Someone I follow made a post about books vs. movies and it prompted some ideas in my own head. Let’s be fair, some films represent the novels they are based on beautifully. Others just don’t seem to add up, but is it really fair for us to be making a comparison?
To explain what I mean, let me give you an example. A painter paints an image based on the work of Kafka. An actor puts on a play based on the same work. Do we compare these two and attack their differences and similarities? No. They are two different art forms, as are writing and film.
Some people may say “Okay, but those are totally different…” Are they? They are both using their own form of interpretation and art to tell a story based on the same work.
As John Green said, “Books belong to their readers now, which is a great thing–because the books are more powerful in the hands of my readers than they could ever be in my hands.”
Is there a right or wrong way to interpret art? I don’t think so, so I wonder why we always compare the two art forms when they are not comparable?
That’s why I don’t think you can judge a book by a film based on it or judge a film based on its book. (I am guilty of the latter if it’s something that is near to me.) I think it’s something most, if not all of us do, and what I think is important is for us to examine why we do so.
What do you think?