What is lost can sometimes be the real meaning behind the story. The characterization of chief Bromden is a good example of the changes made from book to movie. His past is a vital piece of information contributing to the mood and understanding of the story. In the movie, Bromden is nothing more than a crazy Indian who doesn't want to talk so pretends to be deaf and dumb. Much of the understanding and respect is lost in the transition between book and movie.
A number of other Vonnegut novels have been optioned, but the film projects have either been abandoned during production or never advanced beyond an unproduced screenplay adaptation, indicating the difficulty of translating Vonnegut to the silver screen. So why does Slaughterhouse-Five succeed where others fail? The answer lies in how the source is interpreted on screen. Overall, while there are some discrepancies that yield varying results, the film is a faithful adaptation that succeeds in translating the printed words into visual elements and sounds which convincingly convey the novel's themes. While Vonnegut's literary style is very noticeable in Slaughterhouse-Five, the novel as a whole differs from the majority of his other works because it is personal with an interesting point of view techniq... ... middle of paper ... ...kle every time I watch that film, because it is so harmonious with what I felt when I wrote the book" (Film Comment 41).
But unknown to her, Reverend Dimmesdale is consumed... ... middle of paper ... ...e most movies hold to the basic structure of the book, similarities often end there. The symbolism and metaphors intended by the author are lost in translation, and the director’s creative intellect typically blurs the focus of the novel. In bridging the gap between text and movie, the details that seem unimportant to the writer of the screen play may be changed or even wholly abandoned, the characters that we know and love from the novels are erased, and sometimes even the ending of the movie inconsistent with the book we read. The novels we love become something alien, something unrecognizable on the big screen. Hollywood has always been famous for it’s silver screen monsters, But until one lends to it the appropriate amount of thought, it escapes our minds that the true monstrosity is what happens when translating literature into a box office hit.
If anyone has not read Hemingway’s, A Farewell to Arms, the film will appeal as a rather interesting tragic romance but in some of the scenes, however, the producers take this for granted and assume that the spectator has read the book before. My argument is that the film misses on many of the important aspects that Hemingway’s print version offers. The film does not do justice to the book. Director Frank Borzage focuses merely on the romance characteristics of the story, ignoring the brutalities of war, skipping over many scenes, trying to enhance the melancholy approach to the book. The films explanations skip too quickly for my liking, from one chapter to another and the sufferings and understandings of Lieutenant Henry are passed over too brusquely, being advised rather than voiced.
I was extremely surprised by the way in which Hill's movie managed to successfully portray the ideas of the novel which I believed would be nearly impossible to visualize on screen. I had a hard time imagining how it would be possible to show abstract topics such as "being unstuck in time" on a movie screen. However, I came away extremely impressed with the way that Billy managed to travel around different points in his life as seamlessly as he did in the novel. Throughout the novel I actually had a harder time following Billy's travel through time. I came away surprised by this as I imagined it to be much tougher to follow in the movie.
The Hollywood Production Code Administration’s job was to make sure that every movie produced was appropriate for all ages and ethnic backgrounds. The PCA was harsh to many writers and producers. If they did not give a movie their seal of approval the movie would most likely not be shown in theaters; and even if it were, the movie would most likely not become very popular. The Seven Year Itch ran into trouble because the script was adapted from a play. Plays were allowed to be more risqué than movies during the time and were often not approved for movie production.
Did The Great Gatsby Movie Adaptation Stay True to the Original Version? Baz Luhrmann’s movies are known for their unorthodox visuals and creatively inserted music into the scene. Recently, he received some negative responses from his movie adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby. His movie adaptation was considered unfaithful to the original text or story, despite using most of the same text and action. The Great Gatsby movie adaptation by Baz Luhrmann didn’t capture the essence of the original novel.
The book also has more suspense while the movie moves too fast and cuts out scenes. The movie moving too fast causes it to be very predictable. Three major differences that stood out include missing characters and characters perceived differently, essential scenes left out and the way the book shows individual people while the movie shows the relationships in action. The book versus the movie shows clear differences but the morals are all still the same. ... ... middle of paper ... ... To say both the book and the movie of To Kill a Mockingbird were closely related would be an understatement.
And like many books based movies, there are certain events and details that do not match the book like all of the books fans wished it would. One of the biggest things the movie did not match the book in was how The Giver and the receiver shared the memories. In the book, the receiver can see the memories when The Giver put his hands on Jonas’s bare back. However, in the movie they touch hands and rub the birthmark, that the memory holder has on their wrist. Another flaw I found was the movie created a romance between Fiona and Jonas.
In the film, the director also left out such scenes and details to jump around between major action scenes. Philip Nel stated in “Bewitched, bothered, and bored: Harry Potter, the Movie” that, “The accumulation of minor details can create a markedly different experience between a book and a film, which may explain why my students who read the novel first seemed to be so critical of the film. The movie looks like the places in the book but it doesn 't "feel" like them because these little details accumulate (Nel)”. It is these missing little details that catch us off guard when watch a film based off a book; we expect those little details to be in the movie. Another example would be that the friendship between Harry, Ron, and Hermione did not seem as fluid as it was in the books.