Here's a question. Or perhaps something of an observation that came up when I was talking to my mother. A lot of folks (including myself) frequently see a movie and are THEN motivated to read the book that said movie was based upon. Of course, it doesn't always happen that way... but I can think of many examples of this in my own life. The "Bachman" stories of Stephen King (movie: "The Running Man"), The Lord of the Rings, the Dune series, The Rainmaker by John Grisham, the Anne Rice books (although I have yet to read these, I own them an intend to), 2001 and 2010 by Arthur C. Clarke. Many more... but these are just off the top of my head. In each case, I saw the movie first and then later read the books.
Last night I watched "Capote". I have always been fond of the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's"... but more so out of a love for Audrey Hepburn than anything else. I hadn't realized the story was written by Truman Capote. Or that the movie was actually significantly different than the way Capote wrote it. Nor did I realize that he was very close to Nell Harper Lee who was the author of another of my all-time favorite books To Kill A Mockingbird. Needless to say, I am now very interested in reading In Cold Blood.
So the question, I suppose, is: does it reflect negatively upon us that (and I assume I am not alone here) many folks discover literature in this way? We see something on-screen that piques our interest into the original (print) media. Personally, I don't think so. If you ask me, any method of getting people to read more should be applauded. In fact, movies themselves can also be fantastic artistic expressions. Some much better than others, of course... but isn't that also true about books?
I am a technology junkie. I would feel naked without my own computer, cell phone, mobile internet, satellite, et cetera. That said, I still love to read. I don't read a LOT necessarily, but I always have a book I am working on at least. Sometimes it just occupies a few minutes here and there when I'm waiting for the truck to be unloaded, or if I'm laying in bed trying to make myself tired. Whatever.
So which comes first for you? The book or the movie? And does it matter?
Last night I watched "Capote". I have always been fond of the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's"... but more so out of a love for Audrey Hepburn than anything else. I hadn't realized the story was written by Truman Capote. Or that the movie was actually significantly different than the way Capote wrote it. Nor did I realize that he was very close to Nell Harper Lee who was the author of another of my all-time favorite books To Kill A Mockingbird. Needless to say, I am now very interested in reading In Cold Blood.
So the question, I suppose, is: does it reflect negatively upon us that (and I assume I am not alone here) many folks discover literature in this way? We see something on-screen that piques our interest into the original (print) media. Personally, I don't think so. If you ask me, any method of getting people to read more should be applauded. In fact, movies themselves can also be fantastic artistic expressions. Some much better than others, of course... but isn't that also true about books?
I am a technology junkie. I would feel naked without my own computer, cell phone, mobile internet, satellite, et cetera. That said, I still love to read. I don't read a LOT necessarily, but I always have a book I am working on at least. Sometimes it just occupies a few minutes here and there when I'm waiting for the truck to be unloaded, or if I'm laying in bed trying to make myself tired. Whatever.
So which comes first for you? The book or the movie? And does it matter?
VIEW 3 of 3 COMMENTS
Movies are usually such a letdown compared to books.
Books > Movies