Naoko's Birthday: Film vs Novel

Overall, I thought the film lacked key elements from the novel that were important to the story. One scene in particular that stood out to me was Naoko's birthday scene. In the novel, the scene feels much more developed, since we are viewing it from Toru’s perspective. There is more focus on his thoughts about turning twenty, which adds a reflective tone and makes the moment feel more significant than just an interaction between the two of them. We also see more of the dynamic between Toru and Naoko, especially in conversations like the one about Storm Trooper, which feels like Toru is opening up and letting her more into his life. 

The novel also gives us a clearer sense of how Toru understands Naoko’s emotional state. As he listens to her, he becomes aware that something feels off. For example, he points out that she was talking continuously and her thoughts don’t always fully connect, with heavy, intentional pauses, as if she is avoiding certain topics related to Kizuki. Because we are reading from his perspective, her emotional breakdown feels more gradual and easier to understand. Additionally, Toru himself mentions that he is unsure of how to interpret the situation and wonders if it was the right thing for him to do in the moment. In the novel, it is noted that Toru feels like sleeping with her was the only way he could comfort her in that moment, whereas in the film the interaction comes across as more forced and less emotionally grounded.  This adds another layer of complexity to the scene that we are missing from the film. 

In contrast, the film presents this moment in a much simpler way. There is less emphasis on conversation and internal reflection, and more focus on their physical connection. Because we do not have access to Toru’s thoughts, Naoko’s emotions are not explained as clearly, which makes her shift feel more sudden and harder to interpret. As a result, the scene feels more distant and less emotionally detailed than it does in the novel. This also connects to how the following sex scene is filmed, which comes across as more awkward and physical rather than emotional, reinforcing the lack of psychological depth in the film compared to the book.

- Alexia Koulikourdis 

A story of love based on a coming of age story (Norwegian Wood - Movie and Book) - Thomas Weber

    The 2010 rendition of Norwegian Wood on film is a very interesting and unorthodox piece of media. The movie invariably demands the watcher having already read the Novel. This is an incredibly interesting idea and makes for a movie where context is assumed rather than given. However, where I truly find an issue with the movie is in its modulating of the story to focus on the concept and ideals around love instead of growth. From my reading of Norwegian wood, what stood out to me about the novel was its extremely realistic depiction of coming to age, at least in its sentiment, and the complexity of what it means to be and life as the person that you are. The movie takes out the majority of Watanabe, and many other characters', internal complexities and simplifies them for the sake of plot progression. This, I believe, to have been a disservice to the base material. Norwegian Wood is only on the surface a story about sex, love, and loss. At its core I believe it to be depicting the building of Watanabe's character through experience. Starting out as an intelligent and malleable person, slowly, through both good and bad decisions, finding himself. One of the scenes that was removed that I think particularly hurt this presentation of progression of Watanabe's character was omitting his pushback against Nagasawa after Himiko's death. In the novel, this marks a change in his character from constantly molding to those around him to solidifying the shape of his character.

    Another primary type of scene that was not showcased in the movie was the impact that his living situation in the dorm had on his character. More specifically, how his habits and attitude towards his environment slowly changed through small actions. One example of this can be found in his relationship with Nagasawa. From the start of the novel till about the halfway point Watanabe is always seeking out Nagasawa. But as the story progresses and Watanabe's character grows through his relationships with the women in his life, Nagasawa primarily seeks him out. Although small, these slight changes through the presentation of banality help cement Watanabe's character and situation whilst also showing his growth over the course of the novel. The movie primarily skips over these scenes and ideas, often trivializing them and their importance. 

Norwegian Wood the Book and the Movie- Carly

 Carly 

After watching Norwegian Wood, I felt like the movie would be hard to fully understand without having read the book. Many of the characters also felt watered down compared to the book. For example, “Stormtrooper” appears at the beginning of the movie once, and we never see him again. Toru being able to tell these stories about Stormtrooper to prevent the tears that would overwhelm Noako would’ve been nice to see in the movie. 

I also wish the film had developed Toru and Reiko’s relationship more. At the end of the book, the two started to become fairly close. Reiko even gave his advice on what to do when he realizes his feelings for Midori. However, in the movie, she was just Naoko’s closest friend that Toru was familiar with. This made the funeral scene between Reiko and Toru less meaningful. It was really a shame that the scene was completely changed in the movie. Reiko asking Toru if he thinks she will fall in love in Asahikawa and then following it up with asking him to sleep with her, felt off to me. It came off as if she was sleeping with Toru to prepare for her next stage of life rather than grieving Naoko. I wonder if Reiko’s story was left out purposely due to its controversial nature, or if it was a time thing. 

One thing I think the film emphasized well was the disconnect between the worlds of Noako and Toru. Scenes like Noako asking if Toru is okay being together even if she is never able to have sex, and his response saying he’s optimistic. The look on Naoko’s face as Toru left the sanatorium highlighted how Toru struggled to come to reality about Naoko’s condition and how she probably wouldn’t get better. The visuals, especially Toru often following behind Naoko, also gave me the feeling that Toru was unable to grasp the seriousness of Naoko’s sickness. 

I enjoyed the ending scene of the movie. It was a bit on the nose, but the transition from Reiko telling Toru to be happy, and then him calling Midori in a green shirt, felt like it was clear he made the choice that he wanted to live and move forward.

Why the Novel Cannot Be Replaced by the Film

 After watching the film adaptation of Norwegian Wood, I personally have an opinion: film is NOT a good medium to present this story. I'm not trying to criticize the filming techniques or anything like that. If we only view it as a separated movie, it's not that bad. In another word, at least it succeeds as a movie. However, if we discuss it together with the original novel, it fairly lacks the ability to convey the whole context within the novel.

To understand Norwegian Wood, the tiny details between the protagonists’ interection should be importantly considered. At the beginning of the movie, it only tells us that Kizuki, Toru, and Naoko are friends during high school. After Kizuki's death, Toru and Naoko move to Tokyo and coincidentally meet again. Then they become close through the time they spend together over the year, and finally they do. That is it.

But what is really important in the novel is how Kizuki plays a really important role in both Toru and Naoko's hearts, (the lost of Kizuki in movie seems not to be too strike on both of them) , and how the loss of their closest friend, in a city where they are both strangers, is what connects the two of them together. And from that, how a certain emotion, and a certain redemption, grows between them. But all of this, none of it comes through in the movie.

The movie only tells us the story, tells us what happens. But everything that is truly important for both Toru and Naoko themselves can only be explored through their tiny conversations, their small actions, and what they are thinking inside. These are things the movie simply cannot show.

To put it all together: although the movie tells the story of Norwegian Wood fairly clearly, it completely fails to bring out what the novel is really about:  the bonds that grief creates between people, the desperate need to save each other, and the quiet, painful hope of redemption. And so a book that is so full of human nature, ethics, and all kinds of deeper meaning ends up looking in the movie like just an ordinary, plain tragedy.

Boran

Difference between the book and the film

One detail I noticed throughout the film is how it portrayed Toru's inner thoughts. The narration of Toru's thoughts in the book was a huge part of the story, where the readers were able to notice smaller details compared to the movie, which makes his character feel more complex. Even if he used words that sounded calm or monotone, we were able to tell that he was impacted by his environment and surroundings. These narrations were almost like hints to us, that helps us understand ideas such as Toru's characteristics like detachment was not the same as being indifferent. And that there could be other possibilities such as a way to cope for the loss.

Now in the movie, Toru's thoughts are less visible to the audience because the film did not include his narrations in the same way as the book did. Us, as the audience, mostly had to understand or judge him through his actions, expressions and body language. Because of this, he can come across as harder to understand or to be read by the viewers. And I believe this difference also affects the emotions of what we could potentially feel. In the book, Toru somewhat feels closer and more personal because his mind is like an open book. While in the movie, he feels more distant, like it is just an observation. To me, this was one of the biggest details I noticed between the film and the book.

- Shurun Li

Murakami's voice in novel and film

  Previously I wrote about how Murakami’s novels and short stories have an “American voice”, despite being set in Japan. In Norwegian Wood, I found the many references to other novels like The Great Gatsby and songs by The Beatles and other jazz artists to set a scene not quite natural to Tokyo, despite the references to landmarks and street and city names. In the film version, this is done similarly with music. Murakami was a jazz cafe/bar owner, and his works reflect his knowledge of Western culture. The soundtrack in scenes of transition consists of mostly lively, vocal samples accompanied by guitar and drums, whereas the film score around dialogues is calm and consists of mainly quiet piano phrases. This choice maintains the traditional Japanese setting, while interjecting with Western elements. Murakami’s voice is not directly perceived in the film—rather, we hear Toru’s internal dialogue relevant to the immediate world around him. The typical monologue is omitted, and Murakami’s style only enters through scenes like the pool game, working at the record store, and Reiko’s guitar performances. In between, Toru has a factory job, hikes in the mountains near Tokyo, and spends time with Midori. I think that although many scenes are truncated in the adaptation to film, Murakami’s style appears in fewer situations, essentially muting his voice. The soundtrack is more like an excursion into America, rather than an inheritance of either Japanese or American culture. Overall, it distances the film from the novel; if we think of Murakami as directing his stories, the film does not belong to him in the same way.

River

Toru's Inner Life

 One of the most interesting differences between the Norwegian Wood book and film is the way each portrays the inner world of the protagonist, Toru. In the Murakami novel, the memories and experiences of Toru are much more intricate and personal because they are all told through his voice. We get to see his quirks, reactions, and troubled musings on death and life. We are constantly inside his mind, so we can feel the complexity of his grief, desire, guilt, and confusion surrounding Kizuki and Naoko. I feel like, because of that, we can see things much more from his perspective and know his internal reactions to things. He comes off as a much more conflicted, angst-riddled, and despondent person. 

In the movie, however, the film feels more distant and aesthetic. I think the differences that the distance between the two media creates are significant because Norwegian Wood is a novel entirely concerned with the nature of memory and internal experience. A lot of scenes, which were much longer scenes in the novel, like Stormtrooper waking Toru up to do his exercises, were represented only in mere seconds or not represented at all. Because of that, I feel like the film captures Toru and the other characters less as a whole. I wonder if a film that includes everything in the novel would become more boring or less artistic as a result. However, I enjoyed how the film makes the world of Norwegian Wood feel melancholic and dreamlike, even if it sacrifices some of the psychological depth and rich details in the novel. 

Katherine