It's the rare book that's able to transport you in a way that a movie does.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
You see, the interesting thing about books, as opposed, say, to films, is that it's always just one person encountering the book, it's not an audience, it's one to one.
When I see films made from books, I make a huge effort not to remember the book. It's important to see the film as a film.
It's such a complicated thing to put a movie together. The book world is so much simpler.
I mean, there are things in the book you could never do in a movie.
Books provide context and allow you to think about things over time. Film is like writing haiku; there is an immense amount of pleasure in paring down and paring down. But it isn't the same.
As long as a film stays unmade, the book is entirely yours, it belongs to the writer. As soon as you make it into a film, suddenly more people see it than have ever read the book.
Books are my art. The movie is someone else's art. But it's great marketing for books.
Books are better than movies because you design the set the way you want it to look.
You see the film, you might be entertained, and if it's not a great film, it loses its power very quickly. I think even simply acceptable books stay with us a lot longer.
By the nature of cinema and how it literalizes what we envision, movies can have difficulty replicating that connection we make with a classic book.