Book Before Movie?

In my *hrmphhrrmph* formative years,  I was a staunch book purist. Call it a result of being an enthusiastic member of the Harry Potter generation, but if there were two truths I knew universally acknowledged, they were...

1.) The Book must always, without question be read before seeing the movie.

2.) The Book is always better.

And I held steadfast to these beliefs, carefully planning my reading lists to correspond with their movies, faithfully accumulating movie-tie in editions to be consumed quickly before the film left the cinema, only to dutifully criticize the movie's many departures from the original source.

But something has shifted. Over the last couple of years, I've suddenly found myself recanting on both views, and have as of late excessively seen movies before reading their books, and in several occasions *lowers voice to a whisper* enjoyed them more.

My twelve-year-old self would be mortified.

My most recent inversion of the cardinal order was Never Let Me Go, a book and movie I'm sure you'll find me talking about excessively. While I had been told to read the book for years, and had fully intended to straight away, the DVD was marked down in Fopp to 3 quid a few weeks backs, and well, I couldn't pass that up...

And I loved it. The cast, the plot, the score, the sweaters (so many excellent sweaters). I finished it stunned, and couldn't get it out of my head. I rambled about it to my friends, my roommates, anyone I could get to listen to me for more than five minutes. 

 I knew I needed to read the book, and promptly went on a hunt for it, trying two different Oxfams in the city before caving and going to Waterstones. Book in hand, I promptly cleared my schedule, holed myself up in room, and polished off the novel in under 24 hours.

And while the book was incredible, really (I've got more Ishiguro on the horizon as soon as I get through my essays and what not)  I can't say that I liked it more than the movie. In fact, I found the emotional impact of the movie more profound. The characters read as very contained on the page, but on screen, that containment is repression. There is this wonderful disconnect between the things they say, and what they feel, which doesn't translate the same way in a book, where you lack the benefit of a quavering voice, a tight and pained expression...

As I can't reverse time, there isn't really a way of telling whether I would have enjoyed the book more if I read it first. Maybe it is a question of order. But I also think it comes down to something I was reluctant to admit to myself when I was a book purist. While there are certain things that can only come across in a book, there are also things that can only be done on screen. And these things can be profound. The fact that the movie is the product of some source material does not mean that it can't be powerful art on it's own accord.

Something to think about, at any rate.