The Characterization of Movies and Books

There have been many comparisons, including our own blog posts, of movies and how they compare and contrast to books. Often, when a movie adaptation of a book is released, die-hard book fans are sorely disappointed. Why is this? Well, as Lilly: The Critic discussed in an earlier blog post, two- hour movies simply can’t fit in all of the details that a 200+ page book contains.

But more than that, most movies (depending on the narration) can’t “see inside” the character’s head like in movies. I think this is where the biggest divide between movies and books comes in. You aren’t able to see the thoughts of a character (or multiple characters, as is the case in some novels) – and this negatively affects the characterization that is used to develop the characters. In a book, you can “see” the actions that are happening through the author’s descriptions-- but you can also see the thoughts, the behind-the-scene action. In a movie, much of this detail is lost. Yes, you can perfectly visualize the actions because they’re played right in front of you on a screen. But when you lose the character’s thoughts and the extra details that an author often includes (but a director doesn't), you lose an important component of characterization.

                     

Let me preface this next part by saying that I understand that not everyone loves Pride and Prejudice like I do. And it’s okay! I understand. (Okay, I really don’t. How could you not love this gorgeous, beautifully-written work of art? But that’s beside the point.) I absolutely love both the original book and the movie adaptation of this classic, but I have to say, I never fully appreciated the movie version until after reading the novel. When I read the book, I realized just how wonderful the characters in her novel all were. Through both indirect and direct characterization, Austen crafts round, dynamic characters. Lizzie, the protagonist in the novel, is one of my favorite literary characters of all time. While I do love the movie as well, it does pale in some aspects in comparison to the novel, and a couple of years ago, I finally figured out why. Through just watching the movie, I never felt as close to the characters; I never felt like I understood them like I did in the novel. Through her character’s thoughts and extra, seemingly small details, Austen was able to characterize her memorable female protagonists better than any movie ever could. So while I do love movies, sometimes- especially when characterization is considered- there’s just no replacement for a book.

                                                      

Wuthering Heights: More than a just another tragic love story

 
Wuthering Heights is seen even today as one of the classic, tragic love stories of all time. With movies such as Titanic, The Notebook, and other contemporary "greats" in the romantic genera (I personally despise most of them) owing their origins or plot lines to this novel, one would assume that the main attraction is the relationships between the romantically involved characters. The love triangle of Heathcliff, Catherine, and Edgar is indeed responsible for the book's success, but on a much deeper level than a doomed and flawed relationship (otherwise Twilight would be considered critically genius). Wuthering Heights, and by extension Bronte, makes a statement about social class, as seen by Catherine's choice to marry Edgar over Heathcliff.

When Catherine is debating whether to commit to Linton or Heathcliff, she surmises that "if Heathcliff and I married, we should be beggars? whereas if I marry Linton, I can aid Heathcliff to rise and place him out of my brother's power," (p. 99). Catherine chooses to marry the rich man, placating her conscious by claiming it is to help Heathcliff; however, Bronte is really stating the struggles of changing social class and the importance of education in social standing. When Heathcliff is denied an education, Hindley is delegating him to the life of a slave, forced to live beneath his would be peers. Bronte stresses the importance of education in social class before it was really an issue in contemporary society, now seen in financial aid by colleges and a cumulative belief in equal opportunity. One of the greatest movies of all time is Good Will Hunting, a story in which Will Hunting (Matt Damon) is an unmotivated janitor at MIT who is a math genius. This movie also explores the role of education in social class. Without spoilers, Will (begrudgingly) attempts to gain an education in order to make something out of his life and maximize his potential. This is contrasted by Ben Affleck's character, who is destined for a life of construction and other menial labor. Both Wuthering Heights and Good Will Hunting explore the social implications surrounding education, but the film captures the emotional tole that is created on the lower class more clearly, in part due to its less antiquated grammar, but also due to the emotional connection formed between Damon, Affleck, and the audience. I don't know if I am cold-hearted or just intolerant of drama, but I find it impossible to empathize or relate to almost all characters in Wuthering Heights, outside of Nelly and the dogs. Good Will Hunting is yet another example of movies capitalizing on its genera specifics to impact its audience, forcing them to encounter these uncomfortable issues in a way that is enjoyable. My question to you is "How big of a role does education play in social class and which art form captures it better?" I will almost always plead film if it is well done, but Wuthering Heights has stuck around for a reason, and I would like to think it isn't due to dreadful Catherine.

The Death of Books

Lilly Xie

Next week we’re watching Jane Eyre, and I couldn’t be more excited.

First off, I love the Brontë sisters. They were such talented young ladies who devoted their lives to writing beautiful poetry and novels. Charlotte, Emily, and Anne are basically the sisters that I wish I had. Just in case you were wondering, Charlotte wrote Jane Eyre and Emily wrote Wuthering Heights (the novel we are going to read in class). By the way, if you’re ever near the Lexington Green, there’s this awesome place inside of Joseph-Beth called Brontë Bistro, if any of you want to check it out.

But even more than that, I’m excited because we get to watch a movie. I absolutely love watching movies, especially movie adaptations of books that I’ve read. I read Jane Eyre a couple of years ago, and I’ve seen both the 1996 film adaptation and the recent 2011 film adaptation. I loved them all: the book, the movie, and the new movie. Some people hate it when books are made into movies, but I beg to differ. People say the movies ruin the books, but I just think that it’s unfair to compare the book to the movie, because they’re just such difference experiences.

If you want to get really deep into a story and if you have a lot of time to kill, then you should probably read a book. But if you don’t have a lot of time, you can watch a movie. I think both the author of a literary book and the director of a literary movie have some merit. While the authors of books need to make important decisions with characters, mood, tone, diction and syntax, directors of movies need to make those same decisions and more, because they need to take into account actors to play the characters, background music to set the mood, camera angles to best express the scene, and many other cinematic details.

A lot of people complain that movies take away many of the small details that make books great. But think about it, how hard would it be to incorporate every tiny detail into a 2 hour time frame? It’s almost impossible. That’s why directors must make important decisions on what makes it into the movie and what doesn’t. It’s tough to make a movie, just as tough if not tougher than writing a book. And although reading a book is harder than watching a movie, does that really mean you get more out of the book than the movie? A literary movie can make you think, feel, and connect to the world just as well as a literary book can, just in a smaller amount of time. Movies are just a lot more efficient than books are.

In our world today, technology is everywhere. We take up a lot of information so quickly, and it’s almost impossible to get by without multitasking. We already know that paper books are going to become extinct with the advent of eBooks, but is that where the changes will stop? What if books just disappeared completely? People nowadays get bored very easily, and need a lot of action and movement and images to keep their attention. Movies seem more suited for this generation than books do. My question for you is, in this fast paced, ever changing society, will reading books eventually become outdated?