Comparative Essay Between Movies and Books Essay Example for Free

Comparative Essay Between Movies and Books EssayIn 2003, David Foster Wall(a)ace said Reading requires sitting al 1, by yourself, in a roomI feature friendsintelligent friendswho dont resembling to read because at that places an almost dread that comes up about having to be al peerless and having to be quietWhen you walk into most public spaces in America, it isnt quiet anymore. Although the collective amount of beat spent by people reading has declined with our minds, moving pictures with give-up the ghost continue to further embed themselves in culture. Ask a mathematical group of fifteen year olds how numerous bulks they wee read in the last month, and the likely answer will be that most of them have not finished a book since a month ago. But ask the same group the last time they saw a word-painting, and a week previous (or less) will fail to be an uncommon answer. A question then poses itself why is it that nonp atomic number 18il source of entertainment and guil e is move out of favor while another is seemly more and more common? One could depute the comparative quality of the two, implying that movies are superior to books.However, a more accurate, yet less popular instruction would be that books are superior to films and that superiority is not necessarily synonymous with prevalence. To go into detail in a movie the same way as one might in a book would be painfully difficult. The resulting abomination would be torturously monotonous due to movies very temperament, which panders to the short caution spans of the average person by constantly moving and embellishing ideas with pictures and music. It would also be horribly long, the duration of, or longer than an audiobook.For evidence, one could look at documentaries and nonfiction books. The former are far less informative, although one may wish to believe otherwise because a documentary film takes less work to revel and is, to some, more pleasurable. Take two lectures, both approxim ately an hour and twenty minutes in length (approximately the running time of a movie) and both by two highly acclaimed authors. The first, by Thomas L. Friedman, was on his book The World is Flat, and the second, by Temple Grandin, was on her book Animals in Translation.In either lecture, one could see the speaker constantly speaking and cramming more information into their allotted time. Yet neither cover heretofore close to what was in their books. A documentary trying to do such a social function is even more preposterous, demanding copious amounts of time for a garnish of pretty images and smooth transitions. This is the reason scholars do not publish their findings in case-study documentaries but in texts. Long, arduous texts the average person would rather go than pick up.Further evidence is in the quality of film adaptations of books. If one went to see the recent movie Life of Pi after reading the original novel by Yann Martel, a period of misanthropy and economic crisi s may not be a completely unrelated concept. The movie was one hundred cardinal minutes long and left out numerous important facets, such as Pis connection with a Suffi man in part of Pondicherry, his grade-school teacher Mr. Kumar, and the training of Richard Parker. The content of the film was not, however, wanting when compared to others movies of its length.It might take several weeks to finish the book how could a film-maker be expected to fill all of the information in it into one hundred twenty-seven minutes, with ex government agency, visual stimulation, and graphic theatrics as obligations? Life of Pi is art as a book, but as a movie, is a source of mass-market entertainment. Although films quantitative flaws of constriction are more than surfeit to deem texts as the more valuable mediaform, bulky also are its qualitative stiflings. For example, if a movie character began to speak the way Jean genet does in his books, the production would come across as contrived and pre tentious.For a moment I was no longer a hungry, ragged vagabond, wrote Genet in The Thiefs Journal, whom dogs and children chased away nor was I the bold pirate flouting the cops, but rather the favorite mistress who, beneath a starry sky, soothes the conqueror. Using words like vagabond and flouting in everyday speech is incredibly uncommon, and even english teachers will tell you that utilize the conjunction nor will get one beat up. Genet, however, is widely regarded as a brilliant operative for, including but not limited to, his beauteous prose. A stark contrasts between books and movies shimmers here.The language in a movie is only of characters, who are constantly in a mode of speech too occasional(a) for grace past a certain point, while a book is free to use side (or whatever tongue it is written in) freely. The confinement of characters as one of the only modes of expressionand almost invariably the most utilizedis also a problem when expressing greater themes. Compa re most classic picture palace achievements to esteemed novels, and an underlying trend will emerge movies repeatedly project something about humans, or the nature of man, while books are far ore respective(a), sometimes delving deeply into the emotional lives of characters without the chains of lengthy exposition and fashioning discourse seem natural, while some dwell extensively on philosophical musings such as the meaning of life and the cyclical nature of history. One of the biggest reasons books dominate movies is also one of the biggest reasons books are becoming significantly popular. That is, books effect mental work. Culture as a whole has become increasingly truehearted paced, and the instant gratification of movies fits in with the utmost dexterity.The interactive experience one has with a book is a glorious cradle for the type of deep thought about a topic that lasts maybe thirty minutes rather than thirty seconds. To read a novel by James Joyce, one must(prenominal ) spend a significant amount of time trying to process the underlying themes and meanings, often rereading even a small portion several times until it makes sense. Many people loathe James Joyce for the pall density of his work. But to watch a James Cameron movie, a two hour slot of time is all that is usually given up before a person begins eulogizing or jazzing the piece.When one challenges ones brain, it becomes more powerful, like a exercising a muscle. All aforesaid is meant not to bash movies, but simply to expose how they are surpassed by books. Many people who would argue the converse position are not without reason. Some may sight art films like Citizen Kane and Nosferatu, arguing that despite how these are very different in nature than books, they are greater and more beneficial media. Others would assert that there are more options in film. That there are new dimensions to work in when visuals are added into the mix lighting, filters, cinematography, etcetera.And an en tire other artform is said to be a fundamental part of movies but not books acting. What a character says on paper can be extremely affected by what the inflection and lineament of the speaker is. For example, the phrase I wanted to kick his ass can have a vast shift in meaning when emphasis is put on I, wanted, kick, his, or ass. Books, falling in the numerical eye of statisticians as a great form of media, are truly better and more diverse than the silver screen. Books are far freer to paint with complex detail and long topics, while most movies re tied to a certain length, making books better beacons for information.Freer still are books in the possibilities of both reconcile matter and ways to express that because they are not stuck on characters so severely. With their richness comes an opportunity for the contributor to exercise the brain to a greater degree, enriching all parts of their mental life. Although some people disagree, using great old films and the unique oppo rtunities filmmaking does provide the artist with as talking points, books remain the prevailing art the face of a shrinking audience.