I used to always be the person to cry, "The book was better!" after watching any film adaption of a story I enjoyed. But over time, I came to a different approach. I feel lik the film should be judged as a film of a story. Sometimes that story is different from the one written. They are separate entities, related but definitely different.
But at the same time, I feel like a film (or play) adaptation is most wonderful and serves best when it keeps the spirit of the story on which it is based. When this happens, it gives it a second life. I'm a lover of books, yes, but even more than that, I'm a lover of stories. When a story I've fallen for has two lives, then, I'm happy.
That said, I sometimes come across--or, in the case of Breakfast at Tiffany's, recall--film and written versions that differ in spirit, tone, and events, and hugely so. Each one is great in its own way and each works in its own way. They only share a few names and a few plot points. Some authorial outcry often accompanies the adaptations, but ultimately, we end up with two great works.
So I'm curious: how do you feel about book-to-movie adaptations? Do you evaluate one by the other, or do you enjoy them separately and for their own merit?
No comments:
Post a Comment