Every year there are more and more movies with “based on the
Novel by [in this case] Suzanne Collins” as an end credit. But, how many times
after the movie has finished have you turned to your friends and said, “that is
not what happened in the book—this movie sucked” and, maybe your friend never
read the book, and they said “what are you talking about the movie was great”?
 |
| loavesofbread.livejournal.com |
This summer I watched The Hunger Games on the big screen. I had not yet read the book when I went to see the movie, and I thought it was good. I thought that the movie was a good portrayal of the book because I had understood the plot, and the characters, but I was curious to see what more the book had to offer, so I read it. I really enjoyed reading the book and when I finished it I still really liked the movie and felt it was a well played out movie. But, the truth is, like a lot of books that are turned into films, a lot of scenes were cut as well as characters. Then I understood something: books and movies are two different types of art. Books show you the story through words and you imagine it (I personally think of books as movies that play in my head), and movies show you the story through images. Since I consider both two different types of art, I should also consider this when I watch a movie that is based on a book. Books have many pages to tell you a story. The Hunger Games has 374 pages to tell you the story; the movie only has 142 minutes. Although 142 minutes is a lot of time, scenes must be chosen wisely to portray the basic ideas of the book.
Many times, especially if you are a huge fan of the book
turned into a movie, you might think they missed your favorite scene. A blog
post I found gives a good response to this idea: “of course the movie will miss
your favorite scene. The whole book is your favorite scene” (Bri-lia-nce [by Lehrer]).
In The Hunger Games this happened a
lot. Some scenes and characters were cut and scenes were switched around in
order portray the story with images. A perfect example of this is the movie’s first
scene, in which Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) is talking to Seneca Crane
(Wes Bentley) about the games. In the book, the first scene is Katniss Everdeen
looking at her little sister before she leaves her house to go hunting. If you
think about it, how would an audience that hasn’t read the book understand that
there is a girl leaving her house to go hunt? In the Hunger Games book we also
get the thoughts of the main character Katniss but in the movie we do not. This
tells the reader exactly what is happening while in the movie the audience is
left to make their own interpretation of certain situations. One such situation
is, we never see what was it that Katniss thought about Gale and Peeta we just
assume what she might be thinking. However, in the book we get Katniss’s clear
thoughts on the feelings and thoughts that she has towards Gale and Peeta. Which
were that she loved Gale and with Peeta she had to give the Capital a show.
In movies, and
sometimes books, the drama has to start the second it begins because, if you
start passively, people will not watch the film (meaning they won’t pay to
watch it at the theater or buy it on DVD). Sometimes some of the characters
mentioned in books are cut out and not even mentioned, but I think the
screenplay writers do that because they are already paying actors a lot of
money, and if you add more it is more expensive. One character that plays a big
role in The Hunger Games book is
Madge. In the book Madge is the one that gives Katniss the mockinjay pin, which
if you have read the other books you know becomes an important symbol, and the
reason why she gives it to her is to have as a token of district twelve.
However, in the movie, Katniss picks up the pin from a box and asks an old woman
how much it is. The woman, with a sad a look on her face, says to keep it, and Katniss
gives it to her sister Prim who, after the reaping, gives it back to Katniss
“for luck.” I understand how upsetting it is to see one of your favorite scenes
in the book not being shown on the big screen, but the reality is the screenplay
writers and directors might have thought another scene was more entertaining to
the audience.
If there is ever a movie that is word by word exactly the
same as the book it was based on, that film will probably be really long and it
wouldn’t attract as much of an audience as a film that highlights the big
important moments and shows you the story through those. Books and movies are
two separate arts that can complement each other because a detail the movie
didn’t show the book did and vice versa. Movies turn books into real images
that we can picture clearly in our heads. Sometimes it can seem as a good thing
but other times it might destroy the image of a character or place that you had
in your head. Just try not to judge movies that were first books too harshly or
else you won’t enjoy it as much. Think of a movie as only a movie and a book as
only a book and you will see how you can enjoy both of them and not get as mad
when the screenplay writers and directors have moved or cut a lot of things. No
matter what you do first either read the book or watch the movie or end up
doing only just one enjoy it because they can never be the same.
Source: (Bri-lia-nce [by Lehrer])
By Gilma Velasquez
