Ask Movie Irv: Do You Read the Book Before Seeing the Movie?

12.16.11 | George D. Allen and Irv Slifkin | Movie Buzz, Movie Buzz PodcastPrint this Post

Last year, I received The Invention of Hugo Cabret as a Christmas gift. This year, Martin Scorsese's film of it, Hugo (Gee, was the original title too "intellectual"?), is getting tons of high praise. I didn't get around to reading the book before the movie hit the screen; now I face a tough choice.

Am I going to experience novelist Brian Selznick's original vision via the Caldecott-winning book before seeing Marty's new picture? (It shouldn't take long. Lots of big pictures) Or, being a devoted Scorsese fan, will I want to see what the revered filmmaker hath wrought first? At the moment, I'm stuck for a decision. Think I'll Ask Movie Irv:

Have different opinions about the whole book-before-movie, book-versus-movie, movie-better-than-book thing? While you're thinking up mind-tickling new questions to Ask Movie Irv (he's already given you his insights about shopping for movie collectors), ante up with some reactions below.

UPDATED: Since the preparation of this post, I (George, not Irv): read the book The Invention of Hugo Cabret; then saw the movie Hugo. Still not sure if that was the "right" choice or not (If you know the story going into the film, you will already be well aware of the movie's big revelation)...but that was the one I made. Yours?

 
Click Here to get MovieFanFare delivered to your inbox!

Share It!

Add to BuzzAdd to DelciousAdd to DiggAdd to FacebookAdd to GoogleAdd to RedditAdd to SquidooAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to TwitterAdd to Yahoo!

Leave a Reply

  • Movie Fan

    I always read the book first. Movies have time limits so a lot of important details either get changed or are completely left out. Sometimes the only similarity between the book and the movie is the title. The way I see it, if the book stinks, why bother seeing the movie? Even if I know the ending, it's interesting to see it portrayed on film.

  • tlynette

    Well, speaking as a librarian: read the book first! :-D One book that makes me a diehard proponent of this stance is PC Wren's "Beau Geste." The book was exciting, loaded with great character quirks and, best of all, the Narrator: the guy relating the edge-of-your-seat adventure to his listener with a great storyteller's skill. You don't get much of any of that in the film. As much as like Gary Cooper, Robert Preston, Ray Milland and Brian Donlevy, they didn't really bring the characters to life as well as they could have. While a classic film, it was a letdown, compared to the book. Sometimes you find yourself picturing a particular actor in the role of a character in a good book: sometimes it works, other times, not very well. Robert Ludlum's books are so good, so complex with so much stuff going on, they don't always transfer well to the screen. Best bet: read the book, THEN see the movie.

  • http://www.moviesunlimited.com George D. Allen

    tlynette, your mention of the narrator of "Beau Geste" brings to mind a really interesting comparison between book and movie -- that of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Those who've read the Kesey book know that the entire story is told through the fascinating-if-distorted POV of the selectively mute Chief Bromden, whereas the film places us utterly outside his awareness and makes an incredible "other" dramatic use of this inaccessibility. Here's a situation, for me at least, where a more "faithful" rendering of the book may not have served as well.

    (The stage play does much more to replicate the device of the Chief's narration--to a lesser overall effect, I think, though the play is still lots of fun).

  • Pingback: Ask Movie Irv: Have You Ever Walked Out on a Movie? | MovieFanFare

Read More Posts From…

Movie Buzz

Posts by George D. Allen