It Was Much Better Than the Movie
The Onion reports today: "Area Man Well-Versed in First Thirds of Great Literature".The story sort of reminded me of a plan my friend Marc and I hatched last summer: in order to gain literary esteem in the eyes of others (we jokingly predicted that this plan would also increase our appeal to women), we felt it was necessary to have read some Tolstoy. I had actually just started War and Peace (sadly I did not even reach the one-third point, but I did read an excellent biography of Jim Morrison that summer, among other things), but Marc thought the smartest plan was to find the shortest book by Tolstoy, and then read that. Then you could say that you've "read Tolstoy" without the trouble of reading those really long ones. (Reader Inquiry: Does anyone actually know Tolstoy's shortest book? Needless to say, we did not execute this plan, and Russian literature has never been my strong suit).
Writing the preceding paragraph called to mind the ever-irritating phenomenon where those who have read a particular work of literature always having to interject in a conversation about the movie version of that book that "the book was way better" (I say "work of literature" because rarely will you hear someone brag that the book version of, say, Cliffhanger, was better than the movie, although that is mostly because books like that are post-production pseudo-transcriptions of the screenplay; I just realized this is a topic for another blog day and I am digressing). Anyway, it is almost always irritating when people do this; even more frustrating is the fact that I really would like to know when it is actually the case that the book or movie was better, but the honest proclamations of movie-book qualitative comparisons are hopelessly lost in a sea of backhanded comments by people desperate to remind you that they know how to read.
Is it possible that no movies are actually better than the books that inspired them? Perhaps that's not really what people are saying, and an actual translation of the phrase "the book was better than the movie" is "reading is better than watching movies," or "smart people such as myself read, while dumb people like you watch movies."
Offhand, I can think of two examples of movies that were better than the book:
Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea - both were good, but the Disney movie with Kirk Douglas was a childhood favorite of mine, and was also a more tightly-wrapped story than the book presents (I slightly dislike the phrase "childhood favorite," but as is so often the case, it seemed the best term to use here) (I must strenuously urge any fans of this movie, or anyone who has found themselves struggling to explain the title of this story, to read the transcript of an outstanding SNL sketch with Kelsey Grammer as Captain Nemo, where confusion abounds as to just exactly what a "league" is designed to measure).
Get Shorty - Outstanding movie. The book was not great - I'm not a huge fan of Elmore Leonard, but maybe that's just because I've only read this one and Be Cool, the basis for one of the worst movies of this year, if not of all time.
I occasionally find myself lying and saying that the movie was slightly, if not significantly better than the book, even when this was definitely not the case. I realize that this is intellectually and socially dishonest, and totally at odds with my nearly fanatic devotion to the Truth. But someone needs to counteract the rampant trend of lying in the other direction (although in truth, I don't think people are lying - there is probably zero correlation between which version people say is better and what they actually think. The only reason most people bring this up is to simply let you know that they read the book (see above translations) (I also think that we need to have a serious discussion about why it's okay to begin a sentence with "But," lest anyone criticize me for just doing so)).
posted by PositiveMode @ 10:03 AM
9 Comments:
As far as Tolstoy's (Count Tolstoi to our good friends in the Urals) shortest book, he actually wrote several short stories, the shortest of which I believe is "The Candle" which is roughly 4 pages long depending on type size and that sort of thing. So, if you'd really like to be able to tell the ladies, "Why yes, I'm an avid Count Tolstot afficianado," just read a few of his short stories (others include "Ivan the Fool", "The Kreutzer Sonata" (that one is fairly long for a "short" story), "A Lost Opportunity", and "Polikushka".) As a matter of fact, you can download these stories right to your computer at http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Stories/Tolstoy/Default.htm (sorry I can't make that a link) and start reading right now. Before you know it, the ladies will be swooning.
As far as movies that are better than the respective books, I'll have to do a bit more thinking on that, but the one that comes immediately to mind is "Moses". Much, much better than that drivel known to pop culturalists as "the Bible".
BTW, good move following NegativeMode's example and switching to the pop-up comments. While in many instances pop-ups are the bain of the cybermacroverse, in this instance, I feel that they lend a nice, clean feel to the blog.
Should you need any more assistance, feel free to contact NegativeMode, your link to all that is NegativeMode (only with regards to PositiveMode). Checks out sir.
Ok, one movie that was better than the book...the Notebook...the movie was better than the book aside from them adding those crappy scenes in the beginning of the main characters lying down in the middle of the street. But Nicholas Sparks never envisioned such awesome sex scenes and visuals.
Secondly, I dated a wierd, but cute, vegetarian former-punk, Democrat from Chicago last fall (knowing me, you will realize just how odd that is). Every morning I spent at his house, I woke up to wierd music and a huge set of bookshelves containing an enormous collection of Russian literature.
Can I say that it made him more attractive? Maybe
Did I think he was actually odder for having it...yes.
Did it matter when I found out that he actually hadn't read most of them and just wanted girls to think he had? Not really
The reason books are better than movies has to do with their creative structures. Such that it is not obvious why the director is more important in a movie then the actors, screenwriters, producers, or cameraman. But, of course, if you can find me a book in which significant praise is given to the binder, typesetter, editor, publisher, et. al... I will withdraw my critique.
While I accept that the above statement bears little direct relation to the original point, I am convinved that there is indeed a substantive intellectual difference between books and movies, and find no better explanation then the one proffered.
i think that erotic film is better than erotic literature. while i can't say that i actually know of any erotic literature that's been made into film (actually, i haven't read much erotic literature at all, and i hesitate to call what i have read literature, but it sounds more intellectual,) since most erotic literature that i've encountered uses one of only a handful of plots, i contend that, in effect, the films are just versions of the literature. and i think the film versions are better, if for no other reason than the use of phrases such as "throbbing love rocket" is very distracting. but perhaps more importantly, the film versions allow you to keep your hands free.
a general blog question: is it possible to create the links such that they open a new window rather than directing the reader away from the blog?
Well as far as plot content goes, I would say that erotic literature is far superior.
Literature:"Fiery maid "Blaze" steals upon a ship in the Victorian era to save her abandoned twin sister who was sold as a haram girl at a camp along the Black Sea. The ship is captured by the dread pirate "Nicolai" who seduces her while finding the illustrious "Pearl of Montenegro" which had coincidentally been lost by his ancestor 200 years prior..oh and his ancestor was a pirate too."
Movie: "Fiery housewife "Blaze" is bored. In comes the hunky pool guy,"Nicolai." They have sex. Nicolai then moonlights as a bartender and gets busy with Blaze's twin sister backstage at the "Pearl of Montenegro" where she is a stripper. Then he goes to his third job as a TV repair guy where he has sex with his 200 year old ancestor....oh and his ancestor was a pirate too."
Hello PositiveMode! I have a blog that you might like to check out positive. Thanks.
Hello PositiveMode! I have a blog that you might like to check out positive. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home