Does literature have more freedom than film?

[Dark Muse]

I am currently reading "Blood Meridian", and when I was looking something up about the book I happened upon an article discussing making the book into a movie, as it seems it is in consideration to be made into a movie, but the article discussed concerns and difficulties that film makers were having becasue of the extreme violence within the book, and how that can be translated across film and how it could be adapted for a viewing audience. In addition I am also reading "Le the Right One In" and it is a very bleak novel which deals with some very controversial subjects and though I have not seen the movie yet, I have heard that the movie is toned down from the book and this got me to wondering.

Why is it that it seems literature is able to push boundries which film cannot? Is it the idea that certain subjects would be too shocking to acutally see visually, opposed to just reading about them? Is there an understanding that literature has a more selective audience than film, and thus books have to "dumbed" down so to speak, to be made more palatable for consumption by the general masses? Do authors simply have more faith in what thier readers are capable of processing and understanding than film makers have in thier audiences?

Or, even thought both the publishing industry and the film industry are in the business of making money and trying to sell a product and thus neither can completely ignore the public do authors simply careless about what thier audiences may be "comfortable" with than the movie industry? And I do not mean this in any negative way, but rather, is there a sense that authors have more of an independence in their art, and do they stay truer to what they want to convey and do not feel the need to cater as much to the public as the film industry.

Also though there are still books that are banned, challenged, and even burned today, if someone tried to prevent a book from being published becasue of the graphic or controversial nature of its material would it generate more of feeling of outrage and a sense of violation of freedom of expression, than if a movie was censored from having overly graphic or highly controversial and disconcerting material?

[Rores28]

Also though there are still books that are banned, challenged, and even burned today, if someone tried to prevent a book from being published becasue of the graphic or controversial nature of its material would it generate more of feeling of outrage and a sense of violence of freedom of expression, than if a movie was censored from having overly graphic or highly controversial and disconcerting material?

It is totally illogical but yes.

As to the main question I think all of your points are to some degree weighing in but I think far and away it is money. The initial investment in publishing a book is just going to be nowhere near that of a movie, especially one from a writer whose movie's have one multiple awards. This is going to go to acclaimed directors and a massive production company, and they are not going to invest all that money with a potentially poor return. If this were being looked at by a small indie production company I doubt it would be as much of a concern, except by way of special effects doing the violence justice.

When you have a single artist working on something, integrity and vision are going to be far easier to maintain than when there is a vast aggregate of people with varying scopes of interest and investment.

[Dark Muse]

It is totally illogical but yes.

As to the main question I think all of your points are to some degree weighing in but I think far and away it is money. The initial investment in publishing a book is just going to be nowhere near that of a movie, especially one from a writer whose movie's have one multiple awards. This is going to go to acclaimed directors and a massive production company, and they are not going to invest all that money with a potentially poor return. If this were being looked at by a small indie production company I doubt it would be as much of a concern, except by way of special effects doing the violence justice.

When you have a single artist working on something, integrity and vision are going to be far easier to maintain than when there is a vast aggregate of people with varying scopes of interest and investment.

Yes you are quite right on the money question, and that no doubt plays a very prominent role in the issue. It does cost considerably more to produce a movie than to publish a book, so it is perhaps all the more imperative that a movie by more sure that they will have a wide and receptive audience, so they cannot afford (both literally and figuratively) to take the same risks as publication can.

But in a way it did irritate me a bit when I read about the struggles the movie was having trying "soften" so to speak some of the violence in "Blood Meridian" becasue I thought to myself, why not show it? Why "protect" the audience from the truth which the book seeks to expose. Why shrink back from the true nature and intent of the book?

[OrphanPip]

Violence is much easier to read about than to watch. There are aesthetic concerns, violence in film has a different effect than violence in literature. I don't think it is always about dumbing the content down, it is simply that such extreme violence does not work on an artistic level in film. "Torture porn" films seem to manage to get made anyway, and they get contain highly graphical depictions of violence.

Nonetheless, the rating system is a concern for film makers, especially in the USA. Many theaters in the US will simply refuse to screen a film that receives an NC-17 rating. Not to mention the fact that the largest movie going demographics are teens, noticeable in the amount of god awful teen romance and comedy films that get made. Though, I think a film adaption of Blood Miridian would be directed at an older film going crowd so this wouldn't be too much of a concern.

[Wilde woman]

There are lots of good observations here, Muse.


Why is it that it seems literature is able to push boundries which film cannot? Is it the idea that certain subjects would be too shocking to acutally see visually, opposed to just reading about them? Is there an understanding that literature has a more selective audience than film, and thus books have to "dumbed" down so to speak, to be made more palatable for consumption by the general masses? Do authors simply have more faith in what thier readers are capable of processing and understanding than film makers have in thier audiences?

I'm not sure I agree with you that literature has to be dumbed down more than films. There are definitely smaller circles within both the literary and film community which are scholarly, and generally more open-minded, than others. When I think of books in general vs. film in general, I tend to think of film as the corpus that is more "dumbed down". But again, this is very generally speaking.

Another aspect to keep in mind is that film seems to have a temporal limit that books don't. If films go past 2.5 or 3 hours, they probably won't sell, whereas books can easily go on past a 1000 pages. Authors, then, have a great deal more room to expand or their subject, and include material that is perhaps more controversial in film.

[Dark Muse]

There are lots of good observations here, Muse.



I'm not sure I agree with you that literature has to be dumbed down more than films. There are definitely smaller circles within both the literary and film community which are scholarly, and generally more open-minded, than others. When I think of books in general vs. film in general, I tend to think of film as the corpus that is more "dumbed down". But again, this is very generally speaking.

When I made the remark about dumbing down, I did not mean that books are dumbed down, but that when a movie is made from a book, the film dumbs down the content of the book as part of the process of making it into the movie.

[dfloyd]

made from the book. It would have to be made by someone who could show the violence in the book in good taste. This statement seems contradictory, but that is exactly what director Sam Peckinpaugh did throughout his movie career. He reached his nadir with the classic western "The Wild Bunch". When this movie was released in the early 70s, it caused quite a stir with its violence. If you have never seen the movie starring William Holden, Edmond O'Brien, Ernest Borgnine et al, you should do so. You will be able to see what I mean when I say violence in good taste. Peckinpaugh had the talent to film Blood Meridian, but unfortunately he is deceased. I can think of no other director today who wold be up to the task and no other set of grizzled actors who could perform the violence as well as Holden and crew. This would be one movie beyond the talents of Brad Pitt.

[kelby_lake]

Films do have freedom. The problem is with adaptation; readers of the book are bound to see the violence as being toned down because in a book, it's left up to the imagination. There's also the question of the practicalities.

The two mediums are different. Many people may be okay with reading about graphic violence but not all of them want to watch it. Yes, it's a matter of money and being popular as well but I hate the idea that we're perpetuating the myth that literature is inherently superior to film.

[Virgil]

Oh you're talking about freedom from social pressure to present whatever you want. No I think they are equally free. I see nothing that restricts any artist from producing whatever they wish, violence, sex, glorification of drugs. You can see or read it all. You may have to take a rating such as "X" or "R" but you can get it out. I guess the only place where I might see restrictions are in politically incorrect themes, themes that may denigrate (actually it doesn't even have to be derogatory, just not conforming to today's politically correct notions) minority groups. There I think films might have more restrictions while in a book i think you can pretty much say whatever you want. There are books published on everything imaginable and unimaginable.

I initially thought you were asking which medium gives the artist greater range of form. And there I think the novel is the greatest, most flexible, most imaginative artistic medium ever.

[kelby_lake]

And there I think the novel is the greatest, most flexible, most imaginative artistic medium ever.

Why do you think that?

[Virgil]

Why do you think that?

Because through narrative and language a writer can create anything. Film, music, fine arts, are limited.

[Dark Muse]

Because through narrative and language a writer can create anything. Film, music, fine arts, are limited.

Yes I must agree with that, as well though there are some brilliantly artistic an innovative films out there, quite honestly on the whole I see far more originality in literature than I do in film. I rarely read a book where I think "oh I have seen this story a hundred times before" but that happens quite often with film, where the same themes and plots are recycled over again. But I do not truly mean this as a condemnation as I love movies, but I just believe there is greater room for creativity and originality in literary form.