
If
I ask you "Do you like my perfume?", and you answer "I prefer Provence
in France"; however much the aroma of Lavender from Provence the perfume
contains, our conversation is unquestionably absurd. That being so,
then why are people always saying "I prefer the book." when they have
gone to see a movie based on it? Or the other way round.
Cinema and literature are 2 different arts. Although they could become complementary, there's no comparison the experience of reading a book and going to the cinema. A novel has it's own tempo, scenes and smells. You 'see' and experience with your mind and imagination. The magic resides on how your mind processes the words and convert them into living beings, scenes and colours by each reader, therefore the pictures that form in you mind are not necessarily the same as those I have in mine.
A film require less compromise. The scenes and faces are imposed, we all see with our eyes the same everything, even though we might interpret the story differently. It also needs artistic skills to attract audience, to manipulate the sensations served up to them, all condensed to about 2 hours covering centuries and however complicated the story.
A book could be a companion for months, while a film is a session for a Sunday afternoon. One is solitary and the other in a group of friends or strangers. You can enjoy a book in pajamas cozily tucked up in bed; while a film is an outing with pizza perhaps afterwards. Two media belonging to two different worlds.
Another thing is, a film should be, more or less, truthful to the novel, allowing for artistic privileges. But it's not fair to compare a book with a film based on it to say whether it's good or not so good as the book. As the 2 things are just that, 2 different things. What is important is: the book should be good as a book, and the film is good as a good film should be.
Current Mood:
Artistic
Artistic

Blah
Amused
