4 of 60

Write now Article Tools

It has long been accepted by most well-read folk that the film adaptation of a written work can not live up to the original. There are very few exceptions.

It does not take much thought to logically understand that written formats allow for a depth of description and detail that are often impossible to capture in film format. While a writer can give us the visual of sweeping landscape shots through the use of his or her words, a director can not get us into a character's head without dialogue or narration. There are nuances of language that just do not translate into visual media.

There is also a limitation in film due to the time constraints that are generally associated with that format. A three-hour film is considered to be extremely long and most film makers try to keep it to the two hour mark at most. A film is meant to be viewed in one sitting. A book, on the other hand, can essentially use an unlimited number of pages to tell the story and does not have to be digested all at once. This allows the reader to savor details and to mull the story over as it is happening, rather than after the fact. The reader is an active participant, rather than a passive recipient.

The only real exceptions to the rule are Peter Jackson's films of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Having read Tolkien's books, which are by no means concise, I still feel that Jackson's films are a skilled and loving distillation of the key story elements into a more coherent and accessible story. Jackson did not skimp on anything to preserve length. Indeed, each film is about three hours long. Those sections of the books which are left out are not missed. In short, Jackson was Tolkien's best editor. However, he is the exception, rather than the rule.

The reality is that film and literature are two very different forms of expression. They can, at times, dovetail with each other and form really brilliant pieces of art. However, a work that is orginally rendered in the written word is quite impossible to condense into a short and entirely visual medium. There is no way to maintain the texture, nuance and specificity of the written word when the story is translated into such a different medium. At times, it would simply be better to get the audiobook rather than have one's own imagination and perception stunted by an inept director or irreverent screenwriter. The crux of the problem is really the difference between the two media and few have found a way to bridge the gap it creates.

Learn more about this author, Deanne E. Durrell.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about The book is usually better than the movie?
We want to hear your view. Write now!