Gabby Hope (gabbyhope) wrote in litterascripta,
Gabby Hope

  • Mood:

dear boy, this is the movies

I profess: my heart is torn in two. On one hand, I'm a book geek. On the other, I'm a film geek. At times it works out fine and dandy. (Fuck you, "White Oleander"!, the film version, that is.) Other times, however?

It almost physically hurts to decide which I prefer over the other; the film or the book. One has charm and appeal because it is the original, one had the director-screenwriter-actors' imprint on it, which also makes it original, but, let's face it, most of the time, it's not what you, or other people, imagined. Case in point for me? The Hours. Which did I enjoy more? The movie, which I saw four times in the cinema, or the book, which I've read twice, but only after my initial three times seeing the movie? They both have their pluses, including an Oscar and the Pulitzer Prize, damn them both.

I try my best to read the book before I see the movie. Recently I did this with "Cold Mountain" and quite possibly enjoyed the movie much more as a result. This is a personal quirk, however, and though I understand that others do not care one iota about getting both sides of the experience, I still want to graffiti movie posters with neon pink spray paint, writing: "THE BOOK IS BETTER."

My questions to you are, why do people look at me funny when I rant about what a burden choosing is? Okay, that's not really the question. The question is, do you feel the same? Is it possible to feel passionate about both the book and the movie, or do you generally pick one or the other? Do you find yourself saying, "the movie is terrible, but the book is awesome," or vice versa, to complete strangers? Do you prefer reading the book before, or after, you see the movie, or does it not matter to you? Is there some sort of plague on Stephen King to make all of his movies horridly suck? Okay, so the last question is optional, but still.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic