Both the book and film are set in Los Angeles and tell a story of a homeless paranoid schizophrenic named Nathaniel Ayers. Throughout the film The Soloist directed by Joe Wright, it explains what happened to Nathaniel and his love for music; some of those events happen in the book; The Soloist by Steve Lopez. Nathaniel loves music but has a mental illness, while Mr. Lopez is a columnist for LA Times. While both the book and the film tell the same story, it is the book that is far more effective because it gave more characterization and detailed plot.
In the book Nathaniel was a student at Julliard, he played double bass. “I was there for a couple of years (..) Oh I didn’t play the violin, I played double bass” (Lopez 38). Nathaniel lives and plays on the streets with his two string violin. As well as in the film he went to Julliard and played double bass. Nathaniel plays his violin in front of a statue. Although in the film Nathaniel is dressed too clean to be a homeless person, they make him look like he is a psycho and people should stay away from schizophrenics. Mr. Lopez character in the film is a jerk towards Nathaniel. It seems that he does not want a friendship with Nathaniel; he just wants to help him with his music and his mental illness. “I only needed to know our friendship still meant something to” (Lopez 264). Whereas in the book Mr. Lopez is a friendly and he cares about his friendship with Nathaniel.
The book follows the plot whereas in the film they miss key events in Nathaniel’s and Steve Lopez life. In the book Mr. Lopez is a husband and has a daughter named Caroline “(..) While trying to be a columnist, husband and father (Lopez 95). The film begins with Steve Lopez falling off his an...
... middle of paper ...
...cific scene in the film may have people to view schizophrenics as crazy and they cannot control themselves. Without reading the book the film will probably be difficult to understand. The film does not include or go into detail in the major incidents that happened in the book.
Nathaniel and Steve Lopez live in two completely different worlds. Mr. Lopez believed he will only be writing a column about Nathaniel and he would be done; he did not believe he would gain a new friend. Mr. Lopez reaches out to Nathaniel to try and seek help for him, but he learns he will not get better and all he can offer him is his friendship. The film does miss a couple of important scenes that were in the book. The film carried way too long and the scenes were a bit all over the place. I would recommend the book because it has better details than the film and stays true to the plot.
The film is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book. The amateurish style of the book gives it some appeal as a more sleek and sophisticated style wouldn’t evoke a sense of angst’ desperation and confusion that the novel does.
As I read the novel, I couldn’t help but to compare each word to the movie. I may have just recently watched it, but I was suddenly unsure of what I had seen. Was my memory failing me or were things truly that different? I felt like these differences changed the entire story line. The narrator shouldn’t be in a building that was about to be destroyed, this defeated the purpose of Project Mayhem. Then again, I was only on page one.
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
In the movie segregation and racism is more emphasized. To emphasize segregation and racism the movie adds characters ( the cousins) and some scenes. In the book segregation is mentioned for about three times,
The film was a very good adaptation of a great book. It is a wonderful
The book had a lot of thought put into it by the author and it appeals to many audiences of different ages. The book put me on the edge of my seat throughout the whole book, and it was one of those books that you never want to put down. The way the author wrote it had quite a suspenseful, eerie, dramatic feel to it and that is what made the book so great, on top of the plot. The plot of the book was also very well thought out and put together, and I enjoyed reading it. Although the movie was great, I don’t think that it did the book enough justice. There were so many great aspects of the book that they left out, that would’ve made the movie just that much better. They should have put in some of the missing scenes and still portrayed the characters the same as they were in the book. However, I think that it would be hard to create the same feel as Ray Bradbury did in writing the book. It was the way that he connected with his audience that made the book appealing. Both the book and the movie were fantastic ways of portraying the story. If they had kept all of the scenes and properties of characters as they did in the book, the movie would have appealed to me more. But, the movie version of the story could appeal to others more than the book
...rtrayed differently in the movie. Lennie is shown as being very mentally challenged, whereas in the book he is just a little slow and has a mind of a young child. Although some changes are made in the movie to make it flow better, it is still based on the same story as the book. The movie has the same plot line and characters, and some of the scenes are told in the exact same way as they are in the novel. As well, the movie and the book give out the same themes. This story is about how all the people in the Great Depression were trying to escape their unhappy, lonely lives, but weren’t capable of doing so. The movie stays very true to the book even though some things are removed or added. Everything that is added or changed still works very well and captures the film perfectly.
One of the main differences between the book and movies are how Penn and Krakauer interpret Chris McCandless and his story. In the book the story seems to focus more around examining and understanding Chris and his life, whereas the movie shows his life as more of an
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
The Soloist (Foster, Krasnoff & Wright, 2008), is based on a true story of Nathaniel Anthony Ayers Jr. who develops psychosis and becomes homeless. In the film, Nathaniel is considered a cello genius who is discovered on the streets by Steve Lopez, a journalist from the Los Angeles Times. Steve was searching for a story and he decided to write a newspaper article about Nathaniel. Nathaniel always had a passion for music. He was a child prodigy and attended Juilliard School of Music. However, he faced many complications at Juilliard, particularly hearing voices speaking to him. Unable to handle the voices, Nathaniel dropped out and ended up living on the streets of Los Angeles. Steve and Nathaniel develops an unexpected
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
This is my view on the movie and book. I likes the movie better the book because the
..., the film portrayed the kids being overly whelmed with hatred when they received gifts from their parents. It was like they never knew their parents existed. Another example of the difference between the book and the movie is Mr. Freeman (mother’s boyfriend) was presented as being very reserved with the children. In the movie he was seen as warm, talkative, and friendly towards Maya and her brother. The film also showed Mr. Freeman’s manly behavior by confronting Vivian (Maya’s mother) at her job. However, in the book Mr. Freeman never left the house, he always sat and waited at home for her.
From reading the book and watching the movie, I think the book was more insightful, but the movie was more entertaining. The only problem with the movie is that you don't know what is going through Chance's mind and his background information. The movie does help make some things clearer by seeing it, instead of just picturing it in your mind. The added scenes in the movie helps to put some humor into the story and make it more entertaining. By just watching the movie, some people could be confused if they don't know some background on Chance. I think that by reading the book, you can understand the story better and by watching the movie you can enjoy the story better.