Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Compare the book and film
It is very common to see a movie that has arisen from a famous novel, but
there are some major differences seen when the transition from paper to
screen takes place. The director of a movie has to try and fit a complete
novel into an hour an a half to three our movie. Sometimes this adaptation
works very well and the same points can be found if you read the book or
watch the movie, but sometimes it does not work and some very major points
and circumstances can be lost. In the World According to Garp the director
George Roy Hill did a good job in fitting the major parts of the novel into
the big screen adaptation.
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 biggest change that I noticed when watching the movie is
that they leave out all of the novels Garp writes. In the book we get to
read passages from all of his books, but in the movie the only thing we know
is that he is a writer and we never find out what he writes about. One of
the major characters that was changed for the movie was a girl named Ellen
James. Ellen James ...
The first similarity between the movie and the book was the events and their order.
truly shocking story of his life. In addition, the book not only focuses on the
That is the other reason the book and the movie are
issues. He has written many other books with Dugard like Killing Kennedy: T he End of Camelot,
The film was a very good adaptation of a great book. It is a wonderful
There are few similarities between the book and the movie. Usually most movies are similar to
Kearns writes that the question that his student posed was valuable for several reasons, among them being that "it demonstrated for the class an act of critical reading reading that goes beyond a novel's characters, plot, setting, symbols, motifs, and so forth to look at the rhetoric of intention embodied in all of the choices that comprise a novel" (Kearns 766). This is a very valid opinion that Kearns has. Somehow in academic readings, it seems that the important things gets left behind as we stress heavily on the listing that Kearns chose.
At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects of how the character speaks, looks like, and reacts. Whereas, in the movie, the reader has no choice but to follow the plot laid out in front of them. No longer can they picture the characters in their own way or come up with their different portrayals. The fate of the story, while still unpredictable, was highly influenced by the way the characters looked, spoke, and presented themselves on screen.
I have only included what I have to believe are largely important plot gaps and differences in the movie version in comparison to the book one, and so I apologize again if I have missed any other major ones. Forgive me, please.
Wilson has also penned literally hundreds of articles in newspapers and magazines, and he has provided introductions to dozens
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.
"At the very end of the novel- what is represented as being important? Find two quotes to illustrate this".
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. 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.
For example Norman and Jesse are married way before Norman meets Neal (Jesse’s brother). In the movie Norman meets Neal while is he still courting Jesse. This brings forth another difference Norman doesn’t date Jesse in the book. When Jesse is first introduced, she is already married to Norman. A viewer of the movie who has read the book might also notice that when Norman is never offered a job to teach at Chicago University in the novel. Another big difference between the movie and the novel is the role that Norman’s mother plays, she is a very lively, dynamic character in the book, but in the film she is depicted to a flat character. Paul and Norman have equal fly-fishing skills, but in the movie Norman is just a mere amateur compared to Paul. Rev. Maclean expresses displeasure with Paul's decision to change the spelling of the family name in both version of the story. Someone who might have read the book may believe that the movie didn’t do the book justice when showing Paul’s struggle with his alcohol and gambling addictions. Norman offers to help Paul out with is personal struggles when he is driving Paul and his girlfriend home after a long night of drinking. The offer to help in the novel is done when Paul and Norman go fishing. Some other differences are Rev. Maclean’s personally is almost completely lost in the movie and his most important line “you can love completely without complete understanding” (a