Today in my history class, the teacher brought up something about how books are always better than the movies that they are turned into. Usually, I agree with this. But then I really started thinking about it, and there are actually a few cases in which the movie is definitely better than the book. So I thought it would be a fun thing to write about, and the first book turned to movie that I could think about was Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist.
I saw the movie before I read the book, and before I even knew that the book existed. I blogged about it a few months back and I believe I made it very clear how much I loved it. Not only am I a huge fan of Kat Dennings and Michael Cera (the two shared that awkward romantic chemistry that only Michael Cera can possess), but the way the characters interacted made me want to be hanging out with all of them. From Nick's gay bandmates to Norah's drunken best friend Caroline and all the random people in between (such as the angry convenience store owner who was used to Caroline's drunken puking sessions in the ice box), to all of the amazing music that was played on the soundtrack. Band of Horses, Devendra Banhart, We Are Scientists, etc. The soundtrack alone is it's own perfect indie entity. There was also the fun scavenger hunt of sorts around the city as they searched for the secret show of their favorite band 'Where's Fluffy?'
So after I was all jazzed up about the movie, I picked up the book, written by Rachel Cohn & David Levithan at my library. I was excited, because after the movie was so good, I thought that the book would be even better. I was disappointed. I guess I should just start about by saying that I'm not a big Rachel Cohn fan in the first place. I've read some of her other books, and I just can't get into them. But again, I was expecting an awesome book, so I read it. There were many elements missing in the book that I loved so much about the movie. There was a drunk Caroline, but she never gets lost and there weren't as many funny and slurred remarks from her. Where's Fluffy? was found in an instant. And the book just really didn't do it for me. It also didn't have the amazing soundtrack playing in the background to tie everything together.
So in this case:
MOVIE > BOOK.
2 comments:
I just had this argument this morning. Uh, Cold Mountain? The book was told entirely through dialogue. Imagine reading this book: "Boy, that large, red mountain looks achingly beautiful in this early sunset. The way the wispy winds blow under the trees and races with the pale skies clouds is really a dream to behold with these eyes that I'm seeing all this through." Yeah, not interested.
No Country for Old Men? Terrible book. Cormac McCarthy can't write for shit. The story wasn't even that good. The only reason it was made into a movie was because one of the Coen brothers liked it a lot and pushed for the project.
Not to mention books and movies are two completely different mediums. Depending on your ability to perceive words the book could be completely different than the movie. Most of the movies I see after reading books are that way. Maybe I'm dyslexic, but when I went to see The Da Vinci Code I was like, "What the fuck is going on here." Somehow when I managed to get my way through the first half of Twilight two years ago I remembered enough detail to just about puke when I saw the movie, and it wasn't just because of the hideous Rpattz.
Tell your teacher (s)he's an idiot.
you're right, this movie is better than the silly book, maybe the emotive actuations of these couple is what makes the difference.
Post a Comment