Blog 23

Christopher Caruso
Blog #23

During the workshop today, I decided to look over both of my interviews to see if I could find any significant or meaningful moments that might present any significant information.  It is amazing what kind of information and little details can go completely over your head and unnoticed during the actual interview process, but then reveal themselves while looking over the transcripts.  One of the things that I did not realize at first was that the selection of the two people that I interviewed could not possibly have been any better since both of the participants, although both huge fans of the Harry Potter franchise, offer such diverse ideas and approach both the films and the books in such contrasting ways.  (in the final essay, there will be actual citations of the things I mention in this analysis)

For example, the first person that I interviewed (I will only refer to them as M) is a Film major.  As such, he has both extreme knowledge and extreme passion on the subject matter of cinema.  You could tell in his speech that he knew what he was talking about and was eager to get his opinions out, almost to the point where he would cut me off and start answering the questions before I could finish asking them.  This was most prominent whenever I asked him questions that were specifically geared towards the film adaptations of Harry Potter.  Specifically, it was when I asked M about how special effects influence people's experience watching a movie that he gave me his longest answer and revealed his ties to being a film major.  As I read the transcript to this interview, I realized that the emphasis of the conversation ended up spending the most time talking about the films.  When it came to visualizing the characters in the book, M stated that the author's descriptions of the characters and settings did not matter much to him (although he did acknowledge them), and instead he preferred visualizing things his way.  Much of his opinions of the series were from a visual standpoint.  He did confess that the films did have a big part in how he viewed the Harry Potter world in later installments.  The more Harry Potter films that came out, the more that M visualized the actors in the shoes of the book characters, and he believed that this was the case for many other people who read the series.  Despite M's emphasis on discussing the film adaptation in my interview with him, M admitted that in the end, he did in fact preferred the Sorcerer's Stone book more than the movie as a stand-alone story.  In M's eyes, when following a series such as Harry Potter, the magic in the book was a lot more powerful because with your imagination it can become so much more amazing.  In other words, from a visual standpoint, while the human imagination is timeless and can make certain settings and magic as vivid as the human mind will allow, the technology of the time period in which the film was released basically limited how extravagant the settings and the magic could be. He did not fully dismiss the movies however, and in fact despite liking the book more, he defended them, saying that Sorcerer's Stone did not make any unnecessary cuts to the book, and succeeded in leaving in only what was necessary, which is good for casual fans who do not want to be overwhelmed or weighed down by the bulky size of the first Harry Potter book..  In fact, M went as far as to say that it would be most beneficial for both the films and the books if people went to go see the movie before picking up the book.  In this way, people watch the movie without having the pre-determined standards that people who read the book first have to live up to and can enjoy it as its own piece of cinema.  On the flip side, since the movies tend to have less content that the books, fans can go back, read the original book, and be pleasantly surprised and entertained by all of the extra content, obstacles, and challenges that are in the book for them to experience.

On the other end of the spectrum, I had the second person that I interviewed, (I will only refer to them as A).  Unlike M, a film major, A was an English major, specifically an English Writing major.  A is an experienced writer, and has even written some works of her own.  As such, I was fortunate to obtain opinions from people of both the cinematic and literary persuasion.  Unlike M, who was quick and eager to answer each question, A took her time with each question, making sure to choose each of her words carefully so that she could give the clearest and most efficient answer possible.  At first, her answers were very terse and to the point, and it was only further into the interview that she began to warm up and give longer and more detailed answers.  While reading over the transcript, I was surprised to find that unlike my interview with M, my interview with A was a lot more about the literature side of the series.  Also unlike M, A felt that when visualizing the sets and characters, a lot of what she saw in her head was based off of the author's character descriptions.  In fact, A went as far as to state that detailed descriptions were some of the most important aspects when reading a book, and without them the formula becomes dry.  A had her own opinions about how a fan of the series should handle experiencing both the book and the movies.  A believes that even if you do decide to view the film adaptation first, you should at least read the original book no matter what.  A also argued that it would actually be more harmful for the book experience if you saw the movie beforehand, basing her opinions on the fact that when reading the settings, the characters, and the magic spells, your mind would already have pre-programed images of what all of these things look like, thus creating a narrower mind with what you can experience after watching the movie.  Once you watch the movie first, that is all that you think of.  Meanwhile the imagination is endless, which ties in to an extent what M was saying about the book experience.  A also stated that sometimes that it can be a huge damper on the experience of the film when certain content from the book is altered or left out entirely in the book.  This is because if the director or script writer goes too far with the changes, it could end up completely altering the possible outlook of the scene, thus possibly losing the original meaning or significance that the original author intended to be included in there.  However, A did confess that in terms of changes to The Sorcerer's Stone, they got all of the major points needed for the first film to remain relevant, and actually adapted the original first story pretty well, much like M thought.  On top of this, A also admits that in some instances watching the movie adaptation first could potentially add to the original book as well because the reader would have the additional audio (voices, sound effects, music, etc.) and visual images to make the reading experience more involved and realistic.  A also made a very valid point that it may not necessarily be the fact that "literature is superior to cinema" per say, but rather fans (and people in general) are very set in their ways, and tend to prefer a story in whichever format it was released in first simply because that is what they knew first.  In this case, because it is much more common to see books made into movies in this day and age, people go into the movie theaters with pre-determined standards for what the films should live up to instead of viewing it as its own piece.  As such people tend to say "the book was better" more often because it was all that they knew first, and humans are creatures that don't like change.  Perhaps if we lived in an alternate universe where movies tended to get turned into books more often, it may be possible that the general discourse would be "meh, the movie was better".

In the end, even though both participants had stronger knowledge on one side of the media conflict or the other, both seemed to have common views on the original book.  However, neither one would specifically or outright say that the other format was inferior or worse.  Both participants provided evidence to support both forms of media.  So really, what does it all boil down to?  Which is truly the superior format?  Going based solely off of this information, I would have to say neither.  The data is inconclusive, not from a lack of information, but rather from an excess of information.  Perhaps it is true that the only reason that many people prefer literature over cinema is because we are by nature creatures of habit that do not like to see change to the things we like and are comfortable with.  On the other hand, maybe literature does tend to take more if its time to properly explain the details of the world while allowing you to remain as creative as you wish while creating this vast universe in your mind, unchained and unhampered by the technological limitations of the time we live in.  Either more data must be collected, or in the end, it all depends on how willing a fan is to open up or narrow their mind when processing the information given to them.