erin!balser

Tonight, I will be pajama-clad early, snacks on hand, watching starlets sashaying up the red carpet, and wondering who will win the coveted Oscar statuette. It’s the most exciting night in the film industry and one of the most watched telecasts in the world.

I’ll be paying paticular attention to the select Canadians nominated: Jason Reitman for Best Director, Ellen Page for Best Actress and Sarah Polley for Best Adapted Screenplay.

Which brings me to the subject of note: film adaptations of books. As I was browsing the blogs of my friends, Patricia had this to say about the movie The Kite Runner:

In spite of all it’s good qualities, the book was still way better than the movie. I’m a print snob, shoot me.

Being from a pseudo-academic, pseudo-publishing background, I hear this all the time. It’s not always meant to be pretentious, but it always bothers me. A book is not a film and a film is not a book. A film is a single artist’s interpretation of a particular story through a different medium.

The screen is inherently different from the page. Literature is not bound by the visual elements of film beyond words on a page. Literature is not bound by a two-hour time frame. Literature allows you to move through the story at your own spatial and temporal pace, whereas films do not.

Yes, some films are better adapted at others. Some adaptations leave out crucial plot-points or misinterpret characters. But at the core, a film adaptation is not like a cover song. It’s a creative interpretation, the transition of a story from one medium to the other, which may or may not correspond to how you interpreted the book.

Image by melodrama.ca. Licensed through Creative Commons.