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 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.
This can be accomplished through the handling of characters and their relationships with others or their own morals and values. It is perfectly acceptable to alter the plot of a novel, but it cannot violate the theme or tone. Ultimately, the theme and tone are what the reader or viewer takes away from the work. Movies are not just watched for their entertainment, but also to relate to and learn from. Of course, not all film adaptations are done properly.
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.
Defining it within the genre may be compromising to the nature of the film. Scarface (1932 U.S.A. - Howard Hawks ) is a f... ... middle of paper ... ...s that are felt for the characters can for the most part be generalised by saying that the "principle" of the film is most often the character that receive the greatest attention. This is fundamental in the understanding of a film and in the deliverance of a story. The apparent identification with characters of certain types of films is totally dependent upon the desires and expectations of the viewer. It is the ability of the audience to identify with the central characters of a film that keeps them watching.
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
A Comparison of Two Versions of The Big Sleep The Production Code attempted to censor sex and violence in film of the 1930's and 40's. Instead of impairing, it encouraged directors to use artistic ideas and integrity to surpass the viewers' expectations -- actively involving them in the film despite Hollywood's censorship. Howard Hawks is one such director who used the restrictions of the Production Code to his advantage. His screen adaptation of the Raymond Chandler novel The Big Sleep portrays the same amount of sexuality and violence apparent in the written word, using a distinctly subtle style, which develops broader themes. Comparisons with the extremely dull 70's remake by Michael Winner further suggest the superiority of Hawks' film noir.
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.
Although his personality might somewhat differ, his normal relationship with others it is hardly an emotional one. One major character trait of Dylan that plays throughout is his stern personality and lack of words. Even though he was a stern man there was much caring in his tone when he would interact with Miss Kitty. He wasn't much of a smooth talker either; he simply says what needs to be said and goes about his business. At one point Dylan asks Miss Kitty if she would like a couple of drinks; she agrees but when she suggests to sit at the table he doesn't give it a moments thought before rejecting the idea and telling her where they will be sitting.
Due to the nature of movies, there are some large disadvantages to using film as a medium for historical portrayal. Movies tend to play up certain character traits or moments in time to further the plotline. The destructiveness and greed of certain characters in this movie, like Aguirre, was certainly exaggerated. These exaggerations often over dramatize the situation, which as a filmmaker is not necessarily a bad thing. In a historical drama, as opposed to a documentary, you have the unsung responsibility to keep the audience interested and entertained.