I saw “The Namesake” tonight, which is based on Jumpa Lahiri’s book The Namesake. Great book, very good movie.
For those of you who haven’t read it, it’s about an Indian couple who have an arranged marriage and move to the U.S., where they have two children and settle outside New York City. Their children grow up torn between their parents’ traditional Indian lifestyles and their wholly American sensibilities. The book is a poignant story about the push and pull of generations, tradition, and the need to forge one’s own identity.
So which is better? The book, of course, has the benefit of detail and eloquence. The movie, however, is faithful to the book, retaining the most important plot points and some of the details that made the book so memorable. (Though as I sit here now, flipping through the book, I am discovering a lot of little insights and plot developments that the movie, by necessity, left out). So while the book is perhaps more nuanced and certainly fuller than the movie, the movie admirably captures the bittersweet themes of the book. Given the challenges of cramming 291 pages into 117 minutes, the adapted screenplay did about as good a job as it could have. Advantage: Tie.
Even if you haven’t read the book, go see the movie. Definitely the best I have seen this year, with the possible exception of “The Queen.”
Anyone care to weigh in on the merits of Book vs. Movie, “Namesake” edition?