Dear Lit and Flicks,
Have you ever read a book and seen the movie and the movie was better?
-Anonymous
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Anonymous,
Generally, like most people, I tend to prefer the book version of a story to the movie version. I like that books often have a level of detail and context that film generally cannot provide. However, there are great adaptations of great books. To Kill a Mockingbird is both an incredible book and movie. There are captivating interpretations of the same story. Jurassic Park is a fascinating book and entertaining movie (although the versions are quite different). There are also movies I have enjoyed without ever having read the books on which they are based (Silence of the Lambs, Mean Girls, The Shawshank Redemption). Stories in a book vs. on screen have different characteristics, and therefore I enjoy them for different reasons.
Honestly, if I had to pick a movie version that is better than the book, I would say American Psycho. I go into this a bit in my review of the novel, but I find that the story is more manageable as a movie rather than a book because it (thankfully) cuts out some graphic details but also some boring, unnecessary parts. I don’t necessarily give my endorsement to the film, but I have to admit that it is one of the only movie adaptations that I think truly is an improvement from the source material.
I want to hear from readers, are there movies that are better than their book counterparts?? Let me know!
My first ever Dear Lit and Flicks post was about whether it is necessary to read a book before viewing the film adaptation. Check out my response here and see if you agree!
Comments