen it from both ends.
Before, I always thought that movies should ONLY use what is in the book, maybe not even have any dialogue that isn’t in the book, and keep the spirit perfectly, and everyone involved with the movie should have to read the book. And talk about it! But Goldman helped me see that there are things about pacing, and aging, and getting ideas across, that just work very differently in a visual medium than in words, and that adapting books is really an art.
We had a Fiction to Cinema class where we went over this kind of thing in great depth. Some books (like The Color Purple) translated quite well onto film. Some movies, (like Slaughterhouse Five) butchered even the spirit of the book.
I enjoy both and I think that a well made film (or better, a mini-series/tv series) can have the same qualities as a great novel and should be enjoyed as such. I took two film classes in college and have developed a real appreciation for excellent cinematography. And cinematic storytelling. So I get pissed off when people diss movies qua movies instead of only the truly sucky movies.
But you’re ok, because you’re sensible and don’t expect books and movies to be identical. And because you’re cute.
Oh, the major flaw in Slaughterhouse Five was giving the death of Edgar Derby (not a spoiler by a LONG shot) a meaning. It’s supposed to be completely random and meaningless that amidst all this mass death a guy is executed for stealing a teapot. As if that matters. But they make it a Dresden shepherdess figurine identical to one he’d given his wife. AUGH. They destroyed the main theme by adding a figurine (and a few lines of dialog to set us up for it).
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Phillis