My experience with '2001 A Space Odyssey' is a good example of the best
approach. I was supposed to go and see the film with a friend but was in the
hospital when he went to see it. He came to visit me a few days afterwards
by which time I had read the book. We spoke about our impressions and it
transpires that I had a better understanding about the story. I gave him the
book and later on I went to see the film. During a subsequent conversation
with him we agreed that I gained more from the film than he did.
My conclusion: Read the book first THEN see the file.
*****************************
Robert W.Mills, Systems Development Manager, Windsong Services
Electron House, Cray Avenue, St. Mary Cray, Kent BR5 3PN, ENGLAND
Tel: +44 (0)1689.870622 x 3005 Fax: +44 (0)1689 899026
[log in to unmask]
********************************
The thoughts, comments, and opinions expressed herein are mine.
They do not reflect those of my employer, nor anyone else.
********************************
***Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain confidential
and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 20 December 2001 21:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: OT: Movies and books
X-no-Archive:yes
Alfredo's comments about his approach to movies touched a nerve, to an issue
about which my family has a question. I will use "The Lord of the Rings:
Fellowship of the Ring" as an example of this, but it could just as easily
apply to "Harry Potter: The Sorcerer's Stone", or any other movie made from
a book. Do you read the book first, then go see the movie? Or, do you see
the movie, then read the book? If one is going to do both, which should one
do first?
If one reads the book first, then the book is obviously the first
experience, the experience with no preconceptions. The books is filled with
one's own imaginings. What does Gandalf look like? How does Gollum sound?
The Balrog is frightening us much by what is not seen and so is still
unknown, as by what is described. But, when one sees the movie, then the
movie has to live up to, or fail to live up to, those imaginings. The
suspense is ruined. It is much harder to wonder how the hero will get out of
the suspenseful situation. And one is painfully aware of what had to be left
out of the movie.
If one sees the movie first, then one can be totally caught up in the story.
One has no idea what is going to happen next, how the plot is going to
unfold, or how it should unfold. But then the book is diminished. Gandalf
looks rather like Ian McClellan. And the suspense of the narrative is
somewhat lost, as the reader has a fairly good idea of where the plot is
going. Or the reader is distracted by elements that are in the book, but
were not in the movie. Recently, I ran across a quote from Kurt Vonnegut,
which I could not now find, where he complained about this very thing, that
seeing a movie ruins the experience of imagination while reading a book.
I also remember seeing Roger Ebert in an interview, explaining how he and
Gene Siskel were privileged to see so many movies with no preconceived ideas
whatsoever about them, and then they ruin that experience for everybody
else.
Greg Stigers
http://www.cgiusa.com
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
|
