Being loyal is a trait to be coveted in nearly every instance except when adapting a book to film. In the case of film adaptations, remaining faithful and loyal to the original work is a burden and not something that should be revered. Remaining completely faithful to an original source defeats the purpose of a film adaptation entirely. Doing so only inhibits the screenwriters own sense of credible artistic interpretation. Merely recreating a book in the form of a film is not something that should be put on a pedestal and should be considered an artistic cop out. Quality adaptation rests in the screenwriter molding parts of the original work to fit their own interpretation on what has taken place in the book. However, while I believe …show more content…
While it may be true that one could derive some sense of pleasure from the ordinary storyline and obscure themes in The Orchid Thief, when it is all said and done, the book leaves you feeling deprived of entertainment. I know that I found myself asking ‘What was that for?’ upon finishing the text. I did not dislike what I had just read; I just didn’t know why it was written in the first place. The movie, on the other hand, left me rather satisfied in terms of being entertained. One scene in particular that galvanized entertainment in the film was the ending. I would have never guessed that Laroche ends up being alligator supper or that Donald dies in a car crash. Both of these events were unexpected and shocking, and tremendously influenced how I thought about the film. Kaufman took a leap of faith with these ‘wow factor’ death scenes and I think it paid off, as it left me satisfied. I appreciate that he had the guts to incorporate these scenes in order to surprise the audience. Also, the fact that Charlie ends up dating Amelia was another aspect of the ending which contributed to the robust entertainment when compared to the book. In a sense, the entertainment factor is what Kaufman gained by taking liberties with the adaptation of The Orchid Thief. He changed what he deemed necessary and the result was a work that, in terms of entertainment, completely surpassed the
Many novels are transcribed from their original texts to films. Some of the movies are similar to the original plots, others do not follow the authors work. Alice Hoffman’s novel Practical Magic is altered when it is made into a movie; and Arthur Miller’s play The Crucible which was also made into a movie, was extremely similar to his original writing. There are multiple variables that account for how a movie is made some of them include; the amount of income, how much can be changed, and the author’s approval. The two recreations previously mentioned, have two completely different outcomes, the results all depend on the amount of creative licensing the movie company has.
In our contemporary civilization, it is evident that different people have somewhat different personalities and that novels behold essential and key roles in our daily lives; they shape and influence our world in numerous ways via the themes and messages expressed by the authors. It is so, due to the different likes of our population, that we find numerous types and genres of books on our bookshelves, each possessing its own audience of readers and fans. In this compare and contrast essay, we will be analysing and comparing two novels, The Chrysalids and Animal Farm, and demonstrating how both books target the general audience and not one specific age group or audience of readers. We will be shedding light at the themes and messages conveyed to us in both books, the point of view and the style of writing of the authors as well as the plot and the format used by the authors, in order to demonstrate how both books are targeting the general audience.
Overall, the movie and book have many differences and similarities, some more important than others. The story still is clear without many scenes from the book, but the movie would have more thought in it.
Andrews was a great story teller, she proved that when her novel “Flowers in the Attic” become a bestseller almost immediately. Not only was she great but she was thorough, and the story on the Dollanganger children continued into 3 more book. In an analysis written by an anonymous user on a forum called “Flowersintheattic2point0,” it’s said that the Dollanganger series should not be analyzed separately. Since V.C. Andrews was so invested in storytelling, the author of that analysis doesn’t believe that one book can truly tell the whole story (A Critical Analysis of V.C. Andrews ' Flowers in the Attic: It Is What It Is…But What Is It? (Part One)). When looking at it simply, everything about this story is problematic, from the actions of the characters to the romantic ties the author gave them. While it is an interesting story, and it does completely consume you when reading it, the problems are overwhelming and unsettling. The story of the Dollanganger children continues in the other 3 books of this series, so the problems and hardships for the children don’t just end with “Flowers in 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.
Obsessions can lead one to greater heights, but it can also leech off of him until only a shadow remains. That’s the message writer Susan Orlean conveys to readers in the first chapter of her award winning novel The Orchid Thief. This surprising real life account by Orlean takes place at the simultaneously rural and urban state of Florida. When Orlean hears of a horticulturalist’s, John Laroche, trial for having stolen a rare species of orchids from a local state park, she immediately researches deeper into the subject in case “this ball of paper might bloom”, eventually leading her to Laroche himself. Laroche, the reader soon discovers, has a consistent habit of emerging himself in fleeting passions that disappear as suddenly as they emerge. From turtles, to coral fish, to orchids, Laroche’s interests remain as unpredictable as his perseverance is unfaltering. Once Laroche decides he’s interested in a new field, he gives his soul for the occupation, spending every
Why do directors choose to stay faithful to or depart from a text when they are producing a film? Many directors choose to either alter or maintain literary elements such as characters, plot, and resolution from a text. The presence or lack of these specific features affects the audience. For instance, in the story “The Monkey’s Paw”, a classic short horror story written by W.W. Jacobs, and its accompanying film, the similarities and differences in the characters, plot, and resolution have an effect on the readers and viewers.
In conclusion, books and their movies are never the same. This tenet is known to cause some serious controversy in the secret world of fandoms, the community of people who are dedicated lovers of the same books, movies, TV shows, or any other form of media. John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men is a great example of the changes that differentiate between a novel and the book, as seen above. This book and its movie have obvious changes between the characters, the plot, and dialogue. These things are picked up in practically every book and its movie adaptation. Because of this, there are various discrepancies amongst enthusiasts debating whether the movie outshines the book, or vice versa. But it is all up to you to decide: Do apples taste better, or do oranges?
A film adaptation of a book can be like hearsay. The author writes a novel to send a certain message. Someone else reads it interprets it in a different way and talks to a film producer. The film producers then take its, leaves out major events, change the ending and make a film with a completely different message than the author. The author then screams bloody murder then takes his cut from the box office. Joesph Boggs, the author of Problems with Adaptation, says “We expect the film to duplicate exactly the experience we had seeing the play or in reading the novel. That is, of course, completely impossible” (Boggs 672). No one told this theory to David Fincher, the director of Fight Club. Fincher stuck almost like glue to the novel. He did however, change a few events in the novel and the ending but stills successfully puts Palahniuk’s words on screen that even made Palahniuk happy to earn his profits.
The film that was produced after the novel has a lot of differences and not as
It’s pretty clear that film and literature are very different mediums and when you try to make one into the other, such as an adaptation, you’re going to have some things that are lost in translation and seen in a different light. When an original work is made into a movie, I think they’re kind of at a disadvantage because they only have a few hours to get the whole story across while also keeping the viewer intrigued by what is taking place on the screen right in front of their eyes. Movies are able to contain special effects, visuals, and music though which can impact a viewer and make a scene stay in their mind longer which is a plus side to being able to view something. Literature on the other hand, has a greater advantage. They can keep the reader entertained for a considerably long time and you’re able to get more information about people and events such as what a character is thinking or what is happening behind the scenes during a specific event. I understand that people are going to have different opinions when it comes to whether a book or film adaptation of a work is the best and it is not always going to be the same for each and every piece of work. One thing I think though, is that The Namesake in both the film and the movie, they’re both accurate and concise in the way that they relate to one another.
Generally, the film follows the storyline of Atwood's book quite well other than a few exceptions. The changes the movie made probably do work better just because of the fact that it is a movie. Some things are better explained in books than they could ever be explained in a 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.
All dramatic productions feature the elements of drama. Following a viewing of the scene ‘Someone’s crying’ from the 1993 movie ‘The Secret Garden’ three of the elements of drama have been assessed. Role, character and relationships have been utilised in ‘The Secret Garden’ to create anxiety and suspense, enticing the viewer to solve the mysteries the Secret Garden presents. The protagonist in the scene is a young girl, around the age of ten who during the night leaves her room to explore her residence. The protagonist narrates the scene; she begins by stating that the ‘house seems dead like under a spell’. This makes the viewer anxious and fearful for the safety of our young protagonist. The protagonist is brave. She pushes open a door and
Adaptation of any kind has been a debate for many years. The debate on cinematic adaptations of literary works was for many years dominated by the questions of fidelity to the source and by the tendencies to prioritize the literary originals over their film versions (Whelehan, 2006). In the transference of a story from one form to another, there is the basic question of adherence to the source, of what can be lost (Stibetiu, 2001). There is also the question of what the filmmakers are being faithful to or is it the novel’s plot in every detail or the spirit of the original (Smith, 2016). These are only few query on the issue of fidelity in the film adaptation.