a rumination on the adapted screenplay

i have a theory. generally speaking, the movie is never quite as good as the book. actually, i should amend my theory and say that a movie can never really reach the standard set by the book, unless you haven't read the book.

being an individual who reads a lot of books and sees a lot of movies, i can say fairly definitively that an adapted film, however poor the quality of the adaptation, appears better if you haven't read the source material.

take 'into the wild.' it's a heartwarming story with breathtaking scenery, and no one seemed to be able to say a bad thing about it. no one except me, that is. i had already read the book, and while admittedly i was on the fence about it, i couldn't believe how disappointed i was in the movie. i could see how people enjoyed it, but knowing what it could have been like, i couldn't stop thinking about what an awful adaptation it was. 'the devil wears prada' was the same way. i'm secure enough to admit that i really liked the book, and i guess the movie was fine, but there was just something missing. lost in translation, maybe. no wonder j.d. salinger wouldn't let anyone adapt his books into movies. i can't imagine how strongly i'd feel about 'the catcher in the rye,' my favorite book, being brought to the big screen in a way any other than how i imagine it.

of course, on the other end of the spectrum for me was 'the lord of the rings' series. i saw the movies when they came out, but i hadn't read tolkien's books. despite the one of my friends who had read the books telling me i was missing things, i still loved the epic story line and the fantastical characters. i wanted a horse like shadowfax, i could recite the inscription on the one ring and i was confident that i could find my way around middle earth, but when i tried to read the books, i got lost. even though the movies are all 2+ hours, they had cut a lot of the plot out. i was trying to follow the plot of the movie while reading the book, even though i had already lost interest because i knew what would happen. i guess the idea there is that once you've seen the movie, it's hard to go back and read the book, knowing the ending when you start. i do still love the movies, even though readers of the books assure me they're nowhere near as satisfying.

another unsatisfying experience? seeing people pick up a truly phenomenal book like 'harry potter,' simply because the movie is popular. i'm sure this is how my friend felt about me and 'the lord of the rings,' but it bothers me when people want to jump on the bandwagon just for the sake of being on it, not because they like the material. these are the people who do what i did with tolkien's books; they read the first 50 pages, lose interest, and then pretend they're just as knowledgeable and devoted to the series as those of us who have been around since day one. maybe i'm just a snob, but i feel like this whole idea cheapens the experiences of people like my little sister, who honestly loves the series, and was trick-or-treating dressed as draco malfoy long before most of these people had even heard of him.

all right, off my soap box, and on to...

... those special cases, like 'the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy." i saw the movie before i read the book, and thought it was fantastic. the characters were interesting, the plot was charmingly far-fetched but accessible, and it starred that guy from the british version of 'the office.' what's not to love? as it turns out, the only people i knew who had also loved it were the same people who hadn't read douglas adams' book. those who had read the book had all the same complaints i had about 'into the wild' and 'the devil wears prada,' and insisted that if i liked the movie, the book would blow me away. well, blow me away it did. even considering that the ending was already spoiled, i was so thoroughly engrossed, i read the rest of the books in the series as fast as i could. once i ran out of books, i figured i'd go back and watch the movie, and before i knew it, my opinion had changed. now, i'm one of those people who can't watch the movie without wishing i was reading the book instead.

the moral of the story? whether or not you've read the book, i feel fairly confident in saying that it's better than the movie. sure, our perceptions of a film may be different based on whether or not we've read the source material, but that doesn't change the quality of either. as much as i love movies, sometimes it's hard to beat your own imagination.