Book VS Movie

Check out the “Literature in Schools” story in this issue to find more information.

Book VS Movie

Tia Munoz, Editor in Chief

The Hate U Give

The biggest difference I found is the lack of the character DeVante. A prominent figure in the book, his story shows some of the dynamic situations that can push someone to join a gang. This was an important issue in the book, so I’m disappointed that his character wasn’t in the movie. The topic of gangs, and drug dealing specifically, is a multifaceted issue. The book dove into this and discussed the various reasons that someone may be pushed into it. It provided unique insights and I found that the movie didn’t capture the topic as the book did. 

The climax of the film features a scene that was not present in the book. It capitalizes on a central theme that was mentioned several times, which was Tupac Shakur’s quote “T.H.U.G. L.I.F.E.- The hate you give little infants f**** everybody.” Starr frequently reflected on this message over the course of the book and brought the audience along as she grew to understand it more and more. Because transferring 400 pages worth of writing to screen often means helpful details get cut, this added scene visually brought the message to life.

The Kite Runner 

As it normally tends to fall, the movie doesn’t include the small details that make the story feel more complete. One example of this is the relationships between characters. The dynamic between Baba, Amir, and Hassan felt underdeveloped. A large conflict in Amir’s younger life in the book deals with him navigating the relationship he has with his father and Hassan. He tries to form a connection with Baba while also struggling to maintain a friendship with Hassan due to their differing statuses in society. On top of this, he also has to reconcile with the fact that his father also forms a connection with Hassan. While a book can afford to give the audience small details to really help develop the story, the movie didn’t have as many.

This is really the only part where the movie falls short for me. It still holds true to the story, which is the most important part. Compared to other book-to-movie adaptions, I think this one holds strong. 

The Glass Castle 

There’s a long list of reasons why I think this movie doesn’t do the book justice, but I’m going to stick with some of the main ones. 

First off, I think the trauma that Jeannette Walls father, Rex Walls, inflicted on the family is majorly downplayed. The book chronicles the neglect that the Walls family faces, part of which is due to his addictions. And while it recognizes that their dynamic is different, the movie always seems to put Rex right back into their good graces. It doesn’t show the aftermath of his actions like the book does, which is a large portion of the story. Part of Jeannette’s journey is learning to cope with everything she’s been through at the hands of his actions, and I don’t think the movie portrays this well. 

Secondly, I don’t feel the portrayal of Wall’s mother, Rose Mary, was accurate. The movie paints her as a concerned mother, always ready to comfort her children when things go wrong. And this just doesn’t feel similar to the picture that Walls painted. The memoir depicts Rose Mary as an aspiring artist who often lets her dreams of being a famous painter cloud the harrowing reality in front of her. There are many, many points in the book where Rose Mary defends, ignores, and even aids the neglect that her children are going through. If one were to just watch the movie, they would come away with a sense that she was a bystander to the trauma that Rex inflicted on the family. This is far from the truth. While their issues were different, both Rose Mary and Rex hold responsibility for what their children went through. 

Overall, I’m disappointed with the way this adaptation turned out. Walls told an honest, gritty story about what she endured as a child, and it seems as though the movie aimed to turn her life into an upbeat, coming-of-age film. 


The biggest place I felt the movie fell short was giving the information of how overreaching the government was. It was the small details that made the Party’s power feel so eerie. Specifically, the power that they hold over language. The book goes in-depth on their efforts to consolidate language as a way to limit citizen’s thoughts. This was how the Party planned to maintain its leverage. This did not feel as emphasized in the movie, and in turn, did not feel as pressing as it did in the book. 

There was also a section in the novel that shares Goldsteins, the opposer of the Party’s, message. This portion detailed information on the Party, how it functions, and essentially lays out the corruption within it. I didn’t expect the film to be able to include the same amount of information that the book did, but it still felt lacking. 

On the other hand, I think the movie captured the book visually very well. The dark tones and ruined landscapes present the grim situations that many people in Oceania live in.