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.
No matter when the film is viewed, Howard Hawks' film engages the audience presenting interesting themes in a sleek, stylistic fashion. His version may contain a limited amount of bare skin and violence, but proves that these inclusions are unnecessary if the film has voice and direction. To Winner, there is no direction or voice. He makes a hollow shell of a film extracting Chandler's exact scenes, harnessing the nudity and violence instead of the deeper themes that stand out in Hawks'. Works Consulted: Chandler, Raymond.
In the movie adaptation, Millen sympathizes and empathizes with Johnson something that is not well brought in the book. It is very easy to see from the movie that the two men are alike and perhaps as different from the other characters as they are alike. Millen is just as reluctant to go after Johnson as we are to see him go after Millen. The plot of the book has been significantly reworked for dramatic effect. The most obvious of these changes is the role that constable Millen plays.
However, the film is dependent on the directors vision and audience has little say on how the story is portrayed. I would rather read novels than watch films because novels provide better story experiences for their audiences through its increased creative freedom through imagination, lack of time limits, increased exposure, and the social experience it provides. I will be using two novels turned films for my analysis of this topic. I will be using examples from Golding's The Lord of the Flies and Morr... ... middle of paper ... ...lling stories than films. Novels are better than films because they give their audience complete creative control over how they visualize the story.
The addition of supporting characters, such as Lisa, diminishes somewhat the loneliness of the short story character. The character in the short story has more in common with Humphrey Bogart’s Sam Spade than with Jimmy Stewart’s Jeff. That Hitchcock took a story written in a style similar to Dashiell Hammett or Raymond Chandler, and chose not to make a film noir detective story speaks much to Hitchcock’s purpose here. Rather than creating a conventional detective story, Hitchcock creates an everyman, whose injury prevents him from action. The impotence the character feels heightens the tension of the film, as well by forcing the viewers to identify with his frustration.
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
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). Whether or not someone who has not read the novel could get some meaning from the film is hard to decide, but if one considers that it would take just about as long to watch the movie as it would to read the book, the decision should be obvious. Works Cited Bianculli, David. "A Kurt Post-mortem on the Generally Eclectic Theatre." Film Comment Nov.-Dec. 1985: 41-44.
Maria Arellano Period 4 Pride and Prejudice: Differences Between the Movie & the Book When filming a novel, especially one as well-known as Pride and Prejudice, differences can be observed between every adaptation that is made. These differences mainly arise from different opinions concerning the actual conceptual message of the book and therefore lead to rather different intentions of what an adaptation should be about. Hence the fact that no matter which book is turned into a movie, there are going to be different things between the two. Although there were some differences between the novel and the movie, to an extent the movie is still able to depict what Austen wanted her readers to take from the book even though there were some major changes. They say that the “first-impression” you leave on someone, will create a lasting impression, which will lead to the creation of their opinion on you.
The idea that Lang is not punished at the end and the blame is put on the innocent is the total opposite theme that Hitchcock relays in his films. After viewing both Arlington Road and Rear Window, I believe that Arlington Road did not live up to its Hitchcockian roots. The main reasons are because Arlington Road had characters not relatable to the masses, refrained from keeping the movie from the point of view of Faraday, and the terrorist plots were blamed on the protagonist rather than the actual villain. Overall, I felt Arlington Road was a great thriller but when compared to Hitchcock, it came up short.
The theoretical impasse in narrative adaptation studies is represented by an ongoing dominance that is usually referred to as “fidelity discourse”. This is a common way of determining the worth of an adaptation work’s success in terms of its faithfulness or closeness to the ‘original’. To be able to understand an adapted film from a point of view of a piece of art is only possible when we distance ourselves from the literary text. It is difficult to watch a cinematic version on screen of the books we have loved and internalized so intimately and made them an integral part of our imagination. When we read a book, it has the ability to take us into a magic realm, into an atmosphere where all our senses are embraced.