Having recently seen The Prestige, I’ve gotten the book out of the library, and I was thinking that this was the best way to go about the affair. I know all the secrets from the movie, but the book has a completely novel frame tale about Borden’s great grandson, and I find I’m keen to see how that plays out. It’s also fun reading Borden’s journal knowing exactly how he is lying (as he admits at the beginning that he is being deceptive without writing actual falsehoods).
So this made me think about the question in general: which book/movie combos should be experienced book first, and which movie first. Or are there some that should be done in only one form (the short story The Lawnmower Man springs to mind).
Right now, I can only think of Pride and Prejudice as another example. I personally think if one is interested in the recent theatrical release, one should perhaps watch that first, as it excises so much it is a little annoying to a viewer who’s read the book. Then read the book, then watch the A&E miniseries with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle, which is dynamite and brings the book to life. Alternatively, I’d say read the book first, so you can see how amazingly well Austen creates tension, humor, and revelations even for a modern audience. I was surprised at how drawn in I was!
Any other suggestions on the proper order of things? If you include spoilers, please box them, thanks!
There is no Hard and Fast rule, because the experience varies from book/movie to book/movie, and because some adaptations are really close (The Harry Potter books) and some are completely different (The Spy Who Loved Me), and an awful lot fall in between.
With relatively mindless stuff, I’d go with the movie first. I think I’d see something with a “twist” in movie form first. I haven;t felt I was cheated in those cases by watching the movie first.
I agree with Cal. No one rule. I like to enjoy both on their own merits when possible (I’m thinking here of Fight Club in particular), but I generally pay a lot of attention to what reviewers I trust say about each. Because I don’t tend to read a lot of fiction, a well-made movie can sometimes be the first time I learn about a good book, in spite of the fact that I work in a library. Sometimes so much time goes by between the book and the movie (Black Dahlia) that I actually forget the movie was based on a book until I see the credit go by.
All I can say for certain is, thank God I read Michael Connelly’s Blood Work before I saw that abortion Clint Eastwood made and claims was based on it. Anyone who saw that movie owes Connelly the respect of reading his book, just to get an idea of what could have been.
I think you should read One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest before seeing the movie. Great movie, but it’s from the perspective of a different character than the book.
Personally, I always read the book first, and watch the movie only if I do not love the book. Adaptations of books I love not only annoy me but annoy the people who hear me rant about them.
I make an exception if there’s reason to believe Gwyneth Paltrow will appear naked in the movie, of course. But that never happens.
Ah, there’s some confusion. I’m not looking for a general rule, but for suggestions as to specific stories. So, for instance, thanks for the heads up on Blood Work. I didn’t even know there was a book, so I probably would have wound up watching the movie on cable some time, not knowing what could have been.