I have a confession to make. It’s kind of a deep, dark secret, so brace yourself. I like movies better than books.
Shocking, I know.
Don’t get me wrong. I love books. I read voraciously, usually gobbling more than 100 books a year. I love the way words line up on a page, I love the dance they create, I love the precision and the intensity of the craft. But even more than I love words, I love stories. And, in my own personal experience, movies have always been able to offer a more rounded presentation. Before all the bibliophiles starting howling and clicking the red X in the corner of their browsers, let me repeat in my own personal experience. I realize many, maybe even most, readers and writers don’t agree with me. But whatever your own thoughts on the superiority/inferiority of books versus movies, you have to admit that movies have much from which the lowly novelist can learn.
First of all, let me note why I feel movies are superior, and why novelists would do well to mimic them in some areas. When it comes to storytelling, movies bring a sensual arsenal to the table. Viewers are bombarded with visual and audio stimuli; they are shown exactly what the characters are experiencing, in real time. Novelists may need paragraph upon paragraph of description to set a scene, but a director needs only a single shot. Writers will struggle for their entire careers to “show” instead of “tell.” Movies never have that problem.
Characters that have a real person behind them are immediately brought to life. The inflection in dialogue is obtained instantly. Facial expressions can convey in seconds what words can accomplish only by great and studied effort. In her insightful book Lights! Camera! Fiction!, Alfie Thompson points out:
Screenwriters have an advantage when it comes to bringing characters to life. Actors and actresses play the assigned roles and infuse some personality into the character. ... if the actor is wonderfully gifted, he can convey a feeling or attitude even if the writer’s words aren’t chosen carefully. Even if the script is pathetic and the actor is as wooden as a walking, talking tree, it’s hard for the audience not to see a “well-rounded” character when a living, breathing, real-life person is walking around on-screen.None of this is to degrade the novel. The written word gives us things the movie never can, including a unique voice, deeper character introspection, and authorial commentary. All these things are wonderful and important, but they pale in light of the visual immediacy, the raw connection of a film. Of course, the truth is the vast majority of us will never see a story of ours up on the big screen. But that doesn’t mean we still can’t learn from what I call the “movie factor.”
I want my stories to play out like a movie inside the reader’s head. I want him to see the scenes progression, the characters walking around, the sweep of the landscape just as if he were watching a movie. I can’t testify to how well I’ve accomplished that, but I do know that my stories play out like movies in my own head. Whenever I’m approaching a big scene, a tricky scene, I stop, close my eyes, and try to visualize what the scene would look like in a movie. I visualize everything: angles, lighting, stage directions. I even try to conjure up a soundtrack sometimes. And the results are pretty interesting.
This technique does wonders for helping me see my work clearly. Details, colors, tiny sounds—all those wonderful telling details—are instantly highlighted. Infeasible actions or stunts are replaced. Unnecessary dialogue is trimmed. Really, all I’m suggesting is an intense visualization, with a little bit of a dramatic spin. Even if only in my personal view, it inches my stories a little closer to the vibrancy of a movie screen. And if somehow we can combine the best features of these two worlds—movies and books—we should be able to come up with a product worth the price of admission, no matter your story-telling preferences.
Story by K.M. Weiland
Tags: movies , scenes , Showing , Telling , telling details
I love movies. I love books. What I don't love is reading the book after I've seen its movie. Or vice versa. Which I think evidences the fact that while movies give you immediacy, books give you an intimacy. Deciding which of the two is better isn't easy for me. It depends, I guess, on which I'm doing at the moment--reading an excellent novel, or watching an excellent movie.
Immediacy vs. intimacy: good analogy. And I agree, I don't like switching media on the same story. I inevitably like the story best in whatever media I first encountered it.
This was a great post! I feel the same way. Although I love books, I have a deeper love for movies. I usually don't have a huge problem with books made into movies or vice versa, as long as the story is true to whichever form it was first in. Though, usually, I think the book version is better just because more can be explained that is lacking in a movie.
There's something about movies, though, that makes me dream more than I think books do for me. As a long-time Star Wars & Star Trek fan, these movies and shows similar to them have had me turn my attention to the stars and beyond, helping my creativity launch toward the heavens and inspiring one of my WIPs. Although I've read some of the books associated with the shows, I doubt the books had the same impact on me as the movies and TV shows have.
Now that you mention it, movies are much more likely to jump-start my creativity than are books. I'll come out of the theater after a good movie with ideas absolutely tumbling over each other in my head. But, strangely enough, I don't often get that feeling after a book - even a really good book. Movies give me adrenaline; books give me peace.
It is well understood that we all love the printed word. The thought of that old saying,"a picture is worth a thousand words" comes to my mind. 'Tis true after all.
And there's the dilemma. The movie screen shows us the picture it would take a book a thousand words to describe - and there's magic in that picture. But there's also magic, just as potent if also different, in needing the thousand words.
I agree with you on how you said actors can bring so much to the screen in such a short amount of time where it would take pages for the author to tell what the actor told in seconds. It's something for all writers to try to emulate.
I find interesting (and occasionally frustrating) when I read a book after watching the movie on which it was based and find myself visualizing the actors' expressions and inflections.
I don't like seeing a movie after reading the book, because I already have a visual of what the character is supposed to look like. Then when the actor looks nothing like the picture in my head, I'm disappointed. Usually, the movie doesn't follow the book anyway, so that's another reason to avoid it.
Loved the book "My Sister's Keeper", (one of my top 3) but I doubt I'll see the movie. From the trailer, it doesn't look like it followed the book very well. Also loved "The Kite Runner" but didn't see the movie.
There are a few good augments for seeing the movie. I do like movies, just not if I read the book first.
Qoute: "I want my stories to play out like a movie inside the reader’s head. I want him to see the scenes progression, the characters walking around, the sweep of the landscape just as if he were watching a movie. I can’t testify to how well I’ve accomplished that..." In Outlaw, you NAILED this. :)
I'm a sucker for seeing movies based on books I've already read. I love seeing how people visualize the story and how it stacks up against how *I* envisioned it, even when it turns out completely different. And I don't really mind when movies don't follow the books, so long as they still end up producing a decent story. I have a feeling I won't like My Sister's Keeper, but I'll probably still watch it.
You should read My Sister's Keeper. A bit different—each chapter is in the POV of a different character—but very good.
I have read it, actually. :) Loved the ending.
The ending had me pounding my fist on the table screaming, "No! No! No!"
You mean the part where the little sister died?
Yes. I love surprise endings, and, despite the tragedy of it all, that one fit so perfectly.