As an English-teacher-in-training I pretty much question daily what the best method is for teaching books. I've always thought that using a movie of a book as an end-of-unit treat is fine but I've recently been introduced to the idea that people do teach books strictly by their movies.
Now there is a quote that I live by which is: Never judge a book by the movie adaptation.
Still I just sat through an English class full of Seniors who watched Shelley's Frankenstein instead of reading it (and this viewing was supposed to make up their full exposure to Gothic Literature). Now I do not question the teacher because she made an excellent lesson out of what Gothic Literature is and I think that she would have lovingly made the students read the book if time permitted... but the excessive requests of School Boards and State Standards could fill many blogs all on their own.
But I think its interesting to think about whether or not you can really teach a book by its movie?
Personally, I think there are renditions of movies that I think could be useful for visual learners who struggle with reading. There are times when I feel overwhelmed by a text and desperately seek summaries and movie-versions because they give me a structure to follow, a mental picture to return to when I feel stressed out, and the 'lifeline' of a movie can make me feel secure enough to keep reading.
Still, I do not think that showing someone a movie gives them the same experience as a book and I'm not sure I would want to replace a book entirely with a movie and consider it thoroughly taught.
Does anyone else have experience with this or opinions about the scenario?
- Cara Mac Neil
I agree with you Cara. I don't believe I would ever fully replace a book with its movie counterpart, no matter how well the director interprets it. There are certain literary elements that only the text can properly convey, and we can't rob our students of that experience.
ReplyDelete