Books to Movies

The process of writing a book is very similar to the idea of creating a magical scroll. The words on the page are inert until a reader pronounces them (either verbally or in their mind), and then suddenly the conjuration begins. The words form pictures and images unbidden in the reader's mind. The dismal planetscape or lush jungle stake out immovable claims in the reader's psyche, crowding out space that might be better used for other more intellectual endeavors. The symbol and spell is complete and the reader now bows in some little part to the mind control of the writer. Ooh, I think I just spooked myself out a little bit.

What does this have to do with movies? Well, I'll tell you.

Movies based on books are often panned as poor attempts to cash in on an intellectual property rather than holding any artistic merit of their own. Though things have changed a bit over time, I often heard the phrase, "The book is better than the movie." It wasn't until I was in 9th grade that I heard someone say of then popular Jurassic Park, "What? No way. The movie was way better than the book." I disagreed, but instead of dismissing my friend's comment as the ramblings of an unintelligent mind lacking creativity I had a thought. Someone could think that a movie was better than a book. This was a world shattering revelation to me.

Some time later the Harry Potter books came out, followed by the films of the same designation. Talk about public outcry (though not enough to stem the ebullient flow of cold hard cash to deserving series creator Joanne K. Rowling). I knew many people who watched the movie numerous times (see cash statement above) to point out how poorly the movie had been adapted. How the very core of the book had been torn apart and lost in the film. The writer's mind control had been challenged in the faithful readers, and the readers gathered their pitchforks in defense of the images and ideas now firmly rooted in their souls.

The revelation that these two experiences gave to me was quite simple, and you may even laugh: movies and books are not the same. They are two separate mediums that have two very different powers. In the same way that a story may be told by two different storytellers, a film and a book have disparate and distinct voices.

I have since experienced movies that I enjoyed more than their books (2007's Stardust based on the novel by inordinately talented Neil Gaiman) and books that I have enjoyed in a completely different way from their movies. I still get chills every time I think of the Miyazaki film Howl's Moving Castle. And I gush for different reasons for the source novel by Diana Wynne Jones (Actually you should read many of her books. Her ability to entrance and entertain borders on the mystical. Seriously, look her stuff up.). Both of these adaptations had one thing in common. They were very different stories at the core from their source novels.

I wrote this post specifically so that I could gush about Howl's Moving Castle, because I loved both the book and the movie so much and for very different reasons. The artistry involved in either project just blows me away. The magical whimsy and visual style of Miyazaki's work compliments Jones' literary style in a way that I never would have taken from a simple reading of the book.

So what's my point? Perhaps as readers we can loosen up a bit. Movies are not books. We should expect different things from them. We should expect quality art from both mediums (unabashed cash ins should not be permitted), and enjoy them both for what they can add to the spell the author wove by simply placing letters together  on a page.

**Oh, and I would be remiss to mention the Lord of The Rings trilogy which I also enjoyed very much both as books and films. Those are also great.