- Review: John Wick 3 (C)
Scott Sycamore - Weekend Box Office
May 17 - 19 - Crowd Reports
Avengers: Endgame - Us
Box office comparisons - Review: Justice League (C)
Craig Younkin
Seeing Between the Lines
By Stephen Lucas Published December 5, 2003
Too often a movie is put down for not remaining entirely true to the novel from which it?s inspired, a penalty that it does not deserve.
The wrath of the ?Lord of the Rings? trilogy has found its place over the film industry in the last few years. Ever since the first of the three J.R.R. Tolken?s adaptations hit theaters in 2001, it seems as though the world cannot get enough of this almost historic film series. Fans of these films often complement them for being extremely faithful to the source material, recapturing the sweeping spirit of Tolken?s beloved novels.
This is a rarity in the scheme of book adaptations because of the time ? the response is usually quite the opposite. A common saying among moviegoers after seeing a movie based on a book is that ?the book was better.? Not only is that statement grammatically incorrect, but most often that opinion is ill formed. To fully appreciate a movie that has been based off a novel, a person must be able to realize that seeing the movie prior to reading the book is a knowledgeable gesture. Too often a movie is put down for not remaining entirely true to the novel from which it?s inspired, a penalty that it does not deserve.
Unlike ?Lord of the Rings,? many films have suffered even though the fault is with its audience. Most literary critics and film critics alike may be in agreement in saying that the majority of novels are better than the films they inspire; however, why not enjoy the film and then go and read the book, and be even more satisfied? What I?ve realized in my experience in film criticism is that many people tend to read a book before its movie hits theaters. Although this doesn?t seem like an error, it truly is.
The audience member, having read the novel of a given film, already has an assumption of exactly what they want to see and they?re less subjective to the film?s interpretation of the material. If a person did not like a novel, he or she most likely would not be at the theater to see the film, which is also a problem.
Many people do not realize that some of the most acclaimed films of all time found their inspiration from novels; ?Gone with the Wind,? (to some) the best American film of all time, is a film adaptation of a far lesser known novel by Margaret Mitchell. I have not read that novel personally, but my grandmother, who is both a film and literary enthusiast, likes it, but not as much as the movie. Perhaps those who saw ?Wind? knowing it was considered a classic movie feel so strongly about it having not read the novel beforehand. In the case that they had read the original novel, would their opinion of the film be as strong? We may never know.
This is a rarity in the scheme of book adaptations because of the time ? the response is usually quite the opposite. A common saying among moviegoers after seeing a movie based on a book is that ?the book was better.? Not only is that statement grammatically incorrect, but most often that opinion is ill formed. To fully appreciate a movie that has been based off a novel, a person must be able to realize that seeing the movie prior to reading the book is a knowledgeable gesture. Too often a movie is put down for not remaining entirely true to the novel from which it?s inspired, a penalty that it does not deserve.
Unlike ?Lord of the Rings,? many films have suffered even though the fault is with its audience. Most literary critics and film critics alike may be in agreement in saying that the majority of novels are better than the films they inspire; however, why not enjoy the film and then go and read the book, and be even more satisfied? What I?ve realized in my experience in film criticism is that many people tend to read a book before its movie hits theaters. Although this doesn?t seem like an error, it truly is.
The audience member, having read the novel of a given film, already has an assumption of exactly what they want to see and they?re less subjective to the film?s interpretation of the material. If a person did not like a novel, he or she most likely would not be at the theater to see the film, which is also a problem.
Many people do not realize that some of the most acclaimed films of all time found their inspiration from novels; ?Gone with the Wind,? (to some) the best American film of all time, is a film adaptation of a far lesser known novel by Margaret Mitchell. I have not read that novel personally, but my grandmother, who is both a film and literary enthusiast, likes it, but not as much as the movie. Perhaps those who saw ?Wind? knowing it was considered a classic movie feel so strongly about it having not read the novel beforehand. In the case that they had read the original novel, would their opinion of the film be as strong? We may never know.
