Bonus Points: Because I am an Overachiever...not
Explain which medium (book or movie) more effectively explores the dominant themes of the search for the meaning of life, duty vs. individuality, reflections on mortality, constructive social roles, and life as art in The Hours, and how this was achieved.
This is a tough decision. I don’t think either unanimously trumps the other with regards to their respective effectiveness in exploring the themes. The novel is more effective at investigating duty versus individuality and the search for the meaning of life but loses to the movie with respect to reflections on mortality and social roles. Life as art is split between both.
The reason that the novel wins those two themes is because it allows the reader to “experience” the thoughts of the characters. The “versus” in duty versus individuality can be fully appreciated by witnessing the inner turmoil of each character as they battle with the pros and cons of their decisions and actions. The search for the meaning of life, at least to me, is a very personal quest and can only be, as much as possible, revealed through the examination of the thought process and psyche of an individual. The use of stream of consciousness as a technique was an effective and marvelous idea to explore these two themes.
On the other hand, reflections on mortality and the theme of constructive social roles go to the movie. To me, watching the expressions, hesitations, hopelessness, joys, anguish, was more effective than reading about these emotions. Little expressions of the face, certain body language, fluctuations and tone of voice, when delivered correctly, are more powerful than the written word. One could argue that poetry can elicit and deliver the “rawness” of these emotions, but I think what we can actually see is much “truer” than what we can deduce from words. Words and language are lost on an individual that does not speak that tongue, but facial expression and emotions are universal.
Finally, both are tied at “life as art” because it really is difficult, I think impossible, to place an objective judgment on which form of art is better, film or novel. Sure the novel won the Pulitzer Prize, but the movie did win an Oscar as well. Now this may not answer the question as to which medium better explores the theme, but I think trying to compare the methods would be like comparing apples and oranges.
It is usually true to say that the film version is always inferior to the novel and that the novelization of a film usually does not do the movie justice. However, I think that the film does more than a sufficient job at capturing and illustrating Cunningham’s overall message. I am glad that I had read the novel first because the movie does omit some key scenes from the novel. However, I do not think that any harm can be done reading the novel and then watching the movie afterwards as it provides a more holistic approach and dissection into the main, overlying themes.