Do you prefer to read the book or to see the film, considering adaptations?

Question

For instance, what do you think about the film "Capote"? To those who have seen the film and didn't read the book, did it make you want to read it? And to those who did read it, what did you think about the film? There are also adaptations of the classics, as Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet", "Hamlet" and "A Midnight Summer's dream". The main idea I have, as a foreigner, is that in english speaking schools, when confronted with their first Literature classes, most students relly on films and internet rather than reading. Is this true? Please comment both students and teachers, according to your experience.

Answer 1

Yes, here is the US, many students rely on abbreviated notes via the internet (Sparknotes are an example). Films are not always reliable interpretations of the text, however, there are probably some who use this technique. However, there are many honest students too, who actually do all their reading. Many use the internet notes to reinforce what they read on their own, to help them better understand what they are reading (I am a college student, by the way).

I prefer reading the books before I see a film adaptation, as it allows you to make your own interpretations of the characters actions. Also you get to decide what you think the characters look like. In a movie version, these things are decided for you. However, a well-done film adaptation of a book I haven't read would make me want to read the book. The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, for example, was not something that I had ever read, but, after seeing the movies, I had a desire to read the series.

Answer 2

I have always been an avid reader, and thus prefer the detail that is (usually) only available on the page. When I deeply love a book I am disappointed by each omission or plot adjustment--thus I love the five-hour film of Pride and Prejudice but was disappointed by the recent version.

Sometimes I will read a book shortly before a movie comes out, both so I can form my own mental images and so I don't feel guilty/lazy/ignorant for not knowing the original--that's how I handled the second two Lord of the Ring movies.

When a film makes significant changes to a story to make it more cinematic (like for Chocolat) I am much more accepting of the movie if I have not read the book.

I tend to be accepting of films of Shakespeare than of general fiction, even though I am far more passionate about Shakespeare than most other authors. However, Shakespeare's texts were written to be performed rather than read, and even when you watch a stage version you're seeing a unique interpretation and cut of the text. Plus, through the visuals you gain details that are lost through Shakespeare's omission of stage directions.

Films can be a useful tool for making literature (especially Shakespeare) more accessible and in some cases understandable. I've never watched a movie (or a cliff notes-like study guide) instead of reading a book, but I know that other people do. I have used those resources after completing the reading to reinforce my understanding of what I've read.

Answer 3

A book allows for character development and plot development without time restrictions. A book is read over a couple of days. A three hour movie, people get antsy. Movie adaptations are just that adaptation. The screenwriter can pick and choose. Some leave out some essentials to the story. The only books which have been transferred to film successfully was the James Bond series written by Ian Fleming. The books are still selling and the next movie comes out in November-Casino Royale.

Answer 4

If there is a movie out on a book I haven't yet read, I watch the movie first. The book is always better, and I won't be able to enjoy the movie if I read the book first.

The only exception I can think of at present is the movie Ben-Hur, and the book Ben-Hur. They are very different from each other, yet both are excellent.

Answer 5

I'd much rather read the book. I have yet to find a story where the movie is better than the book. And quite often, I find the novelization of a movie is better than the movie was, like with "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen".

Answer 6

I always prefer the book. Once in a blue moon a movie lives up to my idea of the book, but I can not even mention one off the top of my head here.

Answer 7

For me reading the book is much more interesting than seeing the movie, because sometime adaptations change the context of the book to suit their needs.

Answer 8

First I prefer to read the book and then - to watch the film. If necessary, I read the book again, after watching the film.

Answer 9

i would rather read the book anytime,,, the only movie i have liked better than the book was "the green mile" by stephen king.

Answer 10

Books have details you can't put in a movie, such as what the characters are thinking.