If a film adaptation is released of a book I enjoyed, I will generally try to watch it. But it is always a risky endeavour.
The movie may encapsulate the spirit of the book beautifully: the setting may inspire you; the characters may be the perfect fit and have wonderful chemistry; the interpretation of the story may be, in your view, just right. But there is also the danger that the film will fall short.
When I read a book, in my mind pictures form of the places and the people, and I become quite attached to these. If I watch a film and find the director’s vision of the story differs wildly from my own, that can be really rather unsettling. Worst still is when the script writers hack away at the story in the book, removing elements that I found to be essential to the development of the plot and adding in extra bits (which always feels somewhat sacrilegious to me).
In many ways, the cinematic experience would be less fraught if I were to watch the film before reading the book – then the book adds in new dimensions, rather than the film stripping or twisting the narrative. But for me, this never quite fits. When I read a book, I want to be immersed in the story world, and part of the pleasure of the act is that I can use my own imagination to picture a scene. If I have already seen the scene on the big screen, then I struggle to displace that image with one of my own making.
For example, before the films were released, I wonder what pictures were in your head when you read Twilight or Harry Potter. Whatever they were, I am sure the might of Hollywood branding has washed away those images and replaced them with film sets and locations and the actors now associated with the key roles.
What do you think? Do you also prefer to read a book before watching the film? Have you ever been frustrated by an adaptation – or, conversely, pleasantly surprised? Have you discovered books that you love through having watched them at the cinema? Which comes first in an ideal world: book or film? I would love to hear your thoughts.