The reader expects to feel the same way he or she did when reading the literature. It is challenging to limit revision due to the nature of film and literature being two very different ways to portray stories. It is similar to comparing an oil painting to a statue. There is also too much content in a novel to have it all put into a movie, sections of it have to be cut out (Boggs). As expected, a higher dedicated audience to a work of literature will be critical towards any given movie.
Comparison of Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh's Versions of Hamlet Modern day directors use a variety of methods to hold ones interest. Ethan Hawke and Kenneth Branagh’s created versions of Hamlet that shared some similarities, but ultimately had many differences in respects to an audience’s appeal. An appealing movie is one that has an alluring ambiance and an intellectual stimulus. With these two movie versions, a setting and a mood forced an audience to acquire specific emotions, but Ethan Hawke’s version generated emotions more strongly and effectively. Also, these movies had extremely different uses of music and visuals, but both movie versions incorporated them well for the ambiance it tried to obtain.
It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on. I enjoyed The Big Sleep by Howard Hawks, but can still recognize and appreciate the differences between it and Chandler's masterful novel. It is an objective appreciation of the two works which forms the foundation a good paper. One must look at the book as a distinct unit, look at the film as a distinct unit, and then (and only then) use one to compare/contrast the other in a critique. The film, after all, is not an extension of the novel&endash;as some would like to argue&endash;but an independent entity that can be constructed however the artist (Hawks in this case) wants.
Authors and movie producers often have different ideas about how to portray a subject, in this case, the beloved story of The Giver. When you compare the two versions of The Giver, the novel and the movie, you will find very apparent and important differences not only in the plot, but in the characters and setting as well. When reading a novel, you visualize the perfect setting, trying to recreate that perfect setting as a director can be a strenuous and difficult task. To begin, the members of the community, both in the novel and movie,
The reason for the consistency in the films is the publics desire to make an informed choice not and not to go in blind. By using the genre qualification, the industry is able to target societal groups and try to produce and market what they want to see. The public attends a film because they think they might enjoy some aspect of it. The film genre follows a set of abstract rules that allows the public to informally categorize films. These rules must be viewed from an flexible point of view in order to legitimize their future existence.
So, why is the book better than the movie? There are infinite details within a novel that are commonly not transferred into the film adaptation simply because the movie would have an extremely long duration. The original book is more rhetorically effective because it has far more details than its film adaptation and therefore has more room to work with in regards to its appeals to the Rhetoric Triangle. Although the plot of the movie loosely resembled the details in the plot of the novel, both representations were able to clearly create connections to Aristotle’s three ingredients for persuasion: Ethos, Logos and Pathos.
The movie leaves out key details that are included in the actual book. From personal experience, reading a book will give an individual more details about the overall story. When authors write books, they include minor and major details that draw the reader in. Once the reader is hooked, the author is then able to provide the reader with the overall theme of the book. However, movie producers focus less on minor details that readers find important and lock in on major details that they can make more entertaining or action-packed.
The film adaptations of literary works can sometimes be a nightmare. However, they can also turn out better than the original work in some rare instances. In the case of The Speckled Band by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the movie was a better format for telling the murder mystery because of the movie’s ability to show rather than tell the audience what is happening, the clearer explanation of the plot, and the more in-depth development of the characters. In the movie adaptation of Doyle’s story, the audience is not limited to only reading or listening to dialogue to progress the story’s plot as it is in the book. In the written version of the story, Helen Stoner’s testimony is what sets up the scene and describes the events that led to her seeking
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.
I think it is safe to say that it is more common to hear “the book is much better than the movie” than the other way around. I like to read a good book and I love a good movie. If you consider all the failed attempts to convert great books into great movies, it is obvious that the task of transforming the books' story to a movie is not quite easy. With books, we can enter the minds of our characters in a way that we just cannot do in the audio-visual medium of film. We create the visuals with our imagination in books, but a good movie brings those visuals to life.