The book was better

I saw Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire last week. At best, it can be called an illustrated work of abridged version of the book. I somehow was quite disappointed with every screen version of Harry Potter though the third fared best, simply because it is by a Latin American director and I would rave and lap up even a wedding video from them. The reason is perhaps I have read the books.

The book was better is all I hear from the Potter fans and it's almost becoming a cliche now. Often times I feel that this statement is hurled at the not-so-intelligent people Who-Only-Watch-Movies-and-Don't-Read-Books by the people Who-Read-Books. I loved Silence of Lambs but the snobs told me that the book is better. I read the book and I still liked the movie. I read Jurrassic Park before watching the movie and though many philosophical and sociological musings from the book are absent in the movie, one could say that Speilberg has still done an extremely commendable job. The goosebumps you got watching T-Rex were missing in Crichton's version.

After Potter, I feel that certain books should be left untouched. The snobbery of book readers aside, it is very difficult to bring in the book experience back to the visual table. Books are always personal experiences. That is perhaps why every time someone makes a remake of the classics, be it Pride and Prejudice or Oliver Twist, they always look different. And they never match with how your experience was. For instance, even the best director from Hollywood can't bring back my own imagination of the Meursault of Albert Camus. I would risk sahing that Harry Potter also perhaps comes under this Movie-resistant books category. Unfortunately, the commercial compulsions of the globalised millenium doesn't heed any aesthetic purists. As they put it, it was so 'back in the innocent days'.