I have been a film buff all my life and believe that the finest cinema is fully the equal of the best novels.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I adore book-to-film adaptations when they're done well, and I'm more lenient than many readers when it comes to what counts as 'done well.' For me, the most important thing is that the film maintains the spirit of the original book.
The beauty of cinema is that it can do some things that novels just can't.
Certainly, a lot of the films I've worked on have ended up good movies, but they haven't always been the best experiences.
I've been told, and I think I recognize it, that there's a cinematic quality to my writing, with a sense of image and place and scene - and, some would say, my tendency to finish my books the way Hollywood finishes its films.
Television and film are such streamlined story mediums. You can't really meander about, whereas a novel is an interior experience.
I think all my films can be enjoyed. In fact, they've often surprised me with how they're received.
I actually think that short stories transfer to film much better than novels do.
Film is a medium of clear lines and broad strikes - which can be fantastic - but compared to the subtleties and nuances of a novel, it doesn't even get close.
I never see a novel as a film while I'm writing it. Mostly because novels and films are so different, and I'm such an internal novelist.
Often I think the novels I read won't make very good movies - I better not say which I'm looking at for potential films! - but it's nice to have an excuse to just sit and read for a whole day.