Dinosaurs, telekinetic teens and horned youths
A couple of decades and four sequels late, I finally watched Jurassic Park the other day. I don't know why it took me quite that long but it did. Aside from being a bit dated, and screaming 'Spielberg directed this' from the first sequence (not in itself a bad thing), it was a good movie. I can imagine seeing it in the cinema in its day would have provoked the desired shrieks and gasps. I played the Lego game of the first four movies last year, so a few spoilers, but with some obvious gaps in my understanding.
What I found myself thinking about after watching it was the characters and how they might have been in the novel. One of the few things I know about Michael Crichton as a writer is that several of his books have ended up as movies, which he also writes the screenplays for. For some reason I cannot explain, that put me off reading anything he wrote. Some irrational bias I had I guess, tall poppy maybe. But from the movie I sensed a lot of depth to the characters which could only be achieved to a degree on the screen, which means in the book these scientists and moguls are much more detailed. I found myself wondering if the abortive love triangle is somewhat more considered, if ultimately as unsuccessful on the third spoke's part.
This led me on a dinosaur train (not the Henson Company variety), to Stephen King. Growing up a somewhat squeamish child of the 1980s the name Stephen King meant movies I didn't want to watch even if most of my friends kept telling me they weren't scary. As such, I had another of my irrational biases not to read anything he wrote. When I got married I found that my wife had a King section in her library, so during a test match I decided I should finally read one of his books. Carrie was thin so I went with that.
There is no way I will watch a movie of that book, I've seen pictures and know the idea, I wouldn't enjoy it. Nor do I feel it would do justice to what was an amazing book. I had heard that the schlock movies of his work were poor reflections of his skill, now I know it. Carrie is a harrowing tale, which manages to create tension and character in an economical way. I could empathise with Carrie, even when she was lost in her own destruction and rage.
A final stop on the train is Horns. I saw the movie starring Daniel Radcliffe a few years ago, and I highly recommend it for its dark humour and subtle humanity. It too is based on a novel, this one by Joe Hill. After watching the movie I decided the novel is probably very good, I predict Hill is witty, with good sense of character and mood. I guess in this case a good movie has recommended a writer to me, instead of bad movies turning me off one. My own maturity levels probably have something to do with it too.
Does this mean the book is better than the movie? No. They're distinct works, whether one is 'based' on the other or not. Saying the book is better is as good as saying apples are better than carrots. You may prefer one, but you can't judge them in the same way, they're completely different. That's why I can enjoy Wells' The Time Machine and still enjoy the 2001 film with Guy Pearce. It's its own work, an adaptation, not a translation. Try to remember that when watching different versions of things, they're different stories even if they're directly based on each other.
Keep dreaming!
What I found myself thinking about after watching it was the characters and how they might have been in the novel. One of the few things I know about Michael Crichton as a writer is that several of his books have ended up as movies, which he also writes the screenplays for. For some reason I cannot explain, that put me off reading anything he wrote. Some irrational bias I had I guess, tall poppy maybe. But from the movie I sensed a lot of depth to the characters which could only be achieved to a degree on the screen, which means in the book these scientists and moguls are much more detailed. I found myself wondering if the abortive love triangle is somewhat more considered, if ultimately as unsuccessful on the third spoke's part.
This led me on a dinosaur train (not the Henson Company variety), to Stephen King. Growing up a somewhat squeamish child of the 1980s the name Stephen King meant movies I didn't want to watch even if most of my friends kept telling me they weren't scary. As such, I had another of my irrational biases not to read anything he wrote. When I got married I found that my wife had a King section in her library, so during a test match I decided I should finally read one of his books. Carrie was thin so I went with that.
There is no way I will watch a movie of that book, I've seen pictures and know the idea, I wouldn't enjoy it. Nor do I feel it would do justice to what was an amazing book. I had heard that the schlock movies of his work were poor reflections of his skill, now I know it. Carrie is a harrowing tale, which manages to create tension and character in an economical way. I could empathise with Carrie, even when she was lost in her own destruction and rage.
A final stop on the train is Horns. I saw the movie starring Daniel Radcliffe a few years ago, and I highly recommend it for its dark humour and subtle humanity. It too is based on a novel, this one by Joe Hill. After watching the movie I decided the novel is probably very good, I predict Hill is witty, with good sense of character and mood. I guess in this case a good movie has recommended a writer to me, instead of bad movies turning me off one. My own maturity levels probably have something to do with it too.
Does this mean the book is better than the movie? No. They're distinct works, whether one is 'based' on the other or not. Saying the book is better is as good as saying apples are better than carrots. You may prefer one, but you can't judge them in the same way, they're completely different. That's why I can enjoy Wells' The Time Machine and still enjoy the 2001 film with Guy Pearce. It's its own work, an adaptation, not a translation. Try to remember that when watching different versions of things, they're different stories even if they're directly based on each other.
Keep dreaming!
Comments
Post a Comment