Recently, I found myself locked in a minor debate with my friend
The Scarlet Pimpernel. The question of which was: Whether it is harder to write a good book or direct a good movie.
I will here try to set forth the points of our debate. I'm afraid you'll have to take my word on them, because I don't remember precisely everything that was said.
As you may have guessed due to the nature of previous posts by either of us, I am in favor of books, and TSP is in favor of films. Without further ado, the points for your decision.
My view is that it is more difficult to write a good book for various reasons. I might as well state the easiest reasons first. Everyone must have heard that phrase,
'a picture is worth a thousand words'. What this means is exactly what it says:
it is far easier to explain an incident with one picture than it is to do so with many words. Which leads to the next. Simply because the previous statement is true, a
filmmaker has a much easier job because
as much as 75% of their work is with images which convey meaning to the viewer (landscapes, facial expressions, general body language, even physical description) even without the dialogue every film has. In contrast, the writer must provide the original 'thousand words' which one image replaces.
The writer must work carefully to provide the reader with every element of a character and a setting, which at the same time must be enough to provide them
with a precise image, and flow swiftly enough to retain their interest. For the third time, a filmmaker has the benefit of
images, which explain themselves to the average person.
This is not to push films to the edges and dismiss them.
I understand that making films is a time-consuming task which is extremely complicated. But the question is not whether making a film is harder than writing a book. It is whether directing a film is harder than writing. Granted, though I have hoped to for years, I have never had the chance to direct a film, and so I do not fully understand all of what goes in to directing, but it is my view that
the director, in comparison to his own crew (nearly all of whom are doing more strenuous work)
is merely the one who decides, in accordance with his own views on the task, whether the job has been done well. Considering that, do not the actors, the camera crew, and even the costume artists have harder jobs than the director, for the simple reason that it is harder to do something well than to say that it has been done so? Alright, so
perhaps directors are sometimes the ones who bring forward the plots they eventually direct. But directors do not write the story. Even that task is given to someone else.
Neither do directors often promote their own work. That is nearly always done by someone else with deep pockets.
In response to the above statement, (this is generally true only of beginning writers) writers are their own promoters. Writers must promote themselves to agents and publishers, who generally do little more than distributing the work. Writers do not run full-page ads, or distribute three foot posters, to make their work known. In addition,
solely with use of words, writers must be their own camera crew, set designers/directors, costume artists, and yes, directors. In a comparetively limited medium, writers must match everything a hundreds-strong production crew does to produce an admirable work.Yes, it is hard to make a good movie. But is it really harder to direct a good movie?
One point TSP brought up in his defense is the statement that directing is harder because the viewers see the film play out the way the director saw it when he approved it, whereas a writer's work is open to different interpretations. In response to that, I say 'Hold hard, my good man, an ambiguous book is
not a good book. A writer's task is to convey precisely what is happening, why it is happening, what happened previously and why, what each character's reaction to the present incident is, and why they think as they do, and he must phrase all these statements in a way that allows you, the filmmaker, to provide the precise image that
you see, which others eventually see on the screen. If a filmmaker sets out to convert a book, and does not translate the author's writing just as it sounds, than one or both of us is at fault. The point being that the
images of well-written books are not really debateable. A strong description should mean the same to everyone; the readers actually
should be seeing the book through the author's eyes. If they are able to do so, it means the images were well-written and so powerful.
A last minor point that I might mention is that a director always has the whole story before him already when the film is being worked out and has the benefit of prompt ordering of a revision to a mistaken scene, whereas writers generally find that they must write the whole story, and
then check over all of it to see if 'another take' should be written. New takes in books often differ greatly from the original and modify the story that comes later, whereas directors' adjustments are often comparetively slight.
People think in pictures. Filmmakers build the picture. Writers must create the picture in your head out of nothing.
Alright, so I didn't actually do justice to TSP's opinion. And so I say to him, if you want to convince people, write your own post, just give my points at least as much consideration as I gave yours. Btw, due to his interest in the outcome of the question, TSP is respectfully expected not to use the comment box to rant against my statements. Again, that belongs on your own post.
And now the question to my other three followers: Which do you think is harder? Writing a good book or directing a good movie?
