You've Seen The Movie, Now Read The Book

People often talk about how you can't enjoy a movie if you've read the book, because all you can think is how the movie falls short. Less often, people don't like a movie and then enjoy the book. (Maybe because few read a book after they don't like the movie.)

I've noticed this personally a number of times, usually for non-fiction. Somehow, knowing something really happened works in a book, but often seems fake or dull in the semi-fictionalized world of film.

For instance, I didn't particularly like the movie Casino--it seemed like Goodfellas II: Vegas Baby! Yet, when I read the book, I found it fascinating, and the movie actually stuck to the facts pretty closely.

More recently, when I saw The Prize Winner Of Defiance, Ohio, I wasn't impressed. Julianne Moore in the title role was fine, but the "bad guy," who gave the movie a sense of plot, was Moore's husband (Woody Harrelson), who drank too much and spent all the family's money. The character simply felt like a cliche.

On the other hand, the book, a rather unassuming but true story about a women raising ten kids in the 50s and early 60s who keeps her family going by winning contests, was quite enjoyable. And, by the way, the father was an abusive drunk, and at the time, society's main advice to a wife was to put up with it as best she can.

Why the different reaction? Expectations, I guess. A movie is a story told in one sitting, so you expect it to follow certain plot conventions, whether the story is entirely fictional or based on actual events. A book, however, is looser, and since it (allegedly) describes real action, and doesn't have actors playing roles, seems more direct and straightforward, and doesn't need to be tricked up so much to entertain. That's my guess, anyway.