"Most films are limited in how they display thought often just through the facial expressions and actions of actors. Most novels, though, describe in great detail characters' inner thoughts. So films, in a way, are more mysterious, because you don't exactly know what people are thinking. So doesn't that make them in fact more realistic?"
"The question assumes that there is a thing called a novel, that works in one way, and a thing called a film, which works another way. There are loads and loads of different types of novels and films, and they all create worlds and stories in a bewildering multiplicity of ways. Some set out to be realistic: some set out to be unrealistic; and most fall somewhere in the middle."
The question of whether films or novels are more realistic hinges on how each medium portrays character thought. Films typically rely on facial expressions and actions, creating mystery about internal states, while novels explicitly describe inner thoughts in detail. However, this comparison oversimplifies the diversity within each medium. Both films and novels encompass wide ranges of styles—some deliberately realistic, others fantastical, most somewhere between. The realism of any work depends on its individual artistic choices rather than its medium. Lord of the Rings differs vastly from La Règle du Jeu despite both being films, just as Normal People differs from Avengers Assemble. Comparing entire mediums ignores the multiplicity of ways stories are created within each form.
#film-vs-literature #narrative-technique #realism-in-fiction #character-psychology #medium-comparison
Read at www.theguardian.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]