This week I'm jumping back briefly into the topic of movies based on books. I have seen neither the 1956 movie adaptation of 1984 starring Michael Redgrave (Or is it Nineteen Eighty-four? My copy uses them interchangeably.) nor the 1984 version (fitting) with John Hurt, so this isn't meant to be about comparison. I imagine I'll eventually get around to seeing one of them after I finish, though. (Side note: yes, I'm still on 1984, and yes, I know this isn't a great start. I'll get there.) And because this is a bit redundant (I'm lazy), I'll keep it brief.
A friend sent me a note taking issue with my declaration that people who always claim "the book was better" are pompous. It's worth clarifying that I didn't intend that people who say that are necessarily self-congratulatory, but rather it occasionally (ok, frequently) sounds like someone who is trying to impress others would say. It was a throw away comment that, even though I didn't mean to offend, I don't regret because it spurred some good conversation that helped me clarify my opinion for myself. Plus, it got me thinking more about the pros and cons of both movies and books. And since I put classics on my reading list there's a good chance all of them have had some sort of movie adaptation made for them at some point or another.
And then this weekend while killing time (and not by reading, unfortunately) I came across this bit by one of my favorite comedians, Jim Gaffigan. I'd heard it before but appreciated how relevant it was, and decided I'd incorporate it into this week's post. Additionally, it saves me from having to intellectualize right now. Sorry, I know this is a bit like a lackluster elementary school teacher who fishes the "movie day" well a little too often in lieu of actual curriculum, but it's my blog, so... I got nothin'.
Enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment