Its a bit like the ‘chicken or egg’ debate isn’t it?
Only, when it comes to the ‘book or film’ situation, we probably side on to one of these more quickly and definitely.
As for my take, I am for neither of them!
I’m a huge bookworm and a spend most of my evenings watching films- especially reruns of films I like- sad, I know, but it keeps me out of trouble 😉 – but I’ve never been able to side on to any one of them for most of the stories told on page and on screen.
I suppose studying Film and TV at university is responsible for this little conundrum of mine. I clearly remember one of my lecturers saying to us while you can like the book or film more or less than each other, it would be rather ludicrous to say something like ‘books are the best’ or the ‘movies are the best’!
Why, you ask?
Well, both the book and the film may tell the same story, may get the scenarios as authentic as possible, may get the actors to perform superbly, but the devil is in the detail here. Cliched as it sounds.
A book has the freedom of time and the limitation of reader’s choice.
On the other hand, a film has the limitation of time, but the freedom of creativity to lure in otherwise-not-so-interested-in-the-book types.
These specific features give both the book and film their own edges.
For example, with Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice- the nation’s favourite novel, me included- I prefer the BBC television series rather than the film, as the series captures much more detail from the book, than the film does, due to the amount of time the former has compared to the latter.
With Bridget Jones, the books are undoubtedly hilarious and unputdownable, but the films are very entertaining too, even though they miss out a lot of detail.
That’s the thing you see, films have to leave out a lot of detail as they don’t have the time, otherwise, every film-based-on-a-novel would roll on to 4-5 hours, minimum!
What examples and arguments would you like to pose here?