ehalcomb: Is The Book Always Better Than The Movie? || Editorial

I recently saw the movie adaptation to one of my favorite classic books of all time, The Great Gatsby. Though the themes were still intact and the overall story was true to its source material, it took out important plot elements and added in others. At first I was upset at these changes. I had the feeling of "how dare they ruin this story that I love." But after thinking about it more rationally I came to realize that most of these changes were for the better because of the story-telling medium that this classic was now in.

One aspect of storytelling that viewers have to take into account is that not everything that a book can accomplish can be done the same way as in a movie. In a work of literature the author can paint pictures of grand objects or settings with paragraphs describing the life that takes place there, the effect that it has on other settings, or even the history. In a movie, however, this can't be done so elegantly. Monologues are boring to an average viewer of a two to three hour flick so long paragraphs have to be transformed into sweeping shots from above or maybe just a steady shot with a few editing tricks to make the atmosphere special to the movie-goer. In a way, a movie can portrait a setting even more deeply than a book can because of the many types of editing, directing, or sound techniques that the creator of the film can use. Harry Potter is great example of this. Though I've never read the book, I can tell that the atmosphere presented in Hogwarts is taken into great consideration because of the wonderfully orchestrated soundtrack that compliments it. Because of John Williams' score of the movie it just feels magical.

Replacing or changing story elements in the transition from literature to film is what really annoys a lot of people. In the case of The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald I believe the changes, though not necessary, do bring the film to be less contrived than it might have been if it followed the book to a tee. For instance, in the film version of The Great Gatsby by Baz Luhrmann the main character Nick Carraway is an aspiring author first and a bondsman second. It may not seem like it but this small detail gives the writers of the movie credence to do much more with minor plot would-be annoyances like exposition. Because the story is told from the perspective of Nick Carraway in the future writing about Gatsby's life he can give the audience as much exposition as he likes without it feeling too forced. Adding plot threads isn't something that just happens from book to film but also in the reverse. In the book version of The Force Awakens Alan Dean Foster, who also wrote for the original trilogy book adaptations, goes into more detail about Supreme Leader Snoke's past. This includes the fact that he had apprentices before Kylo Ren, saw the Empire rise and fall, and even knew that Darth Vader was Luke's father. Because a book can be explained with words, the writer was able to add in so much more and even make the story make more sense in certain aspects.

So is the book always better than the movie? Well, no. A movie's audience has to recognize the fact that a movie can do things that a book can't and vice-versa. A movie can be directed a certain way, be edited, or given a score while a book has to be completely explained with words. A movie, better or not, is simply different.