Library vs Marquee: Is The Book Better Than The Movie?

In the span of the last month or so I had the privilege of doing quite a lot of reading. It is a rare moment when I am able to read a book cover to cover, so when the opportunity presents itself I occasionally get… giddy. One book turns into a second; a second turns into a third until I’m consuming books like Cookie Monster in the Nabisco factory. Omnomnomnomnom!

In my latest reading binge indulgence I began to see a theme in the books I chose; can you guess it by their titles?

• We Bought A Zoo
• Slumdog Millionaire
• Water For Elephants
• The Invention of Hugo Cabret
• The Hunger Games

If you recognize more of these titles from the movie theatre marquee than the local library you’re probably not alone: all of these books have been turned into feature films.

Now, as a filmmaker myself I don’t personally believe that any book is intrinsically better than any movie or vice versa: it’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. I recently happened upon a blog called Matt And The Art of Motion Pictures that addressed this very topic in a post called “Critiquing a Film: Should the Book Also Matter?.” Matt contends that it isn’t necessary to read the book in order to decide whether or not a film is well done or not, but that if one wants to critique the story or characters of a movie that is based on a book then it is important to consider the source material (i.e. the book) when making statements about the film. This is a fair opinion and neatly straddles the question of how anyone could ever keep up with the amount of work that would be necessary to read the book for every film ever made in order to decide if the movie was “good”.

Telling a story through film and telling a story through writing are very different art forms that can occasionally express the same story. To compare them is to compare a musical recording to sheet music: it expresses the same symphony and it is not always necessary for a music aficionado to know how to interpret the actual notes on a page in order to be moved by them. Just like a musician, a filmmaker interprets the written story and presents us with a work based on that interpretation.

This is where films go wrong.

Yes, yes, you can argue that there is no right or wrong interpretation for a written work since it is an opinion based process. It is, however, possible to completely miss the point of the original story in the course of interpreting it. My favorite example of this is the graphic-novel-cum-movie “V for Vendetta.” I loved LURVED the graphic novel. I hated the movie. The graphic novel tells us a story about the cycle of revolution about an average woman learning to stand up to an unjust system in order to overthrow it. The movie tells us a weirdo love story about a woman who falls in love with a revolutionary who treats her badly and then gets her to blow stuff up. Dear Hollywood: it is not always appropriate for the “romantic lead” to actually be romantic. Ew.

But it is also where films can go right. SO right.

A book can be brilliant. The movie can still be better. When a movie takes a book and finds those golden threads of truth in it and weave them into a new and brilliant tapestry; this is when a film can go beyond its source material and become a masterpiece on its own. Matt uses the film “Hugo”, based on the book “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” by Brian Selznick,  as his example of this, so I will too. “The Invention of Hugo Cabret” is a brilliant book. “Hugo” is a superb movie. They don’t follow one another with complete accuracy- there are characters in the movie that aren’t in the book and there are characters in the book that aren’t in the movie. The book (which is also part graphic novel) is an exercise in subtle tones and moment-to-moment storytelling. The movie is an exercise in visual novelty (in THREEDEE!!!!! *jazz hands*) and action-to-action storytelling. But at the end of the day both the film and the book tell the same story: a boy finding a place to fit in by helping an old man remember his purpose; and both the film and the book make this message real and meaningful in the real world.

So to recap:

The Invention of Hugo Cabret: Worth Taking A Look At

Hugo: Worth Taking A Look At

Guy Fawkes, Mentor to Revolutionaries

Guy Fawkes: The Bad Choice from Match.com

So is the book better than the movie or is the movie better than the book? Apples to Oranges. Is it important to consider the book when critiquing a film? If you are concerned with how true the filmmaker stayed to the original story’s themes, then yes. If you feel the film is good on its own merits then no.