A Better Movie?

Did you know that Shutter Island was originally a book? Most people don't. How could a regular old book be transformed into one of the most known movies today? Let's explore the constraints of a text-based platform over a visual one.

First, books are harder to make subtle hints in. It's harder to weave in the small things to make a plot out of it because the only thing the reader knows in a book is what you directly say. If you, for example, say that the lighthouse is on the island in the beginning but then go back later and say that it is its own small island, that only confuses them. Instead, in a movie, you can show the lighthouse slowly moving further away throughout the movie. In the second scenario, it will only make them question what they know and mess with their rather than straight out confuse them.

In a book, it is harder to pull off hallucinations. You need to make it sound like the events are impossible, but still write them in as if they were there. In a movie, that's easier to do. Have the main character look confused, show things that are imppossible happen to the hallucinastions. Have the hallucinations clearly look like they don't belong. But if you do those things in a book, you will only destroy the purpose of the hallucinations. In Shutter Island, the point is to not know what is real or fake and be constantly questioning yourself. If you have things clearly labeled as hallucinations, that's very difficult to have the point.

All in all, Shutter Island's book was nowhere near as well known as the movie. That can be atrributed, not to that the book was bad, but that the movie was even better because it took off the constraints of text based modes.