Although the novel The Secret in Their Eyes and the film of the same name have stylistic changes and changes in how events happen with the addition of a scene or two, the stories stay true to each other, to a point. The changes include making Irene more involved within the story and changing Chaparro’s character less outwardly faint-hearted, and most of the changes relate to different characters. All the changes and differences between the two serve a purpose within the narrative, usually to make scenes more dramatic for the viewer or to fit scenes within a certain time frame. When we are comparing the novel and its film adaptation, we are addressing whether “an adaptation arrives first at a comparison between a novel and film, and second at …show more content…
However, perceptions between the two differ from even each other. As Lupack says:
In asserting an adaptation we are not really comparing book with film but rather interpretation with interpretation - the novel that we ourselves have recreated in our imaginations, out of which we have constructed our own individualized “movie,” and the novel on which the filmmaker has worked a parallel transformation. (10)
Although we do have our different perceptions about the novel and the story within it, these perceptions are, more or less, similar to each other. As these only vary so much from each other, they can still be a considerably veritable basis of comparison for the two versions of this story, the versions focused on being the novel and the the film. When comparing between our variations, we can compare the changes to see “how much of written work’s plot and characterization has been translated into the new medium, how comprehensive and intelligent an understanding of the original (its strengths, its weaknesses) underlies the translation” (Hunter 159). But when comparing the two we have to remember that “To understand adaptation, for example, we must begin by understanding books and movies are separate and never should be confused with each other,” (Crane 15) so even though the story is similar and the film pulls many elements from the novel, they are still two separate
…show more content…
While he still “anchors the narrative development in El secreto, … he is portrayed as both in control and powerless,” (Rocha 5) within both narrations, in the film he is depicted as less ineffectual towards Irene, being wittier towards her in the present time, possibly more confident in his novel. He is also portrayed as less faint-hearted in the film, as he does not seem to shy away as much from Lillianna 's body as the novel’s narrative tells us. Another facet of Chaparro being less timid in the film is that when he tells Romano that he is going to file a complaint and Romano goes at him, Chaparro fought back. If Romano had attacked Chaparro like that in the novel, it is more likely that Chaparro would not know what to do and either just stand there startled and not fight back or run away as fast as he could. A minor change between variations is that his name is changed, for the reason that Chaparro has the connotation of ‘short and squat,’ and most likely the director did not want to have an immediate negative association to the main character based on the meaning of his
...d coloring of certain images. The novel, however, puts much greater emphasis on the imagination and creativity, and on the main character Tita. The novel really makes the reader feel Titas pain and grow with her as she discovers her freedom, whereas the movie failed to achieve this. Moreover, the movie tends to ignore the significant of 3 integral motifs, cooking, tears and sensuality.
Many time in our lives, we have seen the transformation of novels into movies. Some of them are equal to the novel, few are superior, and most are inferior. Why is this? Why is it that a story that was surely to be one of the best written stories ever, could turn out to be Hollywood flops? One reason is that in many transformations, the main characters are changed, some the way they look, others the way they act. On top of this, scenes are cut out and plot is even changed. In this essay, I will discuss some of the changes made to the characters of the Maltese Falcon as they make their transformation to the ?big screen.?
Though the events and a lot of the dialogue are the same in both the book and the movie the crux of the two are completely different. The book focuses a lot more on sexual tension and sexual exploration. The...
Usually movies try to take the story to a different level or by adding parts or just try to change it to a completely different story. Some of the differences between the movie as to the book are some little and large differences. They might also try taking little parts away that will change how the readers see the story characters. An example of that would be Walter not smoking in the movie (Pg 115). Walter usually smokes because he is stressed or just as a way to relax. Walter also does not get punched by Mam...
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.
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.
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?
Adaptations are never carbon copies. A prime example is Philip K. Dick’s short story and Steven Spielberg’s 2002 film, Minority Report. The structure of the storytelling is indeed different as well as other key elements. The narrative transforms its structure into a more episodic approach when brought to the screen. Words on paper take on a new identity when brought to life on a visual basis.
Film and literature are two media forms that are so closely related, that we often forget there is a distinction between them. We often just view the movie as an extension of the book because most movies are based on novels or short stories. Because we are accustomed to this sequence of production, first the novel, then the motion picture, we often find ourselves making value judgments about a movie, based upon our feelings on the novel. 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.
Douglas Light said that our imagination is better than any answer to a question. Light distinguished between two genres: fantasy from fiction. He described how fantasy stimulates one’s imagination, which is more appealing, but fiction can just be a relatable story. In the same way, Books and movies are very different entities. In the short parable Doubt, the readers are lured in to the possibility of a scandalous relationship between a pastor and an alter boy. The readers’ curiosity is ignited because they are not given all the details. Therefore, their mind wanders further than the plot to create a story and characters that acted on one’s imagination; thus, the story became entertaining- flooded by the questions of what? Who? How? By which the reader can only answer. At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects: 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. The movie leaves little to viewers' imaginations.In order to be entertained by literature or art, the viewer needs to feel that they can use their imagination and not be confined to a plot that reveals all.
	Books, more often than not, are better than the movies that are made from them. This is due to the immense power of our imaginations. Readers use their imaginations to fill the space that exists between him/herself and the book with such things as dreams, past experiences, and hopes. For this reason, there is much more depth and symbolic depictions in the novella, The Awakening, by Kate Chopin, compared with the movie version, Grand Isle. Due to this, the effect on the reader is much more potent than the effect on the viewer.
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.
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.
As stated numerous times throughout this essay, movies must stay true to their book predecessor for full effect. Books are normally beautifully described and written, and help the reader visualize a completely new world. Most movies, not just The Book Thief, normally omit several
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.