Foot: Great Films and How to Teach Them

Chapter One

      A lot of my personal thoughts came up in little pieces of the beginning of the book. I'm not much of a movie person; I would rather be doing something more active. So to sit down and read a book about films was a bit of a challenge. My first thought was that the book is ALWAYS better. While I absolutely believe that William Costanzo hit on a few things that put me in a bit of a different perspective. I knew I wasn't alone when he wrote, "... for all the critical complaints that 'the book was better,' three out of hour Academy Awards for Best Picture have gone to adaptations" (Costanzo 10). I can understand that. Movie theaters are a hit and people enjoy going out and relaxing while watching a film. Who wouldn't think that a good book would be a good movie? Sure, it could be good, but the Academy Awards doesn't compare the two, so just because they say it won doesn't mean it's better than the book. 

This leads me to his ending point. "Viewed from these perspectives, a movie adaptation is not so much an illustrated copy of a book but a new rendering of the story, to be appreciate on its own terms" (Costanzo 15). A book is a book and a film is a film. They might both portray the same story, but there is no way that they will both make you envision or feel the same way. I like reading a book because I see the words in my head and get to form my own opinion of how the story looks. A film shows you how something looks, and so it is completely different than the book. I agree with him, and think that they should be in two different categories. A film could be astonishing by itself, but to book enthusiasts it might not be that great. That doesn't mean they should degrade the movie because it didn't meet their expectations. I think it's something for myself to consider, looking at a movie in a different lens than I did the book.