Early on in the film Adaptation, Nicolas Cage, playing real life screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, is having a business lunch with a studio executive, played by Tilda Swinton.  They’re discussing the possibility of a movie based on the Susan Orlean’s non-fiction book, The Orchid Thief.  “I don’t want to ruin it by making it a Hollywood thing,” says Cage, channeling Kaufman, and then frenetically describes a list of movie clichés that (spoiler alert) the dangerously self-aware film devolves into its third act.  The movie is witty, postmodern, meditation not just on creativity, but the need in our culture to turn a good book into a movie.

This year sees an almost epic list of movies adapted from books.  Last week, it was Public Enemies, the Dillinger biopic directed by Michael Mann based on Bryan Burrough’s non-fiction book of the same title.  This week, it’s Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the sixth in the series of both books and movies (full disclosure: I’m attending a midnight showing tonight…possibly in costume).  And has Hollywood seems to put out more and more movies adapted from books, in between live action remakes of classic 80’s cartoon shows, one is left to ask the question: is the book better than the movie? I sparred two of my friends, Lynsey, a writer who favors books but also loves movies (particularly with Johnny Depp) and Rob, who works in independent theater and is a well-read cinephile, against one another in this endless debate.

“Books are usually better than movies,” said Lynsey, adding later: “I think most often because the book version of a story is generally longer and more detailed.  The characters have more time and room to develop alongside the story.”  She explained that to keep things moving along the plot in such a short amount of time, films cut out character development and subplots, often leaving out that which made the reading experience all the more richer. “Also,” she pointed out, “every person, in the process of reading a book, comes up with very particular ways of picturing characters and events.  A movie can’t possibly make everyone happy.”

“I think that people who are already fans of a book are going to be predisposed to like the book more than the movie,” countered Rob, “because inevitably the movie will have to cut things and die-hard fans will see these as glaring omissions.”  He cited Jurassic Park as good movie based on a good book.  “I wouldn’t say that the book was superior to the movie.  They stand on their own feet.”

But can the movie ever be better than the book?  “I don’t know about BETTER,” Lysney demurred.  “Well, maybe Fight Club.  But then, I can’t really stand reading Chuck Palahniuk because I find his characters just too odious on the page.  The movie, though, was perfectly paced, beautifully shot, and fucking SEXY.  Also perhaps American Psycho, just because it’s such a funny movie and the book is so… Just… Well, you know what I mean.”

“While I like both the film and the novel American Psycho, there are certainly ways in which the film may be better,” said Rob.   “It takes advantage of the book’s humor and satire, and leaves behind much of the more gruesome and controversial bits of the novel.

“I think it’s all about accepting that there’s a huge difference between the two mediums, and then building from there,” he later added.   “And it’s entirely likely that there could be so-so source material, and a film director, screenwriter, or producer finds a way to make that a compelling story to watch on film.”

“Film versions can be good,” admitted Lynsey, before she threw in the caveat of only when “they treat their source material with respect.”

Maybe there’s something to the whole “Hollywood thing.”