http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/how-the-harry-potter-movies-succeeded-where-the-books-failed/241884/
For my blog this week I looked at what writer David Thier
said about the Harry potter novels relative to the books. Thier said, and I
tend to agree that the movies captured a certain dark essence that I don’t
think the books were able to capture vividly enough with the limitations of
text. To quote from the article, “Rowling’s writing had that endlessly
obsessive quality required of a true world builder, but her storytelling
couldn’t stack up to her setting. With every book from three on, she talked
about how the stories were getting “darker.” But while “darker” things
happened—some characters died, terrible monsters appeared, and schoolyard
quarrels evolved into wars of racial purification—the tone could never quite
catch up to the circumstances.” I
totally agree with this statement, and think that in many cases, the film
adaptations really help you realize the truer meanings of texts. That is not to
say there are not many limitations to film as well. One reviewer of the article
talked about how, how come if the films are so much better, how come they have
to keep explaining to their friends what is going on. That is probably the most
noted limitation of film adaptations: the director often has to cut out a lot
of things to fit a reasonable time frame, of which literature is not really
bound by these restrictions. What are your opinions on film adaptations (do you
tend to like the books or movies better)? In my opinion, in order to get the
total experience, you need to read both the book and watch the movie.
Otherwise, you are only getting the best out of one element. Watching the film
and reading the text tends to overall enrich the experience and you tend to
gain the most from the works. In most cases, it is hard to make a definitive
distinction on which one is better. Both forms of media certainly have their
merits and their downfalls as mentioned earlier and that is why it is better to
couple the two to get the best out of both worlds. I feel like a book fan is
much more likely to read the book than a film fan to read a book. Me for
example: I hate reading and after seeing the hunger games for example, I was
like wow, that is a great movie, yet I felt absolutely no desire to read the
book afterwards simply because I hate reading. Would you agree with this
assertion? This is the reason as far as I can tell why it is most often the
case that there are film adaptations of books created as opposed to the other
way around. I feel like a majority of people would much rather send their time
going to see a film for two hours than sitting and reading for 10 hours.
Creating an adaptation of another medium is a very fine art that if not done
very well and very carefully, can really bring down the original medium, and
this happens a lot. It is really vital to find a director who understand the
authors direction, or vice versa.
I find it interesting that films could capture the darker side of a book more easily than the text itself can, and find myself agreeing with that notion. It is easier to create an atmosphere of darkness and insecurity if you can visualize it, and it is easier to do that with a movie than with a book. However, with that being said, I think each person's imagination can also create things that no movie can, and usually that is used more in a novel.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you discussed the advantages that movies have over books, because I don't think that the rest of us noted that in our own posts. I think you make some very important points, as does your source, and I definitely agree about your book assertion; those who love to read, like me, are much more likely to read and prefer the books to their movie counterparts.
ReplyDeleteI agree with how certain films help capture the atmosphere and the tension that is present but not so clearly seen in novels. Like how the Harry Potter movies grew darker as they progress.
ReplyDelete