Book or Film: Which Comes First?

We live in a world of countless literary adaptations both for the big and the small screen. Be it famous and much loved adventures, romances and thrillers or "under the radar" stories that get finally introduced to wider audiences, the film makers can't get enough of literary adaptations. And who is to blame them? Neither can we. With the amount of literature-inspired films and TV shows produced these days, it seems impossible to read all of the books. One needs to chose wisely where to invest the time, but when you make your choice and decide to both read and watch... Which do you do first?

I used to be a firm believer in the book. The book comes first, the book is true. Nothing can touch the book.

I still stand by that, but I have come to realize that it only works to a certain extent. Here's an explanation of my recent experience in this area and how I arrived to the conclusion that it actually is allowed / it is not always a bad idea to watch the film before reading the book. Shocking!

We have all been there: Somebody turns your favourite book into a film and you are almost afraid to watch, because you know there is now way on earth that the film could be as good as the book (hello, Lord of the Rings). But you have to watch anyway just in case. And then it often turns out that your worries were very reasonable. Especially if you know the literary piece well or if you have just read it recently, seeing a screen adaptation might leave you underwhelmed and disappointed. That is not to say that most adaptations are bad.

They are... films. Not books.

I don't know what's happened to me. I suppose I must have grown up. I am no longer a military supporter of "the only true story" and "How dare you, Peter Jackson, and put in completely fabricated sub-plots that NEVER HAPPENED?!!! " Hahaha, those were the days :D

I think I have understood that adapting a piece of literature is a very tricky and risky and potentialy dangerous business. It is highly difficult and complex. Can you imagine trying to put it together yourself? Seriously. First of all, you'd have to understand the inner workings of the media. Written word and film function differently. What works on the page doesn't always work on screen. And it needs to entertain the fans of the literary piece as well as new audience who are not familiar with the story at all. That's why, in the attempt to do the book justice but at the same time make a decent movie, creators sometimes change things...

I think what I'm trying to say is that a screen adaptation is a valuable stand alone piece of art. It is based on a book, it could not have come into existence without it, but now that it's here, it can stand on its own. It very well does. It does not need the endless comparisons and questioning why this bit had been changed and the other bit left out completely.

Over the last year, there were many times I experienced a sense of "not quite right" when watching an adaptation of a book I had read not long before. In the 2 most recent cases (Far From the Madding Crowd and the new BBC mini series of War & Peace), I kept thinking: How easy it is for me to follow the plot and who is who and why they are doing what they are doing. I can't really imagine if or how I would be able to follow all the different characters in War & Peace had I not read the book (I feel so proud and accomplished for it!) However, having this kind of "background" knowledge certainly makes for a very different viewing experience. On one hand, you feel smug for being in the loop. On the other, you keep wondering whether the people who are not familiar with the book can understand it at all and whether it really is a bit weird, or if it's just you and your ridiculously high bookish expectations. (We'll see how it goes with War & Peace, but one episode in, I'm not overly positive about it.)

Now for the other perspective: watching a literature-based film had inspired me to read the book, which I found a very rich and deep and all together wonderful, if a little tough to read at times. When re-watching the film (which I previously loved for the visuals and the composition and general good filmy-ness) I found it a little bleak and shallow and nowhere near as affecting as its original literary counterpart. The film had provided me with some sort of a visual reference, a colour scheme, a imaginative language in a sense, which I applied to the text as I was reading, but other than that... Compared to the movie, the written word was much more complex and thorough and detailed. Obviously.

My conclusion is that the book is "true". Always will be. Nevertheless, both literary and film versions of the same piece have artistic value. And perhaps watching the film first and reading the book later is a more pleasing process, because you progress from a (hopefully) good  movie to an even better book. When it just so happens that I do see a film based on a book I've (only just) read, my best strategy is to expect nothing. That leaves room for at least some sort of a pleasant film experience.

Let me know your thoughts on the subject. Do you read first and watch later or do you prefer it the other way round? And what adaptations are you excited for in 2016?

Facebook * Twitter * Bloglovin