Comments on: Why you liked the book better

By: Milf.in.it

Milf.in.it — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:33:13 +0000

I like to read the book before watching the movie because they usually are so different. When a movie is “based on a book” it will never be exact. They usually just take the story line and come up with the rest. Im currently reading Shutter Island and just finished The Time Travelers Wife and I look forward to seeing the movie and making the comparisons between the two.

By: Wild things Watcher

Wild things Watcher — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:18:57 +0000

I can’t remember ever reading the book Where the Wild Things Are, although I feel like my teacher read it to us in third grade. For whatever reason(s), it left no impression on me. With that being said, i enjoyed the movie. Admittedly it made me feel depressed, lonely and empty for about an hour after it ended. It was not a feel-good adaptation of a children’s picture book, and I can understand why people didn’t like the feelings it gave them, especially since for many people the film was associated with a book they remember fondly. Nonetheless, any work that can evoke that level of emotion from somebody is laudable. There are few other films I can recall that left me feeling that sad, and no other film has made me feel actual alienation. So did I enjoy the movie? No. But I did think it an intriguing and unexpected adaptation, and am impressed by the level of emotion it elicited in everyone I know who saw it.

By: Miles

Miles — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:42:45 +0000

Well said.

However, maybe I’m wrong here but, this quote from you: “When it comes to adaptation, as long as the movie makes sense and doesn’t spit on the spirit of the text, I’m cool.”

Doesn’t seem fitting with your feelings on the Where the wild things are movie.

By: timmy

timmy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:07:02 +0000

I feel like I’m obliquely referenced here, so let me articulate my problems with WTWTA. Firstly, as you said, since the subject matter, at least in terms of words and pages, is so sparse, the moviegoer is extremely conscious of the fact that almost ever bit of dialogue and plot is something added by Jonze, the director, or Dave Eggers, the screenwriter. What they decided to add was depressing, sad, and life-disaffirming. None of this is to say that we should demand affirmation and escape from all of our movies, but I would bet that most people who love WTWTA the book smile when they remember it or re-read it. I can’t imagine them smiling at the movie. Our general good feeling surrounding a book about the power of imagination was co-opted to get us into a movie about, what? How much being a kid sucks? How much having to live with other people is a pain in the ass? I’m not quite sure, except that having an imagination is made to be ponderous and burdensome.

And about your views on liking the book better, I dunno. I’ve done my best to be conscious of the fact that books and movies are just different media trying to accomplish different things. Which do you like better, rainbows or jelly beans? Then again, I’m terribly uncritical when it comes to movies. I think that has to do with commitment. To consume a full narrative in a movie, you’re giving up two hours of your life. To consume a full narrative in a book, you’re giving up far more. When it comes to adaptation, as long as the movie makes sense and doesn’t spit on the spirit of the text, I’m cool.

And finally, w/r/t to your final quote, here’s David Foster Wallace on the reader: It’s interesting that most serious art, even avant-garde stuff that’s in collusion with literary theory, still refuses to acknowledge this, while serious science butters its bread with the fact that the separation of subject/observer and object/experiment is impossible. Observing a quantum phenomenon’s been proven to alter the phenomenon. Fiction likes to ignore this fact’s implications. We still think in terms of a story “changing” the reader’s emotions, cerebrations, maybe even her life. We’re not keen on the idea of the story sharing its valence with the reader. But the reader’s own life “outside” the story changes the story. You could argue that it affects only “her reaction to the story” or “her take on the story.” But these things “are” the story.