The two art forms work together in their own way to convey the intended meaning of the story
By CLARA FISCHER — [email protected]
There are certain things that are universally agreed upon – the sky is blue, the sun will rise, and “Cats” (2020) was a terrible movie. However, one topic that couldn’t be more filled with hot takes even if it tried is the age-old argument over whether a book or its movie counterpart is better.
One example that comes to mind as having a particularly divided fan base on this topic is the beloved YA series, “Harry Potter,” written by its equally controversial writer, JK Rowling. The first installment of the literary series was released in 1997, almost immediately become a classic. After its initial success, the books went from being a hit series to being an all-around cultural phenomenon with the creation of their film adaptations.
Both books and films have been immensely successful, and one could even go so far as to say that the “The Harry Potter Cinematic Universehas become a force in its own right, existing independently of the books. However, many hardcore Harry Potter fans (otherwise known as “Potterheads”) maintain the company position that the books contain key details and elements that contribute to the wizarding world in such a way that the cinema simply cannot.
Now is probably a good time to confess that I hadn’t been exposed to the Harry Potter series until last summer, so I can’t be considered a true original fan of Rowling’s work.
However, the films managed to draw me in and capture my devotion from the first viewing – which is more than I can say for the copy of ‘Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone’ that I picked up in third year. I was a massive bookworm (arguably the biggest in the world) and Rowling’s writing just failed to reach me the way Danielle Radcliffe and the rest of the movie cast did. do it.
While I recognize that cinema as an art form certainly has its limitations, one of its main appeals is the way it brings a magical world to life; the characters are there for you to see, hear, and empathize with, which is probably one of the reasons the movies have become a mainstay of pop culture.
Another sub-category of film that deserves consideration in the heated debate over movies or books is the popular tendency to take the classics (think of those novels likely to be on the curriculum of a school class). Grade 11 AP English) and put them on the big screen.
The stories of Jane Austen and Shakespeare have been adapted countless times for the big and small screen – so often, in fact, that there are lists classification of these versions which are two digits. Now, I agree that it would be bold to say that films made in the 21st century are capable of surpassing their predecessors (though ‘Clueless’ gives Austen’s ‘Emma’ a run for her money), but there’s something something to be said for the filmmakers’ ability to translate stories of yesteryear into a tale fully acceptable to modern audiences. The authors wrote novels with classic themes, but it’s the work of the film’s cast and crew that keeps them relevant for our times.
Another example of a great book with an equally fantastic movie is the children’s classic “Fantastic Mr. Fox.” Originally created by British author Roald Dahl, the whimsical children’s tale was taken under the wing of iconic filmmaker Wes Anderson and turned into an ingenious stop-motion film. While not necessarily a box office hit, the film is a beautiful work of art that stays true to the sentimental nature of the original source material. The film, while undoubtedly made for children, has all the marks from a classic Anderson filmand therefore doesn’t limit its reach to a younger audience – something Dahl’s book might inadvertently end up doing.
While I’ll always have a special place in my heart for books – especially children’s books – as I get older, I’ve come to realize that there’s no point in pitting books and movies against each other. Both are their own unique and exciting art forms, and while they may be cut from the same cloth, they don’t seek to compete; rather, they act as perfect complements to each other.
Written by: Clara Fischer — [email protected]