Comparing Art Forms

When there is a beloved series of books, such as the most popular Harry Potter, there is much pressure on the movie producers to make it good. People critique the movies because they have left something out that was originally in the book version. There is a blog specifically about the movie comparison to the book of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Pt.1 written by Emily Ann Ward (a young novelist). She argues that there is no comparison. She says the movie can’t fit everything so it seems “half-assed.” I think if the movie were to put everything that the book includes in the movie, we would die in the theater.  I believe many people think the book to movie comparison in general favors books because the power of the imagination is so much greater than anything we ever see in a movie. Personal interpretation and detail the author and the reader bring to the books cannot be substituted by a movie. Movies, as novels, are used for entertainment. Movies tell us how we should think of the story. There is no imagination involved. I am not bashing people who don’t read the books, in some ways they are better off. But are people being too hard on these movie makers?

There is also a lot left out of the movies because we don’t necessarily see how the book was written. We can’t see the author’s word choice, or intuitive metaphors. I believe this leaves out a large role we don’t necessarily think about when reading.  However is this giving books the unfair advantage? The relationship between author and reader is lost in movies between actors and directors. However, movies in their own art form depend on their actors and directors to create the end product. I think comparing literary art to motion picture art is much like comparing visual art to performing arts. They can both be interpreted differently, and look very different but are two completely different forms. Although there is usually a similar plot line between book and movie, it is left to the interpretation of the directors or the movie company to decide what their product looks like. Should movies really be judged based on their books? Are we really giving them a fair chance? If a piece of music based off of a sculpture or a painting had the same title, would we judge it the same way?

I personally don’t think we would see it the same. The similarity between book and movie tell a story similarly. However, one is in our imagination and one is played by actors in a movie. These actors and directors are interpreting the book in one way. I think that the Harry Potter movies are so compelling because they are based off of books. If someone didn’t know the movies were based off of books, the Lord of the Rings series for example (many people didn't know they were books), would they be more willing to accept the movie?