A debate on books and films

A Debate on Books and Films

In this debate we are printing a shortened version of Sergey Savelievʼs letter from Footpath-11 followed by three new responses to it.

The quality of discussion of any good novel in our classroom can often take a dreadful turn, frequently preceded by the phrase from one of our students: ‘Well, it was like that in the film’.

The problem of ‘book-film’ substitution has to be dealt with somehow. Can we blame our students for watching the film version of Waterland starring Jeremy Irons or a very recent TV series based on Lanchester’s Capital ? How do we incorporate that knowledge into our discussion, or, possibly keep it at bay? The same applies to our own research: if we either avoid the film version of the book, or embrace it and treat it as equal to the book, will our research stay valid?

Questions, questions…

Sergey Saveliev

Kolomna University of the Humanities

In response to Sergey Saveliev’s letter and particularly his comment about film adaptation replacing literary text reading, I would like to emphasize the following: nowadays we teach and educate learners who belong to a screen culture generation and who would prefer to access and acquire information from the screens of devices – PCs, smart phones, iPads, etc. It means that as teachers we are expected to look positively at products for a screen as a teaching material.

Marina Rassokha

Far Eastern Federal University

I cannot agree that it is “substitution” which “has to be dealt with somehow”. The book and the film speak different languages. When I asked my students what they would prefer: to read a book or to watch a film if there is a choice, most of them honestly answered that they would choose the second. The reasons for that are obvious, they told me. Firstly, it saves time, and, secondly, one does not have to strain one’s imagination to visualize the characters, notice the details, which imply deeper meanings of the written text.

I think if we analyze TV adaptations of the novels, we can consider our research valid, because the primary source, which is the original book, is still the target. And there could be various interpretations of the book including translations and screen versions.

The problem which arises for teachers is not theoretical but practical and ethical. It goes without saying, if we study literature the book should be read prior to watching its film version (if the students have not seen it yet). For example, when after reading the story My Son the Fanatic by Hanif Kureishi we watched the film of the same title, the screenplay by the author of the book, I was more concerned about showing certain scenes of violence and sex abuse in the classroom and I asked myself if my students have enough experience to understand the meaning of those scenes. However, we cannot ignore the existing versions. The purpose of Footpath is to guide teachers in their choice of books and authors and topics and understanding literary works. Why not have a section in the journal devoted to reviews of the films based on British literary works? This would help teachers to decide whether to advise to watch or not waste time on seeing a version which is discrediting the book, and be timely informed about its existence, cast, age limit and other details rather than be taken aback by a student’s question “Have you seen the screen version of the book, teacher?” Tatiana Klimenko

Transbaikal State University

In this debate, obviously much depends on who we are teaching, the courses followed by our students and their own views. We teach both philologists and public relations students. Our decision is the following: we compromise, we are positive to both versions – printed and screened and follow our students. But at the same time the teacher has to motivate them.

• 1.    We ask our students a) ‘Don’t you want to find out your own views of the book?’ b) What do you think the film can do better than the

• 2.    There are books the students do not enjoy reading, such as Waterland by Graham Swift which we, personally, like a lot. We motivated the students to read the book using the film which is “Rated R for Sexuality and Language, and for the Abortion Theme”.

• 3.    The main challenge in our case is the English of our students, as it is not their main area of study. In this case the movie is of great help: we single out the fragments which seem to be not so complicated in order to get our students motivated. And gradually they come to a better understanding of the language as some episodes made visual by the film become inseparable from the fragment they have read.

• 4.    As for ‘Well, it was like that in the film’… We see it as a challenge: How is it in the book? Is it much different? How do you understand this fragment in the book? Differently? Why? Similarly? Why? We compromise and if we, teachers, are smart and motivated enough we can gradually, slowly bring them closer to the book.

book? (meaning ‘visual images’) c) What does the film lack in comparison with the book?

(We remember the ‘case’ of Atonement (Ian McEwan) of some years ago: the students reading the novel liked it so much that they could hardly wait for the movie to be released. The main motivation, though, was Keira Knightley who the students considered the most beautiful actress. It was very interesting to compare their expectation to the reality.)

Our students love literature and we, teachers, should make films our friends and not treat them as foes!

Natalia Iuzefovich, Oxana Podolskaia

Pacific National University

Khabarovsk