Director David Fincher recreates the living, breathing world that is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo almost perfectly in his film. The entire atmosphere of the film is exactly what I was thinking the world would look like while reading the novel; a gloomy place, either raining or snowing. As soon as the opening scene came to an end, I realized the book I had just finished reading, was now coming to life.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a long, sometimes confusing, and thrilling novel. I was very surprised that David Fincher was able to squeeze in every detail from Stieg Larsson’s six hundred page novel into a two and a half hour long movie. I felt like the film did not leave out any key moments from the book, unlike other films I have seen that we’re based off books. While some aspects of the book were changed in the movie, I understand Fincher’s motif behind it; to make the story flow more easily on screen and to have the plot flow together more easily.
For instance, in the novel, Lisbeth Salander’s relationship with her parents is much more developed. “Salander spent Christmas Eve at the Appelviken Nursing Home in Upplands-Vasby. She had brought presents: a bottle of eau de toilette by Dior and an English fruitcake from Ahlens department store.” (Larrson 73). She talks to her mother regularly and shows compassion, unlike in the movie where she is depicted as an outcast, and unsociable. I thought while it would be nice to see Lisbeth’s personal life in more detail, I appreciated that Fincher decided to keep her as a dark and mysterious character. It made her seem more ruthless for what she would do later in the novel, such as taking a gruesome revenge on her rapist. The decision to make Lisbeth more detached from society gr...
... middle of paper ...
... Lisbeth crawled off her bike, cocking her gun, ready to shoot Martin was incredibly suspenseful and showed her determination to kill the mystery murderer that she had been looking for throughout the entire story. Overall, Martin’s death seemed more believable in the film.
Although I enjoyed the book very much, I thought that the movie provided a more concrete explanation to the story. The book had many more details to the characters, especially Lisbeth. I thought the plot made a bit more sense in the movie. Martin’s death was much more satisfying in the film, rather than the novel. The film created a living world where the characters came to life. The dark themes remained present in the film, which made The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo a gripping thriller. Readers will both greatly enjoy reading the novel and how the film has a similar, yet fresh and darker plot.
For example, in the book, Grendel attacks due to his aversion to God whilst in the movie Grendel’s actions are due to his hypersensitive state. This change in story takes God out of the picture giving a filtered and non secular viewpoint. Additionally, in the book, when Grendel slays the Danes in the night, he does so while they're sleeping. Whereas in the movie he simply bursts into Heorot, while all Danes bear witness, killing, eating, and bludgeoned everyone and anyone. Painting a bloodier and darker aspect to Grendel than the original story. Another example would be when Grendel’s arm is ripped off, Beowulf does so with his bare hands in the book. In the movie Grendel’s arm is severed as he is fleeing Heorot, torn and ripped from its body as the door was forcibly shut on
Secondly, the book has no character in place of Mituba and so it greatly makes her existence in the movie questionable. She is usually only seen spying on Hester, like what is are we supposed to interpret from that. Unlike in the novel, the movie we find out is being narrated by Pearl (Arthur and Hester's child) rather than the by the author like in the book. The end too is much different than that of the book where no war takes place. So the book that is said to be an adaption of the movie greatly contradicts and differentiates from it. It is a Rated R movie and has nudity and sexually explicit
There are several ways that the novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, differs from the movie. There are various scenes in the novel that are not in the film that limit it and maintain that the novel is superior. For example, when it is learned that Tom Robinson is dead following his conviction, is merely hours in the film. In the novel, it is several weeks. By having it only be hours the audience misses out on the significance of Tom's death. A good deal happened between Tom's conviction and his death. He, as well as Atticus, continued to fight for some time after the initial trial and that too added to Bob Ewell's anger towards Atticus and his inevitable need for revenge against him. Another way that the film differs from the novel is that it removes some characters who is absence leaves a void. I am speaking of Atticus' sister, Aunt Alexandra. I feel she was a wonderful character who worked as a foil to Atticus. It is through her actions that the reader comes to truly understand where Atticus comes from and how educated in the ways of the world he is. The mere fact that he comes from such upstanding lineage, bordering on the arrogant and aloof, adds to strength of character. It is because of where he comes from that Atticus manages to be such an even and sound voice of reason in such tumultuous times. Without Aunt Alexandra to represent this background one sees Atticus as a "too good to be true" character.
Despite the movie providing a greater depth to characters, it can also do the opposite. For instance, the actress who plays Miss Maudie is a thinner, and much younger, and more conventional than Scout describes in the book, which takes away from a character. The book is still better than the
When novels are adapted for the cinema, directors and writers frequently make changes in the plot, setting, characterization and themes of the novel. Sometimes the changes are made in adaptations due to the distinctive interpretations of the novel, which involve personal views of the book and choices of elements to retain, reproduce, change or leave out. On the contrary, a film is not just an illustrated version of the novel; it is a totally different medium. When adapting the novel, the director has to leave out a number of things for the simple reason of time difference. Furthermore, other structures and techniques must be added to the film to enhance the beauty and impressions of it. Like a translator, the director wants to do some sort of fidelity to the original work and also create a new work of art in a different medium. Regardless of the differences in the two media, they also share a number of elements: they each tell stories about characters.
Both book and movie capture good moments and ideas of Esquivel. I would say the book was more entertaining and memorable for me. The novel never rests or drags on, and although it evolves around many tragedies a dying love and lovers, in the end you truly feel happy for the way things turn to be. So does the movie, the end of it is very powerful, I might have not got attached to its characters but I fell in love with the magical fairy tale and romance of Like Water For Chocolate.
Though very similar, the movie gives the themes something more. The way they approach a situation and how they show the symbols seem to relate the message clearer. The book does the same but some parts may not be as specific and relatable as the movie. But, both contain the two most important symbols, the eyes of Doctor T.J. Eckleburg and Owl Eyes. Without these two symbols, both the book and the movie would be impacted for the worst and leave major themes out of the storyline.
	Books, more often than not, are better than the movies that are made from them. This is due to the immense power of our imaginations. Readers use their imaginations to fill the space that exists between him/herself and the book with such things as dreams, past experiences, and hopes. For this reason, there is much more depth and symbolic depictions in the novella, The Awakening, by Kate Chopin, compared with the movie version, Grand Isle. Due to this, the effect on the reader is much more potent than the effect on the viewer.
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
...said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Another striking difference between the movie and the book is that both are developed by different sexes. This obviously could effect the compare and contrast views of this paper. For example, being male, I found that the two images that left the greatest impression were of sexual nature, Gertrudis making love with the soldier, and Tita being intimate with Pedro. The different views of the sexes may also be the answer to some of the contrasts between the movie and novel. For instance, the death of Mama Elena. Esquirel’s version fits the emotional death, suicide, geared toward the female audience, while Arau’s shows a more sexual and violent death, extinguishing the male desire for action. In conclusion, I found the novel more entertaining than the movie. The reason the movie fell short in expectations is because Esquirel does a great job in allowing the reader to draw on their imaginations. However, Arau is able to capture this imagery occasionally throughout the movie. Furthermore, most of the changes added to the movie were grand, which added to the thrill and plot of the story. Overall, both are memorable and deserve their legacy.
Now for the counterargument. Some people say that they enjoyed watching the movie after reading the book. They may say that they think the movie does follow the book, and that the characters and events are the same in both versions. However, they are wrong because there is plenty of evidence that says otherwise. The different scenes of the book and movie, and also the characters that are completely different and don’t follow the same path in the two different
Usually movies try to take the story to a different level or by adding parts or just try to change it to a completely different story. Some of the differences between the movie as to the book are some little and large differences. They might also try taking little parts away that will change how the readers see the story characters. An example of that would be Walter not smoking in the movie (Pg 115). Walter usually smokes because he is stressed or just as a way to relax. Walter also does not get punched by Mam...
Though the events and a lot of the dialogue are the same in both the book and the movie the crux of the two are completely different. The book focuses a lot more on sexual tension and sexual exploration. The...
I like the reading book better than watching the movie because there are more facts in the book than the movie. Maybe I just like reading books better than watching movies. That’s my opinion. What’s yours (if you’ve read the book and seen the movie)?
Imagine if your work was to be published, but the publishers required you to change even the most minute detail to fit their need. This work would be unrecognizable, not at all what you wanted to convey with your story. This is essentially what happens with every movie adaptation of a popular novel, and readers are always enraged. One such case is The Book Thief, by Markus Zusak, which was unnecessarily changed. The lack of many important details in the movie adaptation of The Book Thief shows how obvious it is that movies must stay true to the book for full effect.