"Waking up begins with saying am and now. That which has awoken then lies for a while staring up at the ceiling and down into itself until it has recognized I, and therefore deduced I am, I am now. Here comes next, and is at least negatively reassuring; because here, this morning, is where it has expected to find itself: what’s called at home."The novel is beautifully sad and a wonderful example of stream of consciousness, especially for people who may find other examples of this style of writing to be too much to digest. And while the book is wonderful, I must confess I hadn't heard of it, much less thought of reading it, until after I saw the film adaptation, Tom Ford's directorial debut. The next day, after finishing the novel the night before, I found myself glorying in the beauty of what I'd just read and a thought occurred to me: How would I have found this book if I hadn't seen the movie?
Among my friends, and I'm assuming the same can be said of others as well, it's usually considered a good--or better--thing to read a book before seeing the film. Now, I used to feel the same way, and I guess I still do. However, after reading a A Single Man, I'm beginning to question how I have come into contact with great literature.
To be perfectly honest, I can be cheap when it comes to buying books, so I'm leery of purchasing a book that may or may not be a dud. This is the point where I usually rely on word of mouth, preferably from people whose reading preferences are near to my own; however, sometimes even then I may buy the book but wait a while before picking it up to read.
When it comes to movies, I'm usually pretty good about picking a movie I know I'll like based on the film's trailer. Unfortunately, books don't have these kinds of visual cues into what the experience of reading them will be like. Quite often I use films as a way to gauging whether or not I'll read the book that inspired it. Here are a few of the great books I've read after having seen the film adaptations:
The Silence of the Lambs
The Hours
Bram Stoker's Dracula
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (as well as The Chamber of Secrets)
The above books are only a few of the books I encountered after seeing their film counterparts; thankfully, they are great films, so I knew the literature must be great as well. Sadly, this is not always the case. Film adaptation is a tricky enterprise because the filmmakers are trying to please not one, but two distinct audiences. And let's face it, a reading audience can be very different from a "seeing" audience. However, does seeing a movie before reading the book make the experience of reading somehow less than?
The Lord of the Rings
True, the circumstances surrounding a person's experience of reading can effect how that person feels about that particular piece. I've long fought with getting specific actors out of my heads when imagining the characters as the writer describes them. Just to give an example, the character of Jack Twist in Brokeback Mountain looked nothing like Jake Gyllenhaal. In fact, from Annie Proux's description, Twist wasn't all that good looking. And even though I read the book before seeing Brokeback Mountain, I still see Jake Gyllenhaal's face whenever I read the story. Of course, despite being a rare phenomenon, there are instances when an actor performs their job so well that their screen performance melts into the imaginative consciousness of readers.
Take for instance, Sir Ian McKellen. Of course, this may be my bias showing, but I believe McKellen has played one iconic role, Gandalf, just as Tolkien fans envisioned him and another role, Magneto, in a way that while drastically different from the source material nevertheless changes how audiences envision Xavier's former best friend.
That being said, here's another of my own personal reading habits: If I don't like how character is described, it is in my power as a reader to alter my visions of the characters in a way that I find more suitable. I've done this many times before, but mostly when I was younger. After reading a character description, I'd simply say, "Um, no. That's not what that character looks like," and then I'd re-imagine the character according to my specifications. It doesn't escape me that this is potentially destroying the artist's work, but I've always thought of reading as a shared experience, one where the reader's imagination can take the blueprint that's been given by the writer and build something unique. Such a thing cannot be accomplished in film, at least it hasn't in any of the films I've seen. I can't watch Brokeback Mountain and say, "Um, no. Jack Twist doesn't look like Jake Gyllenhaal. He looks more like Ryan Reynolds, or better yet, Matt Damon... Mmmm!" While such an image may be pleasing, it's difficult to keep up while watching the film.
Anyway, I feel this post has gotten away from me. Forgive me, I'm using this post mostly as a brain-dump afte a long week of teaching.
I guess my main point in writing this is to broach the question of which is better reading before seeing, or seeing before reading?
Really, I don't think there's a straight yes or no answer to the question. As an English instructor, I'm happy for students to engage in reading, no matter how they came across the material. If the film version makes them pick up the book, then I call that a success. As for my own personal preference, I try to read the books first, not because I want to feel some sort of superiority over those who haven't, but merely to experience the work in its original form. If I happen to see the film first? Then that's okay too. I love experiencing literature in all its forms and variations. There's a reason some stories are adapted into films: They resonated with people on an emotional or intellectual level, and the desire to share that experience, whether in film or print, is an inherent desire of us all. After all, look at the popularity of social networks and blogging.
No comments:
Post a Comment