Is the book always better than the movie (or tv show)? Sometimes, maybe even often. Sometimes they’re just different.
Much as I love to read I’m a sucker for spectacle, and I first heard about Babylon Berlin in the context of its recreation of 1920s superclub Moka Efti. A Google later revealed the show’s based on a series of historical crime novels, so I decided to do my homework before the show debuted in January. I’ve enjoyed both, though they’re different creatures.
The books are a standard crime procedural from a single point of view, that of Detective Gereon Rath. Most of what I know of Weimar Germany comes from “Cabaret” so the story is a revelation of the grime under the glamour. Much of the “action” is Rath’s sleuthing and suspicions, review and realizations. This close perspective is involving to read but would likely be tedious to view.
Which is why the tv series is more of an ensemble piece: inevitable because it’s impossible to convey the characters’ inner world on screen. This “outside looking in” inherently leads to numerous side stories and subplots (some say too much, but yo, Weimar Germany was messy and scary). The writers expanded and altered some backstories (some quite a bit) but they’re still true to the characters and time/place.
I think the trope of “book is always better than the movie” comes about when screenwriters aren’t true to the characters, or try to make up rules/ignore established rules for the world in which the story takes place.
What about you? Already have your favorite book cast with your favorite actors, or run screaming from any and all movie versions? Or does the movie occasionally improve upon the book (Blade Runner. Fight me)?