A fight that all began by driving past a "Lake of Shining Waters"
Colin and I don't fight all that much. At all, really. We argue occasionally and disagree about some things, but neither of us are fighters. We don't name-call, throw accusations, or have big tempers, and we're really good at talking it out, being respectful, and not walking away from an argument before it's resolved.
But even when it comes to arguing and disagreeing, it's pretty rare that it's about the big, important things. We're pretty much on the same page when it comes to major life decisions, finances, ideas about marriage and family, faith, and all those big-picture things, but every once in a while, we get into the most ridiculous arguments about the most random things. We're both stubborn enough that we'll stick to a position and not budge, but it's definitely fun to make the other one try. And really, those kinds of "arguments" are the best kind. A lot of the time, they actually end up being kind of fun, and if nothing else, it's good practice in debating and being persuasive.
Last month, we were driving down to High River for Thanksgiving dinner, and Anne of Green Gables came up in conversation as we drove by a "lake of shining waters." Colin made a comment about not having seen the movies or read the books in quite a while; I commented that I hadn't read the books in a while, but while I think that Megan Follows is the one and only Anne, I'm not a big fan of the movies, particularly The Continuing Story. That movie bothers me on so many levels, mainly because the books are set 30 years earlier, and the film plays with the timeline in a way that's unacceptable to me. World War 1 was the war that affected Anne's children. Rilla of Ingleside is the book set during that time period, and the main character is Anne and Gilbert's youngest daughter. The orphaned baby was taken in by Rilla, and it was Anne's sons who fought, not Gilbert.
Anyway, I made all these points about the books, and the thesis of my argument was the fact that it's impossible for a viewer of a movie (based on a book) to fully appreciate the movie without having read the book.
And then the argument started. :)
For the next hour, Colin stood by his point that the viewer can have a complete, full entertainment experience by only watching the movie. I stood by my statement that a reader can have a full experience of the author's original intent by reading the book but not watching the movie, but not vice versa.
The funny thing is, I don't think we entirely disagreed with each other. I think that a movie-watcher can have a complete entertainment experience with the movie alone; I just don't think that it's possible to experience the fullest world of the story the way the author intended. Watching the Anne movies may be an entertainment experience in and of itself, but it's not the story experience that L.M. Montgomery intended. In this case, it's not even the same story, but even if it was, I still say that the story and experience is incomplete.
I used the example of the Harry Potter books, too. Aaron refuses to read the books, and I stand by my claim that he's robbing himself of J.K. Rowling's full story. The movies are an adaptation of a written story, and without reading the story, the visual story is incomplete. She may have put her stamp of approval on the screenplays, but by the very nature of an adaptation, there are things that had to be cut and sacrificed; therefore, the representation of the world she created is not complete, no matter how accurate the pieces may be.
Colin held to the position that it's possible to fully enjoy a movie based on the book without having read the book. He stood by the fact that he separates the book and the movie; for instance, in the case of Anne of Green Gables, he's fully aware that the movie is not the story of the book, but he looks at them as two separate pieces of entertainment that are only partially related to each other.
Because film and literature are two distinctly different art forms, they can't be judged the same way. A story told on film and the same story told on paper are two different artistic experiences--the story on film fleshes out the visual narrative in a way that the story on paper is unable to. In that way, he argued, it could even be said that the film completes the story of the book in a way that makes the reading of the book an incomplete rendering of the artist's original vision.
He also used the Harry Potter example to differentiate between casual and obsessed fans. He claims that someone could be an obsessed fan of the movies without ever having read the books; I claim that someone who is truly a fan of the Harry Potter world would never claim to be so without having read the books. A person (like Aaron) can be a fan of the movies, independent of the books, but I would argue that he can't claim to be a fan of HarryPotterTheGlobalPhenomenon while steadfastly refusing to partake in the original manifestation of the characters and plotlines.
Colin said that's discriminatory towards people who don't enjoy reading; I say so be it. Being a "fan" in the most obsessed sense of the word (and I'm not talking about being a casual fan/appreciator of the work) includes being familiar with all its facets. I enjoyed Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but I'm fully aware that my knowledge of the source material is spotty at best, and because of that, I couldn't consider myself a "true" fan, no matter how much I enjoyed the movies.
Now, a few caveats: I'm not saying that books are necessarily a superior form of entertainment to movies. Movies, both originals and adaptations, are an art form in and of themselves. I would never say that film is a lesser art form than literature or theatre. Each one is a different storytelling medium, and I'm not making a judgment of value on their relative worth.
I'm also not saying that an adaptation can't be entertaining without having read the book. There are many, many movies that I've watched without having read the books, and I can appreciate the filmmaking and acting and story, but I'm also fully aware that I'm not getting the full experience. I can enjoy it for what it is, but I know that "what it is" is less than 100% of the author's intention.
And just to top it off? My proudest moment in that whole argument was the fact that Colin got so frustrated that he actually growled at me. Ha! In the middle of a sentence, he actually growled in his throat, and it cracked me up so much that I had to pause the discussion and laugh really hard before I could resume.
So, friends, what do you think? What is the relationship between a book and its film adaptation? Is it possible to enjoy one without a working knowledge of the other?
But even when it comes to arguing and disagreeing, it's pretty rare that it's about the big, important things. We're pretty much on the same page when it comes to major life decisions, finances, ideas about marriage and family, faith, and all those big-picture things, but every once in a while, we get into the most ridiculous arguments about the most random things. We're both stubborn enough that we'll stick to a position and not budge, but it's definitely fun to make the other one try. And really, those kinds of "arguments" are the best kind. A lot of the time, they actually end up being kind of fun, and if nothing else, it's good practice in debating and being persuasive.
Last month, we were driving down to High River for Thanksgiving dinner, and Anne of Green Gables came up in conversation as we drove by a "lake of shining waters." Colin made a comment about not having seen the movies or read the books in quite a while; I commented that I hadn't read the books in a while, but while I think that Megan Follows is the one and only Anne, I'm not a big fan of the movies, particularly The Continuing Story. That movie bothers me on so many levels, mainly because the books are set 30 years earlier, and the film plays with the timeline in a way that's unacceptable to me. World War 1 was the war that affected Anne's children. Rilla of Ingleside is the book set during that time period, and the main character is Anne and Gilbert's youngest daughter. The orphaned baby was taken in by Rilla, and it was Anne's sons who fought, not Gilbert.
Anyway, I made all these points about the books, and the thesis of my argument was the fact that it's impossible for a viewer of a movie (based on a book) to fully appreciate the movie without having read the book.
And then the argument started. :)
For the next hour, Colin stood by his point that the viewer can have a complete, full entertainment experience by only watching the movie. I stood by my statement that a reader can have a full experience of the author's original intent by reading the book but not watching the movie, but not vice versa.
The funny thing is, I don't think we entirely disagreed with each other. I think that a movie-watcher can have a complete entertainment experience with the movie alone; I just don't think that it's possible to experience the fullest world of the story the way the author intended. Watching the Anne movies may be an entertainment experience in and of itself, but it's not the story experience that L.M. Montgomery intended. In this case, it's not even the same story, but even if it was, I still say that the story and experience is incomplete.
I used the example of the Harry Potter books, too. Aaron refuses to read the books, and I stand by my claim that he's robbing himself of J.K. Rowling's full story. The movies are an adaptation of a written story, and without reading the story, the visual story is incomplete. She may have put her stamp of approval on the screenplays, but by the very nature of an adaptation, there are things that had to be cut and sacrificed; therefore, the representation of the world she created is not complete, no matter how accurate the pieces may be.
Colin held to the position that it's possible to fully enjoy a movie based on the book without having read the book. He stood by the fact that he separates the book and the movie; for instance, in the case of Anne of Green Gables, he's fully aware that the movie is not the story of the book, but he looks at them as two separate pieces of entertainment that are only partially related to each other.
Because film and literature are two distinctly different art forms, they can't be judged the same way. A story told on film and the same story told on paper are two different artistic experiences--the story on film fleshes out the visual narrative in a way that the story on paper is unable to. In that way, he argued, it could even be said that the film completes the story of the book in a way that makes the reading of the book an incomplete rendering of the artist's original vision.
He also used the Harry Potter example to differentiate between casual and obsessed fans. He claims that someone could be an obsessed fan of the movies without ever having read the books; I claim that someone who is truly a fan of the Harry Potter world would never claim to be so without having read the books. A person (like Aaron) can be a fan of the movies, independent of the books, but I would argue that he can't claim to be a fan of HarryPotterTheGlobalPhenomenon while steadfastly refusing to partake in the original manifestation of the characters and plotlines.
Colin said that's discriminatory towards people who don't enjoy reading; I say so be it. Being a "fan" in the most obsessed sense of the word (and I'm not talking about being a casual fan/appreciator of the work) includes being familiar with all its facets. I enjoyed Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but I'm fully aware that my knowledge of the source material is spotty at best, and because of that, I couldn't consider myself a "true" fan, no matter how much I enjoyed the movies.
Now, a few caveats: I'm not saying that books are necessarily a superior form of entertainment to movies. Movies, both originals and adaptations, are an art form in and of themselves. I would never say that film is a lesser art form than literature or theatre. Each one is a different storytelling medium, and I'm not making a judgment of value on their relative worth.
I'm also not saying that an adaptation can't be entertaining without having read the book. There are many, many movies that I've watched without having read the books, and I can appreciate the filmmaking and acting and story, but I'm also fully aware that I'm not getting the full experience. I can enjoy it for what it is, but I know that "what it is" is less than 100% of the author's intention.
And just to top it off? My proudest moment in that whole argument was the fact that Colin got so frustrated that he actually growled at me. Ha! In the middle of a sentence, he actually growled in his throat, and it cracked me up so much that I had to pause the discussion and laugh really hard before I could resume.
So, friends, what do you think? What is the relationship between a book and its film adaptation? Is it possible to enjoy one without a working knowledge of the other?