why is a film not capable of doing this as well as a book?
are there no films which zero in on the internal dialogue...and i'm not talking about [badly/ineply done] narated voiceovers, like in "being john malkovich" here--however entertaining the film was in other ways.
2007-07-13 11:01:02 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
i agree with you. i love both mediums and if asked to choose between the two, i'd probably spontaneously combust.
movies serve the meaning to you in a visual platter.
with books, its like you're given the ingredients, and you cook it in your brain, and the end product is completely your own version of the recipe.
does that make sense to you?
2007-07-13 11:10:43 · answer #1 · answered by ginger ♥ edward cullen 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The thing about movies and books, a book can tell you the feelings and thoughts, while a movie has to show it visually (or have a voice over, which gets boring when long), and a movie can't diverge into random little moments explaining things the way a good novel can, or explore the finest details that cannot be put into sight just the right way, and is thus limited to the eyes of the camera. So I agree that a movie cannot, although some come close.
2007-07-13 11:09:59 · answer #2 · answered by istillcandream 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the reason books are better at probing "the inner workings of the mind" is that they allow you to create your own world instead of handing it to you. When I read about the Balroc in Lord of the Rings, I had something much scarier in mind that the movie people did. You base these "worlds" you make in your head when you read on your own fears, desires, tastes, etc. Sometimes a director and production team get it right by playing off of the ideas (fears, desires, tastes, etc.) of "most." Hitchcock is a perfect example.
2007-07-13 11:28:13 · answer #3 · answered by Darksuns 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There are a lot of deep deep movies that make you think. There is no reason a film cannot inspire the same response as a novel.
2007-07-13 11:06:59 · answer #4 · answered by mike171979 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with that quote. A movie can be deep, make you think, make you relate to a character. But in a book you are in the mind of the character, in their thoughts, you can feel what they feel, in a way a movie can never do.
2007-07-13 11:09:12 · answer #5 · answered by *Cara* 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My opinion could go either way. I've read novels that make me realize crazy messed emotions that I wouldn't have known existed, and then watched the movie and was highly dissapointed by the result.
I've also read books, that i've absolutely hated, not even able to finish it. Then seen the movie and loved it beyond belief....
2007-07-13 11:16:34 · answer #6 · answered by Bello Stella 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes i think so,with a movie some one takes his ideas or words and adapts them to pictures of his own choosing use- sing technology. With a book no technology is involved so your mind creates its own pictures of what is being written(much better than what technology has to offer & can process more words,ideas and information.
2007-07-13 11:24:42 · answer #7 · answered by AD&D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i film can only cover a couple of the senses, sight and sound. a book can cover taste, touch, smell, and psyche. all from the pov of the protagonist. the reader is able to jump deeper into the story.
2007-07-13 21:12:36 · answer #8 · answered by celticriver74 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True. The film is time-limited if nothing else. You are bound to miss something. And You depend on actors abilities to perform, the camera, make-up....
2007-07-13 11:07:24 · answer #9 · answered by Romentari 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I disagree--Alfred Hitchcock movies like Psycho or Rear Window.
2007-07-13 11:04:31 · answer #10 · answered by redunicorn 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋