Showdown

The Movie vs. The Book: Is the Book Always Better?

When someone is asked what they thought of a movie adapted from a book that they've read, how often do they say "The book was better"? For me, I hear it quite a bit (I even say it myself sometimes). I certainly hear it more frequently than "It was better than the book". Why is that? Is it because books are written to be books and will always lose something in translation to the big screen? Is it because those who have read the book first already have their own perfect film adaptation in their head, complete with their own perfect cast? In the cases where the movie actually is better than the book, why? Is it due to the screenwriter? The actors? The director? Was the book originally imagined as a film but written as a novel instead? A screenplay disguised as a novel? Of course, the better the book is, the harder it is to adapt.

Does it make a difference if you read the book after seeing the film? This is not as common due to most people's reasoning of "I've seen the movie, why read the book?". Does already having the film's actors and setting visualized as you read remove that personal imagining you would have had if you'd read the book first, thereby reducing the risk of disappointment?

Let's take a look at a few examples after the jump. Click "Read More" below.

The Lord of the Rings

The mother of all movie adaptations. I can't even imagine taking on what Peter Jackson did when he signed up to make The Lord of the Rings trilogy. If New Line Cinema had entrusted me with one of the most beloved works of literature of all-time and a bazillion dollars to make it with, I probably would have pooped my pants on the spot. The fact that the films actually lived up to the books and were just quality movies from top to bottom was pretty damn impressive.

Verdict: Even. As epic as the movies were, you're still talking about some uber-classic material here. While the tangents into the family trees of dwarves and random elvish songs can be off-putting, they are still masterpieces. I think Peter Jackson's ceiling on this was merely to match the books.

Harry Potter

As admirably faithful as the movies are, they just don't quite capture everything that makes the Harry Potter books what they are. Part of that is due to the impossibility of including everything from the books (when, after the third book, J.K. Rowling decided to ramp up the rest to 600+ pages each).

Verdict: Books. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows remains the only 700+ page book I've read in less than 24 hours. My dad, on the other hand, seems to prefer the movies, having watched them approximately a thousand times each. One thing the movies has going for it, is John Williams's score. Awesome.

The Godfather

The book was more of a pulp gangster classic, while the movies (excluding the abomination that was Part III) were a dark, tragic look at power, corruption and family. Considered my many to be one of the best films of all-time. Acting, writing, directing, score, everything top notch.

Verdict: Movie. While the book is definitely worth reading, the Godfather Part I and II are just crazy good. Part II contains one of the few lines that gives me chills when I think about it: "I know it was you, Fredo. You broke my heart. You broke my heart!"

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

While it was technically a radio series before it was a novel, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy boasts a solid cult following that anyone trying to make a Hitchhiker's movie would be smart to cater to.

Verdict: Book. It's a tall order to translate Douglas Adams's absurdly quirkly material into film and the 2005 movie couldn't pull it off. Although the cast was pretty solid (Alan Rickman as Marvin the Paranoid Android is particularly amusing), the movie ended up being kind of a dud.

The Legend of Bagger Vance 

Just a bad idea from the start. How they got Will Smith, Matt Damon and Charlize Theron to star in the golf movie is a modern miracle. How many people actually want to see a serious golf movie? I definitely do, but I'm probably in the minority. Not surprisingly, the film bombed at the box office, bringing in $38,000,000 on a budget of $60,000,000. The film was also criticized for using the "magic negro" as a plot device.

Verdict: Book. Not even close. While most non-golfers would likely rather take a sand wedge to the shins than wade through all the existentialist golf mumbo-jumbo, most golfers will appreciate the game broken down into such beautiful prose. While reading this (I've read it twice), I honestly believed that if I could interpret everything in it, I could play better golf.

Mystic River

Leave it up to Clint Eastwood to turn a first rate mystery novel into an Academy Award-winning film. The performances by Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Marcia Gay-Harden provide the emotional backbone.

Verdict: Movie. I saw the movie first. Not sure how it would have affected the verdict if I'd read the book first. I just know both are high quality.

The Time Traveler's Wife

Time travel is a difficult subject manner. Overthink it and you run the risk of your mind will collapse in on itself, creating a black hole. The Time Traveler's Wife pulls off the difficult task of having the main character jump forward and backwards within his own life, shaping his life and the lives of those closest to him.

Verdict: Book. While the movie ended up being better than I expected, it still couldn't capture the pace and extent of the book due to time constraints.

Flowers for Algernon/Charly

A laboratory mouse underoes a surgery that increases his intelligence considerably. Charlie, a mentally disabled man, becomes the first human test subject of this procedure. The story is told through progress reports written by Charlie.

Verdict: Book. One of my all-time favorite books, the movie can't capture the little details that make the book so wonderful, like how you see through his reports how Charlie's spelling and grammar and understanding gradually improve as his intelligence increases. Cliff Robertson took home an Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Charlie in the film version (which was re-titled Charly).

The Shawshank Redemption

Originally a novella by Stephen King.

Verdict: Movie. I haven't even read the book, but I'm going with movie. My personal all-time favorite. No way does Stephen King write a better book than that movie. 

In the end, I think it can come down to personal preference. If you love to read and would rather experience a great story that way, you would probably be better off reading the book and resigning to the fact the movie likely won't live up to it. If you're not as much of a reader and prefer to just watch a movie, you could skip the book and just enjoy the movie. You'll probably even enjoy it more than those who read the book first, as you have nothing to compare it to. Another option is to read the book first but leave a healthy buffer zone (even a year or two) between finishing the book and seeing the movie. That way, you details of the book won't be so fresh in your mind and you won't be annoyed by all the minor inaccuracies or deviations you would have noticed otherwise.

So, is the book always better? No, but as a book worm, I have to say it's usually better. Why? It boils down to one cold hard fact:

Books are awesome.

Some of my favorite books with movie adaptations I have yet to see:

Blindness by Jose Saramago

The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini

The Road by Cormac McCarthy