I recently watched The Namesake, a movie based on the book by Jhumpa Lahiri. It was really good, highly recommend it. But at the end I started wondering whether I should have read the book first, which is what I had always intended to do but I just don’t have as much time to read nowadays. I tried to do this with the Golden Compass but was too excited about the movie release that I watched it after only completing half the book. As it turns out, the movie didn’t ruin a great deal when it came to reading the book. They left a lot of things out of the movie and it was easy enough to enjoy both for what they were. I’m not so sure about The Namesake, though. I’m afraid now that I know the plot and story, I won’t enjoy the book so much, despite the fact that one of the main reasons I’ve always enjoyed Lahiri’s work is for her writing style.
Another movie I really want to see is Atonement. My brother just watched this and said it was an excellent movie. When I told him that I was waiting to read the book first he suggested that I not because it might ruin the movie experience. Jeeze. It’s so hard to choose.
Other book/movies I want to see:
Persepolis (already read that one so)
Love in the time of Cholera
Kite Runner
Silk
Lust, Caution
I’m sure there are more, I just can’t think of right now. But seriously. What’s the better bet? Book first or movie?
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
17.01.08 at 07:29:07
chrissy
I also heard they (whoever “they” are) are making a movie of The Time Traveler’s Wife, which I loved. But to address your question - I think the book should be read before the movie is seen, if for no other reason than investement of time. It takes a lot longer to read a book, whereas a movie takes 2 to 3 hours to watch. I would rather know the end for two hours than trudge on for days (or weeks) to a book’s spoiled ending.
I can’t wait to see Persepolis. And wow! I didn’t know Love in the Time of Cholera was going to be a movie. I’m so out of the loop.
17.01.08 at 07:29:59
chrissy
Also, I like your new header. Well, new to me. See, this is what happens when you never leave the safetly of Google reader anymore.
17.01.08 at 09:19:38
Mike Huxley
Actually it is new by only a few days, a week at most, so you’re good!
17.01.08 at 09:37:53
Mike Huxley
Ok we’ve got two very literate Librarians commenting on this so how’s about we get a visual artists opinion. I’ve always heard people talk about reading books before seeing the movie and I always felt I was in this camp as well. However, movies and books are two completely different media and so should be experienced for their own unique outlook on the story. A movie, naturally, will tell the story visually, while the book will tell the story via words. So I don’t really think it matters which you experience first (although you do make a good point, Chrissy), by experiencing BOTH you’re getting a more complete viewpoint of the story.
Many books I’ve read I wouldn’t have read had I not seen the movie, and many movies that have come out I would not have watched had I not read the book.
20.01.08 at 16:20:52
Kimmie
I have gone both ways, and like Mike, feel that it usually doesn’t matter. In my experience, the movie usually leaves a lot of detail out due to the amount of time alloted, so it really doesn’t ruin the book. However, if I had to pick one, it would be read the book, then see the movie. If I watch the movie first, while I’m reading, the pictures in my head are that of the movie, not my own. It kind of ruins it for my imagination, which the whole point of reading books.
22.01.08 at 09:24:46
Carleen Huxley
I’m like you, Kimmie. I see Mikes point but I don’t like the movie images interfering with my own when I read a book.