Blog 27

Interviewee J talks about his experiences with reading a book in addition to watching the movie version of that book. In the discussion he talks specifically about the novel, and recent movie production, Silver Linings Playbook. J takes an interesting stance on this topic and states that he found both the movie and book enjoyable, despite their differences. I have found this to be of the unpopular opinion in regard to others who have both read the book and seen the movie.

J felt so positively towards the movie it inspired him to follow up with the book. This is atypical, as this study is done primarily on those who have read the book first. However, despite the unusual order, J does not share the unfriendly feelings many others do when he compares the two. J claims that, though the two mediums are so different, they are “both so incredibly good for their own reasons.” It is the differences, he says, that makes each version of the same story good in its own respect.

J mentions that he had initially low expectations for the movie before watching it, but was pleasantly surprised, describing the movie as having both “good acting” and a “good story.” He praises the movie for being an “honest portrayal” of the topics covered in the text, as opposed to being a movie that is full of “over the top melodrama.” The word “melodrama,” outside of this context, is used to refer to a play, and act or a farce, although it is not always used with negative connotations. In this context, however, J uses “melodrama” negatively, insinuating that if the movie were more melodramatic, it would be insincere to the topics being explored in the film—namely, mental disorders. This insincerity, or over focus on drama, translates into a misrepresentation of the book and a misrepresentation of real life, thus making the movie less relatable. In addition to being melodramatic, he says that the directors could have created a movie that was “over the top.” This is a phrase used in situations where there is too much of something, so much of it that it becomes overwhelming for audiences; “over the top” is generally used in a negative context. J uses “over the top” to suggest that the level of melodrama shown in the movie would be unrealistic to the level of melodrama that the audience, as regular people, might experience in their own lives. J says that the director “could have” done this, but ultimately did not. It is for this lack of over exaggeration that J believes the movie made a successful transformation from page to screen. J believes that Silver Linings Playbook still maintained enough elements of the original story as to not dilute it into something unrecognizable. It is interesting of J to say that the movie still manages to be successful, as many viewers dislike the fact that the plots of books are changed in order to fit into Hollywood’s formula for a ‘good movie.’ Plot changes would include generic tactics like re-writing an ending of a story.

J explicitly says that he finds the movie to be a success by describing it as “good” despite it being a “bit of a crowd pleaser.” This indicates that he feels the movie has taken on certain cinematic features that are commonly used in order to please audiences. Such cinematic features would include elements such as slightly playing-up dramatic situations (while still keeping the movie from becoming too “melodramatic”). J does not feel that the movie misrepresented the message of the book; he feels that Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Nero played the parts of their (respective) characters well and feels that the acting was genuine and accurately portrayed the struggles the characters in the novel go through. Silver Linings Playbook, J says, is a movie that takes real problems (mental disorders) and neither “trivializes” them nor turns them into “over the top melodrama.” Instead, J describes the characters as “flawed” which makes them more “human” and “relatable.”

When describing the perks of the book, J mentions “development.” Here he uses development to refer to both the characters and the storylines. His praise of both character and plot development reaffirms what many articles, as well as personal experience, suggests—readers enjoy books because of the additional details. J clams to have enjoyed the year-long development involved in the book, as opposed to the month-long development shown in the movie. He claims that the character development in particular is a great aspect of the book not completely captured in the movie. J mentions that, in the book, readers are given more insight to what characters are thinking and feeling, which helps readers better understand their motives, or “why they do what they do.” J extends this to include supporting characters as well. In many movies, supporting characters are neglected, and Silver Linings Playbook is no exception. While supporting characters were not completely ignored, there were certain characteristics about them that were never quite explained and, as a viewer of the movie I can tell you, I wish they had been. In his interview, J indicates that this extra knowledge, or character development, into the minds of both main and supporting characters greatly improves the overall quality of the book. As the book is “more involved” with the characters, it gives readers better perspective and understanding of them. This creates a more personalized feeling towards the story.

Additional terminology used by J that alludes to personalization includes when he says readers “spend a year” with the characters when reading the book. The use of “spend” is a particularly powerful verb here, as it indicates a more intimate relationship with the novel than just fictional character/nonfictional reader. ‘Spending’ time with the characters suggests that there is a momentary pause in the distinction between reality and imagination, as ‘spending time’ is traditionally used to describe human interactions. The use of “spend time,” here reasserts J’s description of the characters being “human” and “relatable.” Additionally, when J describes the characters as “human,” he says it is because we, as readers, all know someone who resembles the characters in some way. This furthers the personalization of the reading experience: these characters become ‘human’ to us as we associate what we’re reading to what’s familiar. J’s use of “human” and “relatable” are words that often appear in reasons why people like reading books, as discussed in The New York Times article “A Good Mystery: Why We Read,”  so it is interesting that J uses them in reference to the movie. This shows that the relation between book and movie was not lost in the translation from paper to screen.

However, not everything was translated perfectly from page to screen. While J expresses the essence of the book was captured well, he points out that there were some significant differences. Of these changes, character portrayal again plays a large role in J’s interview, as well as event placement.

There is a large difference in the way the movie portrays Pat Sr. (the main character’s father). In the movie, the father is shown as a caring, compassionate, and at times overbearing, parent. However in the book, J describes Pat’s father as actually “very cold” in the novel. In the movie, Pat Sr. is always seen making an effort to see his son, always asking him to sit down and watch football: Pat Sr. wants to spend time with Pat Jr. But in the book, it is revealed that Pat Sr. “didn’t want anything to do” with his son. He doesn’t talk to him, look at him or even acknowledge that his son is home, “the exact opposite of how he is in the movie.” This difference, however, does not dissatisfy J. In fact, he prefers the changes made to the book. J says that De Nero “plays a cool dad” and that he “would like to have him as a dad.” It is interesting that J finds the representation of a fictional character realistic enough to connect it to his own life. By not dismissing the character as fictional, it shows a successful transition from paper-based character to cinematic-based character. This again goes back to when J described the characters as “relatable” and “human.”

Additionally, J mentions some changes in the main character, Pat Jr., as well. J expresses more of a liking for Pat in the movie as well, saying that Cooper makes it easier to understand what is happening in Pat’s mind than it was in the book. He describes Pat’s thought process as “annoying” in the book. This is a contrast to when he is watching the movie and is able to “sympathize” with Pat, having a visual demonstration of Pat’s emotions. In this way, it is atypical for a reader to enjoy the movie more than the book. Also, he states that Pat has a better grasp on reality in the movie. This has to do with a plot change made by directors. J reveals that, while the movie states Pat has been in the hospital for only eight months, in the book it has “actually been for four years and he just thinks it’s been eight months.”

Furthermore, he states that events were moved around in the movie and that it does not accurately represent the chronological order of events in novel. He explains that while “some things happen in both the book and the movie…they switched the order of things.” But despite all this, he still claims that he “loved it.” But he makes it a point to say “watch the movie first. Otherwise you'll probably spend the entire movie telling the person next to you "in the book he does this instead of this and they cut that out, and this character isn't in there at all…both are great though."

This interview proves that not all readers are dissatisfied with the movie adaptation of a book they enjoyed. It has proven that both can be enjoyable, despite any differences. Also, it says a lot about personal opinion, which also plays a large part in viewer feedback. Furthermore, J’s suggestion to “watch the movie first” proposes a new question: does seeing the movie first better the reading experience? Is it, in fact, high viewer expectations that cause bad feedback in book-to-movie productions? Does watching the movie first allow more openness to any plot divergences? Or does it depend completely on execution, despite the order of experience?