I think I just made a Duran Duran reference in my post title, but I'm not wholly sure...
Thursday, and time for me to kick back from creative thought, and just copy the good people of Booking Through Thursday - and, of course, invite you to do likewise.
Books and films both tell stories, but what we want from a book can be different from what we want from a movie. Is this true for you? If so, what’s the difference between a book and a movie?
I think we've talked about that here in the past, though not certain - it is one of those questions which comes up perenially. Quite a while ago, I picked out all the DVDs I owned which were adaptations of literature or connected to literature in some way - quite a few, was the answer.
I resolutely believe that books are simply better than films, if the book came first - even if I enjoy the film more, or think it has better creative artists behind it, it remains a derivative and thus subordinate. True, you can point at Shakespeare and disprove me, as he had barely an original plot line, but still...
What do I like for in a book and what in a film? I'm happy if a film shows me one level; one story. Beauty is a nice bonus, but it is rather too easy - even the worst director can film a meadow and it will look beautiful. It takes a great writer to make that same meadow appear for the reader, in all its beauty, and not simply a word. So, from a book, I look for an interesting plot - but, more importantly, a individual and captivating style. Some depth of thought, some longevity. I probably won't read it in one go (as I would watch a film in one go) and so I want something I can live alongside, rather than compartmentalise into an evening...
Demanding, aren't I? Howsabout you?
No comments:
Post a Comment