by Pamela Banayoti
One thing we love about films is their ability to transport us into faraway lands, with a gripping story line, visual effects and the unique way in which they tell their story. Books do the same thing; yes. The novel was the original film, before technology boomed. However, while books are to be revered and cherished, films should also be held in high esteem for their contribution to the arts.
One thing we love about films is their ability to transport us into faraway lands, with a gripping story line, visual effects and the unique way in which they tell their story. Books do the same thing; yes. The novel was the original film, before technology boomed. However, while books are to be revered and cherished, films should also be held in high esteem for their contribution to the arts.
The conundrum comes with the popularity of a book that manages to climb the best-sellers list, sometimes automatically gaining a film deal. If this book had a following of fans, one can almost hear their anxiousness through the wireless waves that connect us all. Some may argue that books should be left as books, with no need for a film version. Others argue for a film version for those who do not like to read, but are captivated by the idea of the story, and would only watch it if it was on the big screen. Though the debate continues, it is futile to fight against the possibility of a film adaptation once a novel is popular enough. This begs the question as to how much of a novel is to be included within the film. If a film was to include everything, one would end up watching a five hour film (the average length of time it takes to read a novel in one sitting), and the watcher would quite rightly switch off the TV, change the channel, walk out the cinema. Mainly because they would have zoned out as the camera zoomed in on the rustling maroon curtains for the fifth time, while panning on the exterior of the house for the tenth time – narration in novels is not the same as the narration in films.
When a film chooses to stick too closely to the novel’s every turn, the film loses its ability to attain any magic that may have been created if they were given free terrain. The liberation that comes with the art of film-making is squandered away by the fear that fans may be disappointed, or their own anxieties of ruining a story may get in the way of their creating something truly fabulous. The real injustice is not using the medium of film to communicate the story in the best way it knows.
When a film chooses to stick too closely to the novel’s every turn, the film loses its ability to attain any magic that may have been created if they were given free terrain. The liberation that comes with the art of film-making is squandered away by the fear that fans may be disappointed, or their own anxieties of ruining a story may get in the way of their creating something truly fabulous. The real injustice is not using the medium of film to communicate the story in the best way it knows.
Let’s take James Ellroy’s The Black Dahlia, which was written in 1987. The book elevated Ellroy into serious literature status. The book was then turned into a film directed by Brian De Palma, which burst onto the cinema scene in 2006, boasting a stellar cast. One would have expected the dynamics of these particular actors working together to be enough to light a fire on set with abundant energy and life. Yet, the film was a disappointment based on its inability to tell a coherent story. What we get with Ellroy’s novel, is a fast paced, quick dialogue, interweaved plot with interesting characters. We think of ‘Dahlia’ long after we have closed the book. With the film version, we have none of this. Dialogue is stilted, the plot moves nowhere and the slowness that pervades the film is an unfortunate by-product of the attempt to recreate the noir effect that was so cleverly done in the novel. Granted, were there smoother transitions between the scenes and a better script, it definitely would have made for a better film. But what I believe failed in this film, was the lack of imagination and the fear of straying from the original story. The story could have been told much better, if perhaps the studios allowed this to be.
Books are books, films are films. There is nothing more to it. Yes, they both have the same function of telling a story and capturing the audiences’/readers’ imagination, but they are both different mediums of which both should be celebrated an encouraged in their own right.
What does this mean? Films should not be looked at as adaptations, but rather as translations, in order to cement their own grounding for a successful story to be told.
Books are books, films are films. There is nothing more to it. Yes, they both have the same function of telling a story and capturing the audiences’/readers’ imagination, but they are both different mediums of which both should be celebrated an encouraged in their own right.
What does this mean? Films should not be looked at as adaptations, but rather as translations, in order to cement their own grounding for a successful story to be told.
What Do You Think?
Are books really better than the film?
Should we separate the medium?
Are films better?
Let us know in the comments!
Should we separate the medium?
Are films better?
Let us know in the comments!
RSS Feed
