The Book v The Movie

by Jenny Hilborne
Author of mysteries and thrillers


After I've read a book and become vested in the characters, I'm often curious to see how they are portrayed in the movie, and how the story plays out on the screen. Do the characters look how I imagined them to look? Is the setting how I saw it in my mind? I hate it when the movie fails to do the book justice, and this is often the case. It's one of the reasons I rarely watch a movie first and then get the book. For me, some of the mystery and intrigue found in a book is lost on the big screen.

When I read The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, which took me 2 attempts (the first 100 pages are a brutal slog) I loved it and wanted to watch the movie. I watched the Swedish version with English subtitles, and the movie jumps about, especially at the beginning. Without knowing the story first, I'd have been lost. The parts about Millennium magazine and the libel case against Mikael Blomkvist, which the books labors over painfully for the first 100 pages, are skimped on in the movie, yet without it, the story is hard to follow. The story has a huge cast, which I found complicating in the movie, but less so because I'd read the book first and knew who they were.

Anne Frank's diary is a gripping read and a heartbreaking film. Nothing is lost in either. However,  often there are key elements in a book that are dropped in a movie, or adapted for the audience enjoyment, and it spoils the experience. I'm so focused on the missing bits, I lose interest.

Occasionally, the movie/book works in reverse. I'm not into fantasy, but I once bought a box set of Lord Of The Rings for a gift, and then borrowed it out of curiosity. What a fantastic story. I know I'll never read the book, but I loved the movie. The visual effects were a large part of the enjoyment - they don't exist in the book, and I couldn't even begin to imagine them. The same with Jane Eyre. I enjoyed the film, and the romance (surprisingly), but I'll never read the book. This is one of the films where the movie omits part of the story found in the book (I'm told). In this case, it was okay - I can only take so much romance.

Sometimes, neither the book or the movie works. I might be one of a few people who haven't read Harry Potter. I can't get into it at all. I tried to watch one of the movies - no idea which one, but it involved broomsticks. I gave up after ten minutes. Hated it.

Then there's this nonsense of Tom Cruise playing Jack Reacher. I loved Jack Reacher. Tom Cruise will spoil my image and my enjoyment of the books, so I won't bother with the movie.

We'd all love to see our own books on the big screen...wouldn't we? Or are the pictures in our heads better? What are your thoughts?

Dead Stuff

By Andrew E. Kaufman

I’m in the process of finishing my new novel, a psychological thriller that centers on the case of a three-year-old boy who was kidnapped and murdered more than forty years ago.During that time, I really had to dig down deep in order to portray the depth of emotion parents feel when this kind of tragedy occurs. It hasn’t been easy.

And several times while doing this, I also found myself asking the same question: why do we find murder so entertaining when really, there’s nothing entertaining about it? An odd question from someone who makes a living writing about it, but I'd never really given it much thought—until now, that is.

One look at the primetime television lineup clearly illustrates the point. Shows like CSI and Criminal Minds are more popular than ever, as are books of the same genre. It seems serial killers—and killers in general—are the villains we love to hate.

But why? Why are we so fascinated with the thing that should horrify us the most? After much introspection, I came up with a few theories:

We love a good puzzle

And is there any bigger puzzle than a murder? Crime solving has always been fascinating business. Even more intriguing are the modern-day advances in forensic science. It never fails to amaze me how much they can determine from so little. For me, the best mysteries seem to be ones that appear the most confusing—that is, until the investigator cleverly pulls it all together in the end. It’s the aha moment that’s the payoff.

The “Good to Know that Somebody has it Worse than me” Theory

Death is the ultimate dose of bad luck. It really doesn't get much worse than that, and no matter how bad things are in our own lives, we can always look at the guy who got whacked and think, “Wow, and I thought I was having a bad day.” It’s a form of relief, something that helps us put things into the proper perspective. Also, I think, humans are for the most part a compassionate species, and many of us feel a certain degree of sympathy for the victim, thus drawing us in even more

Justice, Media-Style

We love to hate the bad guys, but we also love seeing them pay for their deeds, and quite often in the world, that simply doesn’t happen. It makes us angry. Seeing justice served on the screen or the pages in a book tends to fill that void. We know it’s not real but still get to sample that emotion on some level,which restores a sense of decency to our world.

Morbid Fascination

Having said all that, there is a dark side to all this. Simply put: we like morbid. I'm not sure why, but we do. We may cringe or cover our eyes (then peak between our fingers) but there seems to be something about the truly bizarre and grotesque that fascinates us. Maybe it's as simple as this: it's human nature to be curious, and the more disturbing something is, the more curious we seem to become. We don’t really want to know, but we sort of do. It's the reason people slow down to look at a car wreck on the side of the road.

What about you? As always, I'm interested in hearing any theories you may have on this. Comments?