I didn't really get into this movie until the last third or so. I thought it hopped right in to the meat of the issue without much of an introduction to the characters, and as a result, they seemed rather flat and under-developed. In the book, there is so much introduction that you get really attached to Henry and Claire and really caught up in their situation. Also, any "scientific" explanation of time travel was mentioned so briefly that, if you hadn't read the book and known what was being referenced, you must've said "...Huh??" This brings me to my first question:
Are some books adapted to screen with an intended audience that is already a big fan of the book? Some films have their own merit and can stand alone, but to me, this just didn't feel like one of them. I think fans of the books will love the movie (or be severely disappointed depending on their level of fandom) but average moviegoers will be a little confused and detached. Oftentimes, a book will be adapted to screen and no one will know it was a book first, but other times it's the fans of the book that are intended to drive ticket sales.
- Examples: The Time Traveler's Wife, Harry Potter, Twilight, Angels & Demons, The Da Vinci Code, The Baby-sitters Club (remember that awesomeness from the mid-90s???)
In terms of quality, this leads to my second query: How closely should the film adaptation mirror the novel? It may work better if the screenplay becomes its own story, taking on characteristics better suited to the screen; frankly, sometimes words on a page just don't translate well to film, and it's better for each medium to tell the story the best it can. Details may be different or expanded, but each can stand alone (these are where you see the 'Based on' in the credits).
- Examples: Alice in Wonderland (the new one), Jumanji, Where the Wild Things Are, Mean Girls, The Hours
Finally and most importantly, it seems to be a booknerd's mantra to say, "The book is always better than the movie," but I disagree. In many cases, we as booknerds have probably read the book first and you just can't cram all the details and intricacies of a book into an hour and a half, so yes, we are disappointed in the film version. But I can think of three definite cases in which I like the movie better than the book.
The first is Atonement. I read the book last summer, knowing absolutely nothing of the story. It was boring. Then I saw the movie, and I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected. It was nice to see the story play out visually. The second is The Notebook. The movie contains everything I love: summer, the South, and the 1940s. The book was sappy and typical Nicholas Sparks BLEH.
The third is my absolute favorite movie of all time, Harriet the Spy. I saw this movie when I was 11 and pretty much decided to be Harriet M. Welsch. I loved everything about the aesthetics of that movie. It made me want to live in a big city where I would encounter all kinds of people. I wanted a sleek yet cozy house and a room full of eclectic finds and hand-me-downs. I wanted a school and grocery close enough that I could walk to them. And I wanted it to eternally be autumn so I could run around in blue jeans, Chucks, and a rain coat. I may just love this because it reminds me of childhood, but I never got as attached to the book. [Side note: I discovered a community garden in the East Village that reminds me a lot of the garden Golly takes Harriet, Sport, and Janie to in the movie. It was one of my happiest days of 2007.]
Do you prefer any movies over their book versions?
For an in-depth list of movies based on books, check out this site.
