Why Is the Book (Usually) Better than the Movie? |
Books discussed: Dances with Wolves by Michael Blake (1988), Dracula by Bram Stoker (1897), Dune by Frank Herbert (1965), Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien (1954), The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien (1937), Island of Doctor Moreau by H.G. Wells (1896), Jaws by Peter Benchley (1974), Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton (1990), Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850), War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells (1898)
Films discussed: Dances with Wolves (1990), Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992), Dune (1984), Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), Island of Doctor Moreau (1996), Jaws (1975), Jurassic Park (1993), Scarlet Letter (1995), War of the Worlds (2005)
Books and movies actually get along quite well together. Old books, even ones that most people weren't particularly interested to read in school, are great material for new movies. Dracula, originally written by Bram Stoker in the late nineteenth century, has led to countless film adaptions, many forgettable, some classics. And the widespread popularity of a new movie can, in turn, breath life back into an old book. How many people have read Tolkien since the release of the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit films? The answer is many, many millions. Contrary to what some may think, books and movies are beneficial for each other, as they both have the effect of expanding the influence of a story and characters.
Okay, if books and movies get along so well, why are so many people snotty about "the book being better"? Well, it's complicated. Some people might in fact just want you to know that they have in fact read the book. It's true. However, if you have read the book, you often do want to tell your friends and aquaintances that the book was better for non-selfish reasons. The reader may legitimately be providing an accurate criticism of the film; the reader may want his or her friends to try the book, because it is, quite better; the reader knows that the book has so much more meat to the characters or the story; the film adaptation may have completely missed the mark; or the movie inside your head while you read the book was way better than the film presented. I think the latter is the most compelling reason that explains why the book was better. Humans in general and readers in particular have really good imaginations. Poor writing bogs the reader down in unnecessary details. Good writing, however, gives just enough details to lead the reader's imagination. Herein lies the magic of books over movies: the reader has the opportunity to fashion the story with his or her own mind's eye. With a movie, all the mystery is undone; everything is drawn out in full detail for you, whether it fits what you want or not.
Below is a table comparing books with their film adaptions. An "X" indicates which version is preferred. In instances in which there are multiple film adaptions, the year is specified in the preface above and in the discussion below.
| Title | | Book | | versus | | Movie |
| Dances with Wolves | X | ||
| Dracula | X | ||
| Dune | X | ||
| Fellowship of the Ring | X | ||
| The Hobbit | X | ||
| Island of Doctor Moreau | X | ||
| Jaws | X | ||
| Jurassic Park | X | ||
| Scarlet Letter | X | ||
| War of the Worlds | X |
Let's start with obvious: of these ten examples, only one title (Jaws) has the movie outdoing the book. And this example is actually quite revealing, as Jaws has probably the least literary strength of all the titles listed above. There's nothing wrong with Jaws as a book: it does what it attempts very well. It's about a man-eating shark that won't leave a beach area. It's a book about a monster. And that's fine. The movie essentially follows the book in lockstep fashion. The biggest criticism of Jaws the book is that you're not missing anything by watching the movie and not reading the book. Rather forgettable books can become great movies. It's much harder to make a great book into a great movie. It rarely happens. Actually, many people roll their eyes when they find out Hollywood is attempting to take on a serious piece of literature. Why? Well, serious works of literature are about many things. It might take a reader a month or longer to read Fellowship of the Ring while the movie is but a few hours. Movie directors only have a few hours to work with. There's just no way--no matter how good Peter Jackson is--to cram in all of the ideas, allusions, references, metaphors, and developments that Tolkien imagined in his books. Unlike Jaws, Fellowship of the Ring has way too much culture and depth to be covered in a few hours. Sometimes it's close. Blake wrote Dances with Wolves with the foreknowledge that it might become a screenplay. The Costner film follows the book very closely, and many of the scenes are almost duplicated in full. However, even here, there are a few instances where the book edges the movie out, even an otherwise good movie. In the book, the Lakota ask the soldier John Dunbar how many white men will come to the prairie. Dunbar plays stupid. But Dunbar later has a dream. In his dream, he sees a cavalryman cut open an Indian's belly. Gold falls out of the Indian's belly. Dunbar awakens troubled, and he tells the Lakota that the white men will be as numerous as the stars in the sky, and they won't stop until they have all the land. You won't miss a ton if you haven't read Dances with Wolves, but you will miss a little, including some potent imagery that is very difficult to do in film. More glaring are great works of literature that simply have too much material for a film adaptation. Dune is a good example of the limits of film: a dense story with intertwining plots and complicated characters can make a great book, but such films are often disasters. We often want to disappear into the depths of a book, but when we watch a movie, we often want to relax and unwind. And when a film adaption takes a complicated work and simplifies it, we lose the soul. Take Tolkien's work. Although a feast for the eyes with many dazzling landscape shots, a stirring score, and great performances, the film adaption for Fellowship of the Ring misses many of the deeper metaphors of the book. Likewise, the book The Hobbit leads the reader on a quest through a magical world of strange and interesting denizens. The film version of The Hobbit (2012), on the other hand, rips the rhyming, singing soul out of story. Instead of a rich tapestry of Saxon culture, we get sword fights.
Sometimes the movie spoils the book. If you see The Hobbit before you read it, the imagination is then limited by the film once you get around to reading it. Did you know War of the Worlds was written in a time of horses and wagons? This book is always adapted to a contemporary setting, eventhough a nineteenth century setting makes the people even more vulnerable. War of the Worlds is also a commentary on the British Empire, which you might find out by reading the preface of certain editions, a contextual option not available in a film. Jurassic Park the book has much more going on than people running from dinosaurs. (Read more about that here.) Dracula, although written in the nineteenth century, has an almost postmodern feel, where the story is pieced together by the reader through a series of letters and diary entries. Even with a solid cast, the film version of Scarlet Letter is still just okay, where the book is classic. We love movies. Movies, with some exceptions, always seem too fall short of the original print source material. Do yourself a favor: try to read the book (or listen to it) before you catch the movie. Your imagination will thank you. Just don't be too snotty when you tell your friends how much better the book is. Updated August 2019