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. Luhrmann’s movie adaptation modified the original text in a distinct way, especially through the hyperbolic representation of Jay Gatsby’s parties and the choice of modern soundtrack. The movie didn’t quite touched the viewers as well as the original novel did, it only skimmed through the scenes and focused more on the “party” section that was mentioned in the novel.
A movie, even when it's good, doesn't often convey the feeling of the book it's based on. But in this case screenwriter Horton Foote treated the Harper Lee novel - about a Depression-era Alabama lawyer and his two children - with love and respect, and the director successfully evoked the novel's sense of childhood mystery and tenderness." (Dashiell) The same characters were the same heroes and the same characters were killed so the movie still resembles the book yet the directors choose to change some ideas around causing a different perspective while still maintaining the same morals. Some minor differences between the movie and the book include the book being much more descriptive and easier to understand where as the movie is harder to understand due to the fact that there isn't any narration. The book also has more suspense while the movie moves too fast and cuts out scenes.
By Jane Austen's time, the genre had a clear enough definition of itself that her narrators rarely occasioned to intrude like Fielding's. Her first novel, Northanger Abbey contains some intrusive passages, though, even as a novice, she was developing a far more subtle approach to commentary. Austen argues for the novel without lengthy interruption, but like Fielding, forgoes authenticity in the process. By exposing the author's process and methods, Northanger Abbey and Tom Jones both concede the inherent fictionality of their work, but more importantly, they ... ... middle of paper ... ...iece, with lengthy, persuasive essay-like chapters throughout the text. Austen compresses her commentary and the narrator does not dominate the discussion.
However, perceptions between the two differ from even each other. As Lupack says: In asserting an adaptation we are not really comparing book with film but rather interpretation with interpretation - the novel that we ourselves have recreated in our imaginations, out of which we have constructed our own individualized “movie,” and the novel on which the filmmaker has worked a parallel transformation. (10) Although we do have our different perceptions about the novel and the story within it, these perceptions are, more or less, similar to each other. As these only vary so much from each other, they can still be a considerably veritable basis of comparison for the two versions of this story, the versions focused on being the novel and the the film. When comparing between our variations, we can compare the changes to see “how much of written work’s plot and characterization has been translated into the new medium, how comprehensive and intelligent an understanding of the original (its strengths, its weaknesses) underlies the translation” (Hunter 159).
Through using different sources, the fact that the novel is more developed than the film is strongly reinforced. The novel provides descriptions of the symbols, characters, and the setting. The symbols are clear in the novel. On the other hand, symbols are not present on the film. Characterization is well developed in the novel, but there is little characterization in the film.
However, not only do the two films contrast each other in their used of text, but as well they differ in setting, interpretation of characters and relationships between characters. In my opinion Branagh’s adaptation is much better than that of Zeffirelli in most aspects; it gives a truer likeness to the play itself. One of the things that Branagh brings to his adaptation of the play is an amazing visual sense. From start to finish, this is a stunningly beautiful film, filled with vibrant colors, startling camera angles, and costumes and production values that are among the best of the year. Even if the story was weak, Hamlet would be worth seeing for its pure visual splendor, and although the dress and settings are those of late-nineteenth century England, no part of the film seems antiquated.
Although he was very honest and true to the dialogue of the play, he didn’t give the same essence and effect. Parker managed to establish an entertaining romantic comedy, but he definitely loses Wilde’s key messages and comic genius. Both texts grasp the attention of their audiences, however, Wilde’s manages to do so more brilliantly.
When movies are made from novels, they most likely aren't as well performed and written as the original books, although there are some exceptions such as Forest Gump. As evidence, I believe Baz Luhrmann's production of The Great Gatsby, written by F. Scott Fitzgerald in the 1920's was not performed at its best. Baz Luhrmann did well with the special effects; however, he didn't do well in portraying the characters, the symbols and the setting. The special effects Baz Luhrmann decided on using, were spectacular he chose some of the most perfect music and three dimensional visuals. Luhrmann did a wonderful job when choosing the music for the movie's scenes and the soundtrack.
The movie, although a flop in the box office, received great reviews. One reviewer remarks, "The film bombed at the box office but remains an absorbing, if uneven work filled with intriguing--and eccentric--characters." (Jean Oppenheimer). The easiest thing to do when looking at the novel in comparison to the film is to look at what was left out. In Garp there were some instances that were changed for time sake, but nothing major was forgotten.
The Speckled Band by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was entertaining as a written story, but it was even more enjoyable as a film because the movie played out scenes that were only described by dialogue in the book, flushed out the murder plot in a clearer manner, and created more realistic and dynamic characters. Turning older literature into movies that available to the general public prevents them from falling by the way side as many story from the past have a tendency to