Saw Lord of the Rings: Two Towers the other night. That movie is so overwhelming it’s hard to describe it beyond using a combination of four-letter words and blasphemy. I loved it.
Whenever you have a movie based on a great book, this eternal debate arises: “Should I read the book first? Or watch the movie cold?” Does first reading the book ruin the movie, causing you to spend all your time looking for differences between the two and scoffing at what was cut out? Or does watching the movie ruin the book, filling your mind with visuals that you would have liked to imagine using your own vivid sense of fantasy?
I want to try to settle this issue indefinitely: each format spoils the story for the other. You can only be told a story for the first time, once. And once you have heard a story, you can only be reminded of it the next time you hear it. There can be fresh re-hashings of an old tale, but I feel that the sort of excitement and suspense that come from not knowing where the storyteller is leading you, comes just once. If you read the book first and then see the movie, you spend a lot of time noticing the difference between the two . “Hmm… I thought he would be taller”; “Hey, that skipped that whole part”; “She was exactly how I imagined her”. What you are doing is becoming more focused on the Telling than on the Story. And that makes a whole different experience.
So the issue becomes Who Do You Want to Tell the Story? The writer or the filmmaker? Both have very different tools in their kits. Books can be eloquent, mind-enriching, and other things. Movies can be immediate, vivid, and other things. (I put in “…and other things” because I do not even want to pretend that I can fully describe what books and movies can be.)
Again, which storyteller format do you prefer? Sometimes this can be more like, Which storyteller do you trust most to bring this story to life? This answer is usually the writer. The film-creation process receives a lot of meddling from money-focused people who do not care about storytelling. And the writer is often the creator of the spirit of the story, has it in mind at all times, and does not violate that spirit to ensure that more 12- to 15-year-olds show up for blood, guts, and titties.
Ok, so in summation, I’m actually going to weasle my way out of giving a definitive answer. I’m a pussy. Let’s just say we “treated the issue with a thorough discussion”. If you have read the book first, congratulations, you can read. And have fun griping about the movie. If you watched the movie first, good job, In Bruckheimer We Trust. OK, seriously, whatever format you choose, just know what reasons are underlying your decision. (Wow, I really hope I’m not full of shit. I haven’t made a single assertive statement. Except for that last sentence, there.)
Lastly, I know it’s surprising, but in my dorky childhood I never got around to reading Tolkien’s classic trilogy The Lord of the Rings. So I have been watching these movies cold. And I must say, for movies based on books, the Lord of the Rings movies have an incredible amount of life to them. Tolkien would be proud of the amount of care and faithfulness that the movie-creators put in these movies.
Yeah.
# 2002 Dec 26
{opine, rompin' years}