Considerably, a movie could never possibly capture the overall essence of its novel. Although reading a story takes much longer than watching it, the details cannot be missed because a reader reads every word on a page. When watching a movie, small details do not have to be told, but can be simply showed. In a film, these minor details can be easily missed. For an invented example, I wrote a scenario;
“Jenny creeps through the mouldy corridor careful not to step on the weak floorboards creaking beneath her sneakers. A spider scuttles into the shadow cast in the corner by a garden statue at rest in front of the dusty window.”
However if this were to be a scene in a movie, it would pass by in about fifteen seconds, the director would set his own mood of how it should look and the important detail of the garden statue might possibly be missed or assumed not important, yet the novel has the ability to go into great detail about what it looks like etc. The point I am trying to reach is that a movie is similar to a short story edition of a novel. Everything seen is important to tell the story quickly, and this is why I believe it does not capture the overall spirit of a novel. There is less time for everything to develop. When reading a novel, the reader becomes the character because the story is not in front of us, but completely built up by our own imagination and happening in our heads. As we read, we create the story. We create what the setting looks like, what the characters look like and how they act. A movie puts it all in front of us not allowing us to exercise our imagination.
I particularly do not like watching the film version of a novel I have previously read. The film is just the director’s outlook on the novel. His perception of the story might differ in many ways from my own. When I watch its film version everything I had imagined is destroyed because a new image has been released and ingrained in my mind. I am always disappointed because it appears so differently on screen then I had recently imagined it. Experiencing a movie is always exciting, especially when it is based on an excellent book, but almost one hundred percent of the time I walk out with a new image not half as good as my own and a new perception of the novel that fundamentally I didn’t like as much as my original perspective.
I will give the example of Harry Potter because J.K Rowling in my mind has mastered story-telling and made a fantasy world, one in which people want to believe in. Her expertise has made her millions and her imagination is unlike any other. The movies telling her story do not justify her novels whatsoever. The movies are cartoon-like and unrealistic, yet the story displayed in her writing is genuine, pure and very believable. The Harry Potter films are entertaining, but childish. The characters and setting in the film diminished the true story created in my mind and I heavily regret ever watching them.
Now it gets tricky. Sometimes, an actor portraying a character from a book is cast simply to get an audience.
I wont lie. I only watched "Body of Lies" because Leonardo Dicaprio starred in it. I wasn't particularly interested in the theme of the movie. Leo wasn't necessarily cast in oder to gain audience, that said, an "acting talent" isn't exactly why we'd all watch a Zac Effron or Jessica Simpson movie.
If your favourite actor happens to take the role of a character from a pre-read novel, the viewer might think differently just because of their admiration of that specific actor. Otherwise, the actor is judged considerably and analyzed to see if he or she does a good job of the role.
What does this have to do with Edward Cullen? Okay, okay! I'm getting there. Thanks for your patience.
< Something for all your troubles
Take a breath. Let's continue shall we?
For you Twilight fans, has the obsession between Robert and Taylor overwhelmed the characters Edward and Jacob? Reading the novel, we all created our own Perfect Edward in our heads. The gorgeous romantic vampire we all wanted as our own. When Roert Pattison came aboard and portrayed every girls fantasy love he was critically judged. I remember the first comment I made was.
"What the hell! MY Edward was sexy! Who the hell is this guy?"
It's a funny thing though, because all of us fell in love with the written Edward Cullen, therefore we also all fell in love with the guy that potrayed him. Robert Pattison would still be "the guy that played Cedric Diggory in Harry Potter" without his role in twilight. But now he's everybody's "future husband" as the shirts say anyways. And damnit I fell for it too. After Twilight was over, Robert Pattison was my dream boyfriend. I was sooooo fanatically in love with Stephenie Meyer's written version of Edward, that Robert became the wallpaper to my laptop, regardless of my opinion before I watched Twilight. (see quote above)
Maybe it's because Robert truely perfected MY version of Edward. He thrilled me with that signature smirk, touseled golden hair and rich swagger. It interests me that somehow, although we all read the book and imagined our OWN Edward. Robert somehow lived up to everyone's expectations in one way or another.
And I can't decide. Did Robert Pattison just get it perfect? Or were we all in love with Edward, before Robert, and would have loved any actor that roled as Edward by default? So far, he is the ONLY character potrayed from a novel that hasn't disappointed me.
And afterall...yes
The lion fell in love with the lamb...
And then thousands of sheep fell in love with the lion.
But what the hell.
Who can blame us.
krystle KAY
