This post is the third in a series of CoyoteMoon Films people answering the question:
If a movie is being made from a book, do you make a point of reading the book first, or do you avoid reading the book before seeing the film?
I used to make sure to read books before seeing the movies based on them. I thought that reading the book would give me insight into the story and characters that I might not get just from the movie. Unfortunately, this also meant that I was unable to judge the movie on its own terms—there was always the book, informing me of subtle points that didn’t make it to the screen, or coloring my opinion of an actor’s performance.
I also thought that the movie would show me what someone else thought was important in the book. Watch the many adaptations of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and you’ll see several similar but different stories, some of which exclude important details. The Laurence Olivier version (from 1940), for example, omits Wickham’s attempt to elope with Darcy’s sister, a decision that probably is due to the Production Code; this omission, however, renders Wickham an almost decent fellow, and eliminates any reason Elizabeth has for changing her opinion of him or of Darcy.
Another reason I waited until after reading the book to see the movie is that I didn’t want the movie to spoil the ending of the book. I always thought it was worse to spoil the book. As I’ve matured, both as a filmgoer and as a novel reader, I’ve learned that a good story told well can stand up not only to multiple retellings, but also to having its secrets spilled. Return of the Jedi was spoiled for me just days before I saw it, but I don’t think my knowledge of the nature of Luke and Leia’s relationship diminished my opinion of the film (after all, that had nothing to do with the Ewoks). The Sixth Sense was spoiled for me within an hour of my seeing it, but I don’t think that my prior knowledge of that film’s big twist affected my ability to judge the film’s quality. I suppose I should finally get around to seeing The Crying Game.
Lately I’ve stopped trying to make sure to read the book first, in part because I have a to-read list that’s several miles long, but also because some books seem to be written with the eventual film adaptation in mind. Some writers seem able to combine cinematic elements with internal monologue, allowing filmmakers to see how the book can be made into film, while still giving the reader a satisfying experience. Dennis Lehane’s Mystic River featured scenes that seemed to have been written from a camera’s perspective, and these cinematic scenes play in the film essentially as they read on the page. But Lehane gives his book enough literary meat to keep it from reading like an early draft of a novelized screenplay. Some other writers don’t seem to possess that skill.
I’ve also found that reading a book can affect my decision to see any film based on it. For example, I found reading The Da Vinci Code to be a sufficient reason not to read other books by Dan Brown nor to see any film based on one of his books. He is no Umberto Eco. I find it doubtful that any of the wonderful film people associated with the films based on Brown’s books (and I have nothing by admiration for Ron Howard and Tom Hanks) could elevate that material without changing it wholesale, but if they made such drastic changes to the source, they’d lose the films’ built-in audience.
