Books vs. Movies

 

Movie V. Book Terry here, with our question this week: Is there a movie better than a book? And is there a book that defies adaptation? 

I have to go with “better” being an undefinable concept. Books allow the reader to use imagination to visualize characters and to gain insight into their thoughts and emotions. Movies rely on the screen writer’s and director’s interpretation of those elements. What may strike one moviegoer as an appalling interpretation of a book, another viewer may find more enjoyable than the reading for a variety of reasons.

Seeing the scenes played out visually can be a treat. I’m thinking of the original movie of Tom Jones, adapted from Henry Fielding’s The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling. Who can ever forget the rakish Tom in the movie, while the book could be a little obtuse. War and Peace is another example. The movie was lush and vibrant to look at, it but the interpretation was romantic, while the book has scenes of brutal realism. I suspect the book defies adaptation unless you’re willing to sit through an eight-hour movie. 

 I’ve read books many that I thought couldn’t possibly be made into movies. Who would have thought that David Mitchell’s Cloud Atlas could have been put on the screen. But it was, and it was a terrific movie. Was it as good as the book? It was different. 

An actor can interpret a role in a way that illuminates a character, sometimes even more vividly than the book. I’m thinking of the recent adaptation of The Talented Mr. Ripley. (a TV series, not a movie, but I’m not going to quibble.) Andrew Scott’s portrayal of Tom Ripley was chilling. He inhabited the role in a way that makes me hope I never meet Mr. Scott in real life. He’s terrifying. Does that make the adaptation “better?” I don’t remember being so enthralled by the book, but I know for some readers it’s Patricia Highsmith’s masterpiece. 

There are scenes from some movies that have stuck with me years after I saw them, while scenes from the book slid into obscurity. The movie Sophie’s Choice is a case in point. The book, by William Styron, was brilliant, but when I think of the book, a movie scene comes immediately to mind, the one in which Sophie (played by Meryl Streep) has to make her choice. The horror that Streep’s face conveyed is haunting. Books usually have more breadth than movies. 

Someone writing a movie script from a book has to choose among a variety of themes and ideas, which means giving others short shrift. I was completely enthralled by William Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury when I saw it as a young woman. But it was a box office flop, and considered one of the worst movies, ever. But it intrigued me so much that I tackled the book. And I found that the movie was extracted from one scene—one SHORT scene in the book. The rest of the movie was simply explaining what that scene meant. Does that mean the book defies adaptation? It does if you mean the whole book. But the movie got the point across that the family was decadent and rotting at the core. 

 As for crime fiction, the movies are a mixed bag. The adaptation of Stephen King’s The Shining is a classic. The combination of the story, the screen interpretation, and the acting is top-notch. 

Likewise, Carrie. It almost seems as if King’s books are meant to be adapted. There are twelve—which leaves out a lot of books, but I’m sure someone will get around to them. I’m curious to know what makes a book suitable for adaptation to movies. 

Several of Harlan Coben’s books have been adapted for TV movies or limited series. I watched a few, and every single one falls flat for me. The books are much better. Does that mean they defy adaptation? For me, they do. But that doesn’t stop directors from trying. 

 Sometimes I read a book that seems to cry out for movie adaptation. James Ziskin’s Bombay Monsoon seems perfect for a movie—atmospheric, with secrets and forbidden passion. 

Anything by Laurie King. You can’t ask for a more cinematic writer. Eric Beetner’s books beg to be on the screen—which makes sense, since he’s a TV editor and producer. There are countless World War II movies. The public never seems to get enough of them. Why, then, has J.L. (Janet) Oakley’s riveting The Jossing Affair not been picked up? It has everything that makes a World War II movie memorable—Espionage, revenge, and terror. 

And come on! My Samuel Craddock series may not be action-oriented enough for a movie, but it’s ripe for a TV series—all my friends say so! And my new Jessie Madison series is perfect for action films. Even my copyeditor said the second one, Deep Dive, coming out in the spring, was “compelling and dramatic.” 

Hello, Hollywood, where are you?