In the Washington Post, Louis Bayard considers movie adaptations of books, and remarks that he has a friend who refuses to watch an adaptation until after she’s “read the book.” He calls this an act of self-defence
because a movie adaptation, if it’s at all decent, will forever alter the way we see a literary work.
True. Yet when an adaptation is good, it gives such pleasure, doesn’t it?
It’s a rarity when a adaptation is good, but i agree that it does alter the way you see a literary work. reading a book after having seen the movie, i can never get the actors’ faces out of my mind, which, i think, is less fulfilling than using my imagination. OTOH, when the actor doesn’t conform to your view after having read the book, that is also disappointing. Good adaptations do tend to minimize this, i guess. Examples of good adaptiations? I don’t know. LOTR. Orlando. Sin City (does that count?)
I like to read the book, first. But my reasons are pure curmudgeonliness: movie adaptations are interpretations, and I’d rather form my own opinion on a book, thank you very much.
The worse adaptation I’ve ever seen was A River Runs Through It . . . I still feel angry when I think about it . . . hmmmm, that’s worth a dedicated post, I’m thinking . . .
I always read the book first. If I see a movie coming out that I might like to see and I know it’s based on a book I’ll quick read the book! I agree that seeing the movie first stifles my own imagination when I’m reading the book. Good adaptations are LOTR and Lonesome Dove. One bad one I can think of off the top of my head is The Firm. Some of the best features of the main character were lost in the movie. Tom Cruise had an “Oh, shit, caught off guard” look on his face that the character in the book, as I read it, would never have had!