To watch or not to watch? That is the question.
There are two views about whether you should read a text first or watch the movie first.
Most people would think that it is obvious: watch the movie first. That way you will have a really good idea of what the story is about before you read it.
Some purists (read teachers) tend to think you should always read the story first. Any version preceding your own reading of it will probably colour your view. Now we can't have that, can we?
Let's just take Pride and Prejudice for example. No, I am not talking about the Keira Knightley version presently.
There are many other movie and serialised adaptations. I think if we go with the purist view, I have done irrevocable damage at home. I bought the dvd of Bride and Prejudice (Aishwarya Rai) and my younger girl was so taken with it, she watched it over and over again. I think she's got some of the songs down pat.
So here I was on a lazy Sunday afternoon at my Dad's and he of the more cultured set has TCM on Starhub Cablevision. Before I could change channels fast enough to catch a rerun of American Idol, I have before me the Laurence Olivier version of Pride and Prejudice set in Victorian England. Me young one pops by and begins to ask who's who. Then I realise her definitive version of the Jane Austen novel is set in rural India! She is making all the connections based on that movie!
Never mind - I am at least capable of appreciating the irony. The Olivier version is riddled with as many sweeteners (can you imagine Lady Catherine de Bourgh actually supporting the marriage?) as the average soap opera. So the earlier damage cannot be that bad.
In any case, I would say go ahead with all the text enrichment you can get by way of dramatic or musical representation. Just remember it is no replacement for a considered reading of the text. Answer then is to watch.
Most people would think that it is obvious: watch the movie first. That way you will have a really good idea of what the story is about before you read it.
Some purists (read teachers) tend to think you should always read the story first. Any version preceding your own reading of it will probably colour your view. Now we can't have that, can we?
Let's just take Pride and Prejudice for example. No, I am not talking about the Keira Knightley version presently.
There are many other movie and serialised adaptations. I think if we go with the purist view, I have done irrevocable damage at home. I bought the dvd of Bride and Prejudice (Aishwarya Rai) and my younger girl was so taken with it, she watched it over and over again. I think she's got some of the songs down pat.
So here I was on a lazy Sunday afternoon at my Dad's and he of the more cultured set has TCM on Starhub Cablevision. Before I could change channels fast enough to catch a rerun of American Idol, I have before me the Laurence Olivier version of Pride and Prejudice set in Victorian England. Me young one pops by and begins to ask who's who. Then I realise her definitive version of the Jane Austen novel is set in rural India! She is making all the connections based on that movie!
Never mind - I am at least capable of appreciating the irony. The Olivier version is riddled with as many sweeteners (can you imagine Lady Catherine de Bourgh actually supporting the marriage?) as the average soap opera. So the earlier damage cannot be that bad.
In any case, I would say go ahead with all the text enrichment you can get by way of dramatic or musical representation. Just remember it is no replacement for a considered reading of the text. Answer then is to watch.
Comments