To read first or not to read first?

My mother was an avid reader, and she used to assert that, if one plans to read a book, (or whatever source material on which a movie is based), and see the movie, then one should read the book first and see the movie later. She argued that by reading the book first, readers can create their own visuals just from the writing, as the author intended. If, however, one views the movie first, its visuals interfere with the reader's interpretation of the descriptions created by the author.

Even though I agree with Mom's reasoning, and I enjoy reading, I'm also a movie fanatic. I would playfully argue that it's better to view the movie before reading the book (or other source material) because of the nature of the two art forms.

Novels, short stories, and other forms of written fiction are almost always better than the movies based on them because writers can get inside the characters they create, often revealing their thoughts in ways that don't always translate effectively to film. Even with ongoing improvements in special effects, especially Computer-Generated Imagery (CGI) that can create almost anything that can be imagined, some concepts just don't translate well from page to screen.

Also, the stories in most books are too long and detailed to translate well into movies, most of which run from 90 to 120 minutes. Almost always, when a novel is adapted into a feature film for theatrical release, so much is left out. To do justice to most novels, adaptations need to be filmed as several movies or made-for-TV mini-series.

With these thoughts in mind, when discussing this issue with my mom, I'd argue that when readers enjoy a good work of fiction, they're almost always disappointed when later viewing the movie on which it's based. If they see the movie first, however, they enjoy the movie on its own merits. Later, when reading the book, they enjoy the experience because the written work is so much better than the movie adaptation. In short, instead of one enjoyable experience followed by a disappointment, they have two enjoyable experiences, first with the movie, then with the book.

In all my years, the only time I've read a book first and was not disappointed by the movie version was "The Bridges of Madison County" by Robert James Waller, published in 1992. I enjoyed the novel, but the movie version, "The Bridges of Madison County" (1995, PG-13, 135 min.), with screenplay by Richard LaGravenese and starring and directed by Clint Eastwood, remains one of my all-time favorite tearjerkers.

In a sense, both Mom and I were correct. We continued the debate only as a sort of in-joke between mother and son.

Mom often noted that no matter when people read, whether or not movies are involved, they always benefit from a good book. My mother was a smart woman!