Monday, September 29, 2008

A Rant

I am so sick of people trying to argue that the book is always better than the movie. Sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the book sucks, and the movie manages to extract the good parts, add interest, make the characters more believable, use a freaking awesome soundtrack, and just generally improve a hopelessly sub-par book.

And sometimes the movie does suck - it smacks the characters with terrible dialogue until they become 2-d, paper-thin with generically attractive faces; or it turns the story into an incoherent mess of garbled words and unclear motivations. But sometimes the book was garbled and vague to begin with - sometimes the movie is just being faithful to the story, the characters, the dialogue; sometimes the movie's suckitude is just mirroring the book's, and I don't understand why people are so surprised.

And can we please get over this bullshit notion that film is somehow an inferior medium? Because it isn't. Don't blame Micheal Bay on the art form he's chosen to eviscerate. Micheal Bay is a terrible director with a barely rudimentary understanding of dialogue, and that's all he is. He doesn't stand for anything but his own gaping plot holes, yeah?

Oh, and also? I don't get Hugh Grant. I thinks he's a competent actor, but far from exceptional, and I find him incredibly unattractive. While some people have posited that I only hate Hugh Grant because "he never called me in the morning," I call BS. Hugh Grant is icky, and his accent makes him sound so snobbish I've often wondered if it's fake - maybe he's just a pampered kid from Jersey who went to Syracuse and smokes clove cigarettes, who listens obsessively to the New Pornographers, not because their music is catchy but because it's oh-my-god-indie.

In fact, I was talking to someone the other day who claimed to do a fantastically fake British accent, and when I finally convinced him to prove it, I immediately said, wow, dude. You sound like Hugh Grant. Because he did. Hugh Grant is a walking satire, and his apparent ignorance of the fact is something I find highly amusing.

Plus he cheated on Elizabeth Hurley with a prostitute. I don't care one way or another about Elizabeth Hurley - I'm not even sure what she does, exactly, which probably means she's a model - but damn. That's low.

So, in sum: people should stop constantly whining about movie adaptations ruining the books they are based on, Micheal Bay is a talentless asshat, Hugh Grant is an oblivious walking satire whose appeal I will never understand, it must really suck to have your husband cheat on you with a prostitute, and I could use a good night's sleep.

Yeppers.

6 comments:

Josh Gray said...

I don't know...name 2 movie adaptations, for which I've seen and read each version, that are better than their respective books? And if you can't name 2 that I've read/seen, just name 2 and I'll get back to you.

Not to be contrary, but to have dialog, I'll submit that for many it may also depend on which version they experienced first. I think the issue for many (myself included) is the depth and detail offered by a book is so often more than offered by the movie. I've even read novelizations of movies, and enjoyed the books better. So you can't even say it's because the movie came second and is therefor inferior.

HOWEVER, to your point: They are NOT the same. To be honest to each, you really must ignore the other in most cases. It would be like comparing a poetic or prose description of a scene and a painting of that same scene. . .how can you? Books and movies also offer different entertainment value. 2 hours of fun and games (or pick your genre) versus many hours of solitude and entertainment at your own pace.

I don't like complainers either... ;)

Josh

Youthful Curmudgeon said...

Points taken. That said:

I agree that books and movies are not the same - that's actually the point I was sleepily attempting to stumble toward. Neither one is inferior to the other, just different, so automatically dismissing the film version of a book is, I think, unfair. It's one thing to have a preference for one or the other; refusing to accept that your preferred medium can occasionally be outdone by the other is something else entirely. Film and literature have different things to offer to a story, and I think that sometimes film can do more.

For example, I thought the film version of Girl, Interrupted was significantly better than the book. I know there are others, but my brain is kind of dead right now, so I will have to revive it and then get back to you.

Anonymous said...

I think Brokeback Mountain in the film form is far better than the book--the book/novella is simply too thin and contrived.

Youthful Curmudgeon said...

Ooh, good one. That book annoyed the crap out of me, I think mostly because it was so short, yet it spanned such a long period of time.

Josh Gray said...

See! Now I have 2 books/movies to watch/read. (I've seen Girl, Interrupted, but it's been awhile.) Thanks!!
Josh

Ranting Pacifist said...

I would also like to point out that you actually linked to my blog, you senseless wench, and that Fight Club is better than the book - the book is papered pretentiousness-black-beret-wearing-and-therefore-an-artist-level dung.