The Prince of Egypt
The Prince of Egypt
Growing up, we are raised on Disney movies. Cinderella, Aladdin, and Snow White are some of the favorites. In Hollywood, they make movies according to how they think they will sell. They may change up parts and try to make the movies more interesting by changing the scenes up. I feel as though when the Prince of Egypt was made, this decision wasn’t any different. The way the audience perceived the movie is different from the way they viewed the literature. In 1998, the Prince of Egypt is an animated movie which contrasts the book of the bible, Exodus. In this paper, I will explain the importance of the movie and the story of Moses. I will also show how the story in the Bible is somewhat different from the movie.
Taken from one of the most important books in the world, the book of Exodus in the Bible shows how the Israelites made their dramatic exit from Egypt. For 400 years, the Israelites were slaves under Rameses I. Pharaoh began to notice how the Israelites were outnumbering the Egyptians and he became outraged so he made them his slaves. They forced them to build the cities of Pithom and Rameses as supply centers for the King. Even after that, the Israelites continued to multiply and spread so the Egyptians made their work load even harder. Pharaoh then gave the order to the midwives to kill the Egyptians’ sons when they were born. But because they feared God, they let the boys live. After this, Pharaoh gave the order to kill the
Israelite boys by throwing them in the Nile River. Around this time, in 1526 B.C., Moses was born and his mother wanted him to live so she placed him in a basket and put it in the Nile River. The pharaoh’s daughter came to the river and saw the basket and opened it. She saw baby Moses and felt sorry for him. Moses’ sister went up to the princess and asked her if she wanted her to find a maid to come and care for the child. She said yes and his sister went and got her and Moses’ mother.
In the opening of the movie, the slaves are shown setting up statues and the Pharaoh’s army is telling the Hebrews to work faster and began to whip them if they did not. Moses’ mother, Jochebed, grabs him and his sister and brother and they run to the river. His mother places him in a basket and watches him float away. He is later found by the Pharaoh’s wife and she goes to introduce him to the King as their new son. He is raised as a prince when in reality; he is an offspring of a slave woman. He comes upon two slaves, Miriam and Aaron, and she is happy to see him but he does not understand why. She finally tells him that he is their “deliverer” and their baby brother. He does not believe her. He runs away and ends up relaxing. He begins to have a dream about his mother doing what Miriam said she did. He goes to the hieroglyphic wall and sees his “father” Rameses III pointing to the Nile River while the army dumps the Hebrew babies in the river. His father comes up and asks him what he is doing. Moses asks him why he did what he did to the Hebrew babies and the King replied,” Oh son, they were only slaves.” Realizing that he is a Hebrew, he backs away from his father. Moses then goes outside and sees how the army was treating the slaves and he looks at them differently. An elderly man is being whipped by one of Pharaoh’s men and Moses could not take it anymore so when he tries to stop him, Moses pushes him so hard that he fell to his death. Afterwards, he flees to his brother,
Rameses II, and his brother tries to convince him to stay in Egypt, but he fails at it. Moses goes to Midian and meets his future wife, Zipporah and her dad, Jethro. They make a happy life together with her family. One day while Moses was tending to the sheep, he runs into a burning bush. God starts talking to him saying that he needs to go back to Egypt and tell Rameses to let his people go. Moses starts doubting himself and God gets upset. He tells him that he is the only person that can do it and after a while, he agrees. He and his wife head to Egypt and come in during a ceremony for the new King, his brother, Rameses II. He tries to talk to him civilized but Rameses is not going for it and he doubles the workload all because Moses came to talk to him. Over the course of time, God helps Moses perform different acts to get Rameses to let him go such as different plagues. The last plague was the first born of the Egyptians were killed and this hurt Rameses because he lost his son. When Rameses told him to get his people and go, they start the march to a better place, the “promised land.” On the way, they ran into the Red Sea and turned around and saw Rameses and his army coming after them. God saw this and parted the sea for the Hebrews and let them pass through.
When comparing and contrasting these two works of literature, I found that even though both of them were based on a true story, they were quite different. As young people, we admire animated movies and fall in love with the stories they portray but when we grow up, we do our research and discover that the movie might not have been true. After watching the movie and analyzing it, I found that key parts of the movie were not explained correctly. The princess found Moses, but in the movie, the Pharaoh’s wife found him. Also, all of the plagues were not shown in the movie and I feel as though they were very important and should have been showcased.
All in all, the movie was great! Personally, it’s one of my favorite movies. As I grew older, I learned that the movie did not match the story of Exodus and I had to look into the real story more. Hollywood tried to make it glamorous by adding little bits and pieces to the movie to make it stand out more but I feel as though they should have told the real story with nothing added to it.
Red Hot: The Film Adaptation of The Scarlet Letter
Roland Joffe’s 1995 film The Scarlet Letter is an adaptation of the 1850 novel written by Nathaniel Hawthorne, and takes place in Massachusetts in the mid 1600’s. Hester Prynne is a young, attractive, and independent woman who arrives in the puritan town from England. She is unhappy in her marriage to her much older husband, whom is assumed dead after failing to arrive after her. Hester quickly feels an attraction to Arthur Dimmesdale, the young and beloved reverend well-known by all the townspeople for his piety and upstanding morals. This attraction ultimately leads to an affair between the two, which results in the birth of a child named Pearl. Viewed to be a grave sin in puritan times, the town punishes Hester for refusing to reveal the father of her illegitimate child by forcing her to be publicly criticized and to wear the infamous scarlet letter on her clothing for the rest of her life. The film portrays Hawthorne’s tale of the struggle endured by Hester and the deep shame and guilt that silently torture the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale (IMDb). While Roland Joffe’s film adaptation of The Scarlet Letter may not always preserve the literal integrity of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, through the alteration of content, the film has been adapted to fit the modern requirements for entertainment. This paper will discuss how the addition and emphasis of sexual content as well as the inclusion of a “happy ending” is cause for literary criticism, but is successful in terms of satisfying the “Hollywood image” that attracts viewers.
One major difference between the novel and the film adaptation of The Scarlet Letter is the sexual content. The story of course evolves because of a sexual encounter between Hester Prynne and the Reverend Arthur Dimmesdale, but Hawthorne does not include a descriptive seen of the actual event, it is simply understood that it happened. The film adaptation makes sex a prominent feature by including a detailed “spicy” scene between the two main characters. In a moment of passion Arthur Dimmesdale, played by Gary Oldman says “God help me, Hester, I love thee!” and Hester Prynne, played by Demi Moore, responds to his declaration by saying “God help me, I love thee too!” (The Scarlet Letter) The scenes that follow lead up to a joining of the two characters in a barn where they perform their “act of love” in the hay, which is emphasized by the accompaniment of a romantic music track and of course moaning. In addition to having a theatrical interpretation of the actual affair between both characters, the movie further emphasizes sexual content with the inclusion of a scene involving a young, African American house- slave. As the scene between Hester and Arthur continues, there is a drifting into another setting where Hester’s house-slave, Mituba, is being intimate with herself while bathing alone in the tub. This scene further proves that sex was deliberately exaggerated in this film. In his film review for Entertainment Weekly, Owen Gleiberman says this shocking scene with the young house-slave is what he will remember out of the entire movie. He later says that like the “A” Hester Prynne wears on her chest, Roland Joffe, the film’s director should wear “ …a red S for shamelessness” ( 1). I agree that this scene was unnecessary and due to its content, viewers will have trouble forgetting such a display, which in turn takes away from the rest of the film. As for the scene showing the affair between Hester and Arthur, I think that overall it was a positive addition to the movie. The “Hollywood image” demands sex and whether viewers are entertained or appalled by these scenes in films, “risky” content attracts viewers. I do not think that the literal integrity of the novel was at all compromised by adding a sex scene. Nathaniel Hawthorne lived in a very conservative time period and often “tested” society by including controversial elements like sin and temptation in his writings. That being said, I think Hawthorne would have written a sex scene himself if public opinion would have allowed it; therefore, I feel he would support the screenwriter’s decision to emphasize the role of sex in this film.
Perhaps the most notable difference in the film adaptation of The Scarlet Letter as compared to the novel is the ending. In the final scene of the film, the Reverend Dimmesdale, played by Gary Oldman, stands on top of the scaffold where Hester and other women are about to be hanged for heresy. Here he publicly proclaims his love for her saying “In God’s eyes I am her husband” (The Scarlet Letter). The ending continues with a violent display of an invasion by the Native Americans and in a blur the Reverend leads Hester from the scaffold and the two maneuver their way to safety, rescuing Pearl along the way. We then see the three leaving the town on a horse and carriage, looking very content. This ending is uplifting and certainly a happy one, but is different than the ending written by Nathaniel Hawthorne. One difference is the setting of the final scene. While Hester is about to be hanged for witchcraft in the film adaptation, the ending begins with the Reverend Dimmesdale finishing his Election Day Speech, and as the townspeople proceed outside the Reverend walks to the scaffold and calls for Hester and Pearl to join him. In the ending of the film, Dimmesdale is healthy and spry, which enables him to maneuver through the chaos during the Native American invasion of the town. In the novel, Dimmesdale’s state is the exact opposite. Dimmesdale became ill earlier in the story, and his condition steadily worsens as time goes on. By the end of the novel, the Reverend is so weak that when he stands upon the scaffold to admit his sin he is forced to lean on Hester for support. At this point in the film, Dimmesdale proudly proclaims his love for Hester with a courageous and steadfast attitude. In the novel, however, Dimmesdale is about to make his final confession, and speaking from a state of guilt says to Hester “For I am a dying man. So let me make haste to take my shame upon me!” (266) This quote also introduces another difference between the film and the novel. While the Reverend Dimmesdale may live happily ever after with the woman he loves and their child according to the movie, the novel ends with the frail Reverend praising God for causing him pain for his sins saying “I had been lost forever! Praised be his name! His will be done! Farewell!” (269) With these final words, the Reverend then dies. Film reviews gave harsh criticism to the screenwriters for changing the ending to the novel. In her review of the movie, Caryn James of the New York Times, describes the ending as rather ridiculous and in reference to the addition of the conflict with the Native Americans she says the actors “manage to keep a straight face, which is more than anyone in the audience will be able to do” (2). In my opinion, I think this alternate ending upset many critics not only because it is completely different from the novel’s ending, but also because such a conclusion strays from the writing style and the image of its author Nathaniel Hawthorne. Hawthorne is known for his “dark” approach to writing, and his tales are often shaped by downtrodden settings and rather unpleasant endings. However, I think the film’s writers chose to change the ending to a positive one because that is the common preference, and many viewers opinion of a film can be formed by the ending alone. In my own experience, when I ask people whether they enjoyed a movie or not, they mention the middle content of the movie, whether it was boring or interesting, but they always include their opinion of the ending as well. Even if viewers do not enjoy the entire movie, if there is a positive ending they will be more apt to give credit to the film. Overall, I agree that the ending of the film adaptation of The Scarlet Letter does not live up to the literal integrity of the novel, but from a cinematic point of view, such an alteration does satisfy the viewers desire for a “happily ever after”.
In my opinion, it is impossible to judge the adaptation of this film from only one perspective. From a literary point of view if the film is an adaptation of the novel then it should follow the original structure and content. In contrast, if a novel is being made into a film than the requirements for entertainment must be met. Since The Scarlet Letter was not written with any of the elements of film entertainment, such as detailed sex scenes and a happy ending, they must be added which in turn compromises the literary integrity of the novel, but without such additions the requirements for a successful film would be compromised as well.
In conclusion, I feel that the film adaptation of The Scarlet Letterdid not consistently preserve the literal integrity of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel, but if the story was followed without deviation, than I think the film would be criticized for being too “dull”. That being said, from an entertainment perspective, the emphasis on sex and alternate ending did successfully shape the novel to fit the demand of viewers.
Works Cited
Berardinelli, James. "Review: Scarlet Letter, The (1995)." Reelviews Movie Reviews. 26 Mar. 2009 <http://www.reelviews.net/movies/s/scarlet.html>.
Gleiberman, Owen. "The Scarlet Letter | Movie Review | Entertainment Weekly." Entertainment Weekly's EW.com | Entertainment News | TV News | TV Shows | Movie, Music and DVD Reviews. 20 Oct. 1995. 17 Mar. 2009 <http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,299187,00.html>.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Scarlet Letter. London, UK: Createspace, 2008.
James, Caryn . " Movie Review - The Scarlet Letter (1995) October 13, 1995 FILM REVIEW; Passion, Nudity, Puritans and, Oh, Yes, That Scarlet Letter 'A'." New York Times. 3 Oct. 1995. 17 Mar. 2009 <movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=990ce7da1538f930a25753c1a963958260>.
Osgood, Charles. Nathaniel Hawthorne. 1849. Bicentennial, Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA. PAL: Perspectives in American Literature - A Research and Reference Guide - An Ongoing Project. 9 Mar. 2009. 21 Apr. 2009 <http://www.csustan.edu/english/reuben/pal/chap3/hawthorne.gif>.
Scarlet "A" Cycle Ninja. By Richard Dawkins. 2004. 21 Apr. 2009 <http://outcampaign.org/promo/scarletLetter.gif>.
Scarlet Letter. Novel Cover. Google Image Search. 2002. 21 Apr. 2009 <http://academic.cuesta.edu/lead/images/covers/books/The%20Scarlet%20Letter.jpg>.
The Scarlet Letter. 1995. 1995 Movie Poster Gallery. Internet Movie Poster Awards. 21 Apr. 2009 <http://www.impawards.com/1995/posters/scarlet_letter.jpg>.
"The Scarlet Letter (1995) - Plot summary." The Internet Movie Database (IMDb). 19 Mar. 2009 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114345/plotsummary>.
The Scarlet Letter. Dir. Roland Joffé. Perf. Demi Moore, Gary Oldman, Robert Duvall. DVD. Buena Vista Home Entertainment, 1996.
Tim Burton’s 1999 film, Sleepy Hollow, is a work of art that shows how Hollywood will take a classic American short story of love and horror like, The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, by Washington Irving in 1917and twist it to give new viewers a hint of witchery with a sense of lust that ultimately leads a town into turmoil. All the while going from a story of love, to a movie where anyone’s head could be the next to go. The story was taken and then glorified into a new plot with a new beginning and end, and now the Ghost is real.
As a short story The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, is a tale of Ichabod Crane’s life as a school teacher that floats around living with other families and has a crush on Katrina Van Tassel, the daughter of a wealthy Dutch farmer. Unfortunately, he is not the only one with his eyes set on Katrina. His rival Brom Van Brunt a man of good looks and fortune who will stop at nothing to gain his prize. One night at the Van Tassel’s house during a party people share stories of their ghostly encounter with the headless horseman who is a German Hessian. That night as Crane rides his horse back to his owners’ house he is stalked by the headless horseman. While in his ferocious attempt to flee the horseman he looks back to see the head of the horseman hurling at him before it strikes him in the face and nocks him out. The next day Crane is nowhere to be found and town meeting is called. Everyone believe the horseman must of taken Crane, but Brom did not seem to care, he was seen chuckling at the fact there was pumpkin smashed where Crane vanished.
At the start of the movie, it opens up with a quick history of the hessian. It informs the viewers that the hessian would ride into battle and cut off people heads for the thrill of it. Well one day as karma has it, will riding one afternoon he is attacked and flees into the woods to hide. Once in the woods he comes across two little girls that alert the troops hunting the hessian. Once the troops kill the hessian they cut off his head and buried him.
Unlike the story, Sleepy Hollow, starts out in New York with Ichabod Crane as an outspoken person with his mind set out to change the ways of criminal justice by using up to date science to sentence people. Unfortunately, the judge is frustrated with attempts to change the justice system that he gives Crane one chance to prove his methods work toward solving a crime. Crane is sent to Sleepy Hollow to depict the cause of the three unknown deaths in the town. As with all movies, film makers want the audience to know a little about the main character as soon as possible. So to do this, they put Crane in situations (for example, standing in front of the judge pleading his case on the justice system) to show the characters beliefs and how he acts in certain situations.
Upon Cranes’ arrival, there is a party going on at the Van Tassel’s, this is where he will be staying, which is unlike the book where he stayed at Hans Van Ripper’s home. By having Crane stay at the Van Tassel’s house, this forces Katrina to meet Crane and for them to get to know each other. Otherwise, he would have had to meet Katrina like in the book and “battle for his fortress”(Irving Washington pg 30) against Brom, by making an advance on Katrina. I believe by doing this, it allows the movie to stay more of a horror movie with a hint of love to it, rather than a love story with a horror ending.
Later in the story, Ichabod Crane travels into the woods with young boy to find the hessians grave. While on his way he comes across a cave that houses and witch. This witch then tells Crane where to find the grave of the headless horseman. After leaving the cave, he hears noises. These sounds turn out to Katrina Van Tassel following Ichabod Crane into the woods while no one else would. This is the scene where the viewer learns that Katrina has a crush on Crane, and Crane realizes this.
Upon arriving at the grave, the three characters find a tree called the Tree of the Dead. After further examination of the tree, Crane realizes that the tree bleeds. Finally after hacking away at the tree Crane is blessed with heads of the victims rolling to his feet. After his startling experience he digs up the hessians grave to find his head stolen. Just then the headless horsemen fly’s out of the tree and rides off into the woods to claim another unsuspecting victim.
With great haste, Ichabod Crane races back to Sleepy Hollow to warn the village. Tragically, he is too late and sees the hessian leaving a house with three more heads. At the same time Brom Van Brunt shows up and tries to kill the hessian, but fails and is killed himself. But unlike the other victims, the horseman leaves Brom’s head behind. As a result, this is to leave the viewer with a new idea, just like Ichabod Crane, in that the hessian does not kill at random, but predetermined victims. Now the question is who is in control of the horsemen.
Moving along now, Katrina’s step mother abducts her to take her to be killed by the horsemen. As in a lot of Hollywood movies, there is almost always a hero that comes to save the damsel in distress. This hero is Ichabod Crane with his sidekick, the younger boy from earlier. When they arrive to save Katrina the horseman has already been summoned and is on the attack for Katrina. Thinking on his feet, Crane attacks the step mother to gain control of the head. Just before the horsemen deals his lethal blow to Katrina, the young boy knocks out the step mother with large chunk of wood just as Crane throws the hessian is head. That is when the hessian grabs the step mother and takes her to hell with him.
In the end, all is well. Crane leaves the town of Sleepy Hollow to journey back to New York. After his arrival Crane steps out of the carriage followed by Katrina Van Tassel and the young boy. Just like a lot of good movies, the hero always gets the girl in the end. This is different from the book now, because in the book Brom is the one that captures Katrina’s heart.
What would a fantastic movie be if one wasn’t to add a twist to the original story. That is exactly what Hollywood did with the short story of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. They took a love story with a horror ending and flip flopped them, to produce a horror movie with a loving happy ending. By doing this, Hollywood could attract more viewers than by having a love story.
Sleepy Hollow. Dir. Burton Tim. 1999. DVD. Paramount Pictures, 2009.
Irving,Washington. The legend of Sleepy Hollow. 1917: Cohen, Jesse. American Gothic Tales. New York: Plume/Penguin, 1996
http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:Tf4SQ367ja-tqM:http://annleary.com/blog/51FD5X80N4L.jpg
Bibliography
Sleepy Hollow. Dir. Burton Tim. 1999. DVD. Paramount Pictures, 2009.
Irving,Washington. The legend of Sleepy Hollow. 1917: Cohen, Jesse. American Gothic Tales. New York: Plume/Penguin, 1996
.
The Real Story of Beowulf
Beowulf is an old story that has been passed down for generations. It is a story about a great war Worrier named Beowulf who hears that the Danish King and his people are in trouble. So, he decided to help them with their problem with two monsters, and he kills the monsters and saves everyone and has become a great hero. The book Beowulf was published in 1992. The author of the book is unknown because the story was never written it was just told by many people. The book was a success, and it is being read by many adults and children around the world. After the book became successful, Hollywood decided to make a movie adaptation of the book directed by Robert Zemeckis and released in 2007. Many people that read the book and watched the movie later said that there were many differences between the book and the movie. Hollywood changed the story of Beowulf by using a lot more drama and action, the role of women, and sex to make money off the movie.
In the book Beowulf, Beowulf is a classical tragic hero. Classical tragedy can be defined as “ …the inevitable destruction of a noble person by means of a character flaw, usually a disproportionate measure of a specific human attribute such as pride or jealousy or indecision” (McMahan, Elizabeth, Literature and the Writing Process). The book uses Beowulf’s flaws and inability to know his weaknesses to make him a tragic hero. The book talks about where the monsters came from. In the book, Grendal the monster is related to Cain who was condemned by his creator.
The eternal lord avenged the murder on the race of Cain because he slew Abel. He did not rejoice in that feud. He, the Lord, drove him far from mankind for that crime. Thence sprang all evil spawn, ogres and elves and sea monsters, giants too, who struggled long time against God. He paid them requital for that (Beowulf, p.3).
The movie used drama in a big way by changing where Grendal the monster and the dragon at the end of the book came from. The movie tried to make it seem as if Grendal the monster was the soon of Danish King Hrothgar. The movie also added drama by letting the audience know that the queen knew that Hrothgar and Grendal’s mother had conceived a child together. The queen turned to Hrothgar, and said “I know you laid with her” (Beowulf, Zemeckis). The movie also created drama by saying that after Beowulf killed Grendal he went to kill Grendal’s mother, but instead of killing her, he slept with her and they conceived a child that would later be the dragon. In the book, the monsters and the dragon were never connected, but Hollywood decided to change it to keep the viewers attention. The book has action in it, but readers can not see it. Hollywood has used vision as a way of an advantage over the book. In the movie, there is a lot of action scenes with a lot of gore, firer, and weapons. The book and the movie also differ when it comes to the role of women.
In the book Beowulf, the character’s do not really interact with women, whereas in the movie women play a big role. In the movie, the women are really beautiful, and the men are chasing after them. In the movie, Beowulf’s flaw is women because he has a weakness for the queen. Also, in the movie after the king kills himself Beowulf becomes the Danish King and he and the queen are married. However, in the book the king never kills himself, and Beowulf doesn’t have a weakness for the queen, and Beowulf never become the Danish King, but he does later become the Geat’s King. Hollywood not only used women to sale the movie, but they also used sex.
The creators of the movie used beautiful women and sex to sale the movie. In the book Grendal’s mother is an ugly monster. Beowulf states that “…the she-wolf of the depths, the mighty mere-women…” (Beowulf, p.28). In the Movie Grendal’s mother is played by Angelina Jolie, who does not look like a she-wolf. In the movie Grendal’s mom ask Beowulf to give her another son (Beowulf, Zemeckis). Hollywood used Angelina as a sex symbol for the movie to get good box office ratings.
In Conclusion, the movie Beowulf does not stay true to the epic story that has been passed down for many generations. Hollywood used drama and action, beautiful women, and sex to make money off the movie. Hollywood should think about the truth behind stories before the money because the might make more money that way.
Work Cited
Beowulf. Dir. Robert Zemeckis. Perf. Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, Ray Winstone, Robin Wright Penn, and John Malkovich. 2007. DVD. Paramount, 2008.
Beowulf. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1992.
McMahan, Elizabeth, Susan X Doy, Robert Funk. Literature and the Writing Process, 786-844. New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall.2007.
The Modern Romeo and Juliet
Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 film Romeo and Julietis a modern-day version of William Shakespeare’s 1597 play Romeo and Juliet. Luhrmann’s adaptation shows the tragedies, struggles, and joys of love in Shakespeare’s play and relates them to today’s love in a modern setting. Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is a play about an “ancient grudge” between two noble households in the city of Verona and how the love of two “star-crossed” lovers from the two houses will end the grudge by dying (Hylton). In the streets of Verona, the Capulets and the Montagues have a minor quarrel which is broken up by Prince Escalus. Prince Escalus declares a death sentence on anyone in the two families if they fight again. Benvolio leaves with Montague and Lady Montague, and they express their concern about Romeo being sad and alone. Benvolio reassures his aunt and uncle that he will find out the cause of Romeo’s sadness. Romeo tells Benvolio that he is in love with Rosaline, but she does not return his love. Benvolio tells him to forget about her, but Romeo cannot. Benvolio is determined to get Romeo thinking of other women. On another street of Verona, Capulet and Paris talk about Paris’ desire to marry Capulet’s daughter, Juliet. Capulet invites Paris to a party so that he can begin to woo his daughter. Romeo, Benvolio, and Mercutio find out about the party and go so that Romeo can compare Rosaline to the rest of the women in Verona. At the party, Romeo sees Juliet from across the room, and he begins to woo her. Tybalt, Juliet’s cousin, recognizes Romeo’s voice and swears that he will not let the indignity of a Montague coming to a Capulet party pass. Romeo ends up kissing Juliet but they are pulled away. Later, they both find out who the mysterious person that they shared a kiss with is. They are both shocked to hear that they are from opposing houses, but they do not care. Romeo sneaks into Juliet’s garden after the party and they talk of their new love. Juliet tells Romeo that if he is true, then he will meet her the next day and wed her. Romeo reassures her that he is true, and they settle on the time of nine the next morning. The next morning, Romeo goes to Friar Lawrence and asks him to wed him and Juliet. He accepts in hopes that the marriage will end the grudge between the two houses. Romeo meets with Juliet at Friar Lawrence’s place and they are wed. While walking in the street, Benvolio and Mercutio are harassed by Tybalt and his men. Then, when Romeo arrives Tybalt tries to fight him, but Romeo refuses. Mercutio, angered by Tybalt, declares that if Romeo will not fight him then he will. Mercutio and Tybalt fight and when Romeo tries to stop them, Mercutio is killed. Romeo, in a fury of anger, kills Tybalt. Prince Escalus arrives and declares that Romeo is exiled from Verona and will be killed if he comes back. Later that night, Romeo goes to Juliet and he stays with her and leaves the next morning. The same night, Capulet promises Paris that Juliet will marry him. In the morning, Juliet’s parents tell her that she will marry Paris. Juliet refuses to go along with her parents wishes, but she plays along until she can go to Friar Lawrence’s to come up with a plan. Friar Lawrence’s plan is for Juliet to go along with the marriage to Paris and for her to take a sleeping potion the night before the wedding. Her family will think she is dead, and she will be laid in a tomb. Friar will send word to Romeo, so that he can rescue her and they can run away together. Juliet does exactly this but word of the plan never gets to Romeo. Balthasar comes to Romeo with news that Juliet is dead. Romeo goes to an apothecary, buys poison, and goes to Juliet’s tomb. There, Romeo meets Paris and they fight until Paris is killed. Paris asks to be laid next to Juliet in the tomb, and Romeo grants his wish. Then, Romeo drinks the poison and dies next to Juliet. Juliet wakes up and sees Romeo dead beside her with the bottle of poison in his hand. She cries out and takes Romeo’s dagger and stabs herself. She falls over Romeo’s body and dies. Afterwards, Friar Lawrence tells the two houses the entire story of Romeo and Juliet’s love and the two families vow to end the feud between them as a tribute to Romeo and Juliet.
The dramatic themes such as love, feuding, and class in the play Romeo and Juliet are easily transferred to the modern-day film for several reasons. One of the themes that are easily transferred to today is love. The reason that love in the play works today is because it is still romanticized the same way in love movies. People still dream of the same innocent but powerful love as what two young people might share. In the play, Romeo and Juliet are two teenagers entangled in their first love. This is proven when Capulet states that his “daughter, Juliet, is too young to get married because she is only fourteen” (Hylton). Another reason that the love in the play is easily related to today’s movies is because it has the sexual intimacy of today’s movies (Gleiberman). In the movie it shows Romeo and Juliet having sex; the play also has a sense of this intimacy when it hints of sexual occurrences as when “Romeo is to use a ladder to climb up to Juliet’s chamber that night to consummate their marriage” (Hylton).
Another theme that can be related from the play to today through the movie is feuding. The violence in Shakespeare’s play is one reason that it can be popular in today’s movie market. One scene from the play is where “Tybalt stabs Mercutio under Romeo’s arm as he jumps between them to stop the fighting” (Hylton). In the movie, they are using guns instead of swords but “Mercutio dies from Tybalt cutting him with broken glass” (Luhrmann). Today, horror is the most popular movie genre which translates that suspenseful material is what is popular (Wiki). Shakespeare’s play had this element and that is why it worked in a modern version.
Class is also a theme that can be related from the play to today through its modern counterpart. The play shows how upper class has its benefits in terms of the power and the lavish lifestyle. This is shown when Romeo is exiled from Verona because of murdering Tybalt instead of being killed like a lower class person might have been and when Capulet throws a “traditional masquerade feast” (Hylton). The movie represents the social classes of today as well. The movie showed how the social classes tend to only associate with people of the same class as in the world today in terms of celebrities surrounding themselves with important people. This was shown in the movie when the only people associating with the two noble houses were people such as the Captain of the police force, the governor’s son, family members, close friends, and other people of importance to the two houses. The movie showed that wealth was valued just as in the play. This was shown by the two families owning all the “nice cars, clothes, and throwing the lavish parties” (Luhrmann).
The movie Romeo and Juliet changed some things that allowed these themes to be better related to today. Instead of two families having a feud, it was more like gangs. We understand the fighting between gangs more than we do two “noble households” (Hylton). Studies show that we relate better to things that we have experienced in our own lives (Kendall). That is why instead of swords and horses there were guns and cars in the movie. Another thing that was changed was the type of settings. In the play, Romeo and Juliet talk to each other in her garden. In the movie, they talk to each other in a “lighted swimming pool, which creates a mood of deliquescent glamour” (Gleiberman). We relate better to that type of sneaking around than that in a garden. Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet was only able to be made into a modern film that related to the world as we know it because of its important themes that we experience throughout our lives today. It has stood up to the passage of time because it is a perfect love story that has passion, tragedy, and action. Without those elements, Romeo and Juliet would not have been able to be transferred to a modern film that relates as well as it does to our own lives.
Works Cited
Gleiberman, Owen. “William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet.” Entertainment Weekly 8 Nov. 1996. 25 March 2009 <http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,294880,00.html>.
WikiAnswers.com. Answers Corporation. 2009. 25 March 2009 <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_most_popular_movie_genre_and_the_most_highest_grossing_genre>.
The Complete Works of William Shakespeare. Ed. Jeremy Hylton. 13 Nov. 2000. The Tech. 25 March 2009 <http://shakespeare.mit.edu/romeo_juliet/index.html>.
Romeo and Juliet. Dir. Baz Luhrmann. Perf. Leonardo DiCaprio, Claire Danes. 1996. DVD. Bazmark Films and Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation.
Kendall, Diana. Sociology In Our Times: Seventh Edition. Thomas Learning, Inc., 2008.
Romeo and Juliet Trailer. YouTube. 20 April 2009 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6S6IJWilpx4>.
Romeo and Juliet. 20 April 2009 <http://images2.sina.com/english/ent/p/1/2008/0214/3acd2d58ae7ab503619509715bd3bd5c.jpg>.
Romeo and Juliet. 20 April 2009 <http://content7.flixster.com/question/37/32/96/3732969_std.jpg>.
“William Shakespeare.” Wikipedia. 20 April 2009. Wikimedia Foundation. 20 April 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare>.
More than Meets the Eye
The Gladiator written by Alan Baker recreates ancient Rome’s gladiatorial era, depicting daily routines of gladiatorial schools and tortuous gladiatorial battles (Baker, 2) and the movie written by David Frazoni and directed by Ridley Scott, created in 2000, recreates this book as a film. Although the book and film contain similarities, there also lie significant differences. The Roman society’s image of a gladiator, in the movie, contradicts that of a gladiator in the book. During battles, whether the gladiator would live or die, win or lose, was a tough decision. That decision was made differently in the book than in the movie as well. That decision and the crowds affect on that decision, was another area that strongly differed when reading the book, then watching the movie. The film was adjusted from the book in certain areas in order to make it more acceptable to American society, hence bringing in more money.
I watched the Gladiator movie first and I thought the main character Maximus, played by actor Russell Crowe, was looked upon as a hero. In one specific scene of the movie, he, along with a group, was fighting another group of gladiators from an outside city-state and he took the initiative of leading his group to what turned out to be a wonderful and strategic victory. Women looked upon him greatly, and children aspired to be like him. Next, I began to read the book and it described gladiators as prostitutes of society, often times were criminals or slaves, especially captured fugitives, and prisoners of war. The writer of the movie knew what would work to sell and what would not work in order to project to America positively. America frowns upon criminals and definitely prostitutes; and the thought of either of them being a hero as a gladiator would be considered preposterous. Concern, leadership skills, and success are a few characteristics of a good hero in American society and those are all qualities Maximus possessed during battle in the film. Being a slave, prisoner of war, criminal, or being looked on as a prostitute and having to fight as a gladiator, in the book, the only concern seemed to be that of life or death. Heroic characteristics did not lie in characters mentioned throughout the book. It was more of the idea that, they had nothing to lose; and when going in to battle, it was all or nothing, life or death. They gave it their all and some may have had strategic skills but it were many different forms of gladiatorial battles that took place within the book and depending on a gladiators strength and number of times he won, the Emperor could continue to place him in these different battles continuously, and the gladiator may not know what to expect next.
Once the battle were over, the audience would of course proceed to choose whether they felt the gladiator should live or die, if he even made it out alive, but the ultimate decision was usually that of the editor, which was many times was the Emperor. The noble death in Roman society was death by the sword, and death for the rest, those of lower class, could be being burned to death, fed to vicious animals such as bears, lions, and panthers; and sometimes criminals were also killed by other criminals in battle and thieves’ hands were often cut off. Crucifixion was also considered one of the least noble forms of death. When deciding whether or not the gladiator would face death, in the book, a thumbs up from the audience indicated that the gladiator should be killed and a thumbs down, they should be released and remain alive. In American society a thumbs up is a positive gesture, usually referring to “good,” and thumbs down, “bad.” In the film, sure enough, I noticed the Emperor, immediately following battle, consulted the audience for a decision. The crowd would actually begin shouting “live live,” in the film also. The thumbs up was given if the gladiator should be released and thumbs down if he should be killed, and the decision was not further deliberated amongst the Emperor and his consuls.
The decision of whether a gladiator would live or die and the crowds affect on that decision versus that of the emperor differed throughout the film and book also. An older gladiator, in the film, told Maximus to “win the crowd” or die with honor (Gladiator, 2000). As I stated earlier, according to the book, the crowd did not have the final say and while in the midst of battle, a slave, criminal, or prisoner of war, is not going to be concerned with pleasing the crowd, because the ultimate decision lie in the hands of the Emperor and they were not easily pleased, and were actually more often times disgusted with a great gladiator. Gladiatorial battles were gory battles that often times involved animals such as bears, lions, and panthers, not to mention other gladiators- slaves, criminals, or prisoners of war, trying to kill one another. It was all about life or death to these competitors. An awesome gladiator could leave the crowd in awe and make eye contact with an emperor in relief and be killed in an instance. Commodus, an emperor mentioned in the book, was one who was disgusted with a great gladiator and upon one’s victory, he would torture him by putting him through even tougher battles or just kill the gladiator himself. All mentioned above shows that although in winning the crowd in the movie, one was often safe from death and in the book, winning the crowd did not necessarily relieve one from battle.
The gladiator, Maximus, in the film was a very intelligent and powerful gladiator. He seemed to become even more powerful than the emperor, due to winning the crowd and I immediately felt like he was a hero. He became a slave in order to take seek revenge from being betrayed and his family being killed. An ordinary slave, with no motive, would not have been placed in the position as Maximus because that would seem as though a hero may lie in a criminal, captured fugitive, or prisoner of war, simply because that would not be acceptable to American society and the writer and director of the film wanted to create a movie that would work, both drawing in a large audience and keeping that audience entertained. The characteristics Maximus possessed were those of a hero and his reasons for entering the gladiatorial field, the death of his family and betrayal, made it seem okay for him to begin killing in order to achieve revenge. The book is more straight forward, in my opinion, and does not display gladiators as heroes. A motive is not needed for a gladiator mentioned in the book to kill neither different people nor animals. The reason was simply, if you did not kill, you would be killed. Slaves and criminals looked on as prostitutes by society in the Roman era, had nothing to lose; many times, some of them had no choice but to compete in gladiatorial battles. Being a hero or pleasing a crowd of people, who expressed whether one should stay alive or die even though the final decision lie under the voice of the Emperor, were not concerns of gladiators mentioned in the book. When analyzing the many different types of gladiatorial battles such as sea battles and battles between beasts and other gladiators, I quickly understood that the movie definitely added a coat of sugar to the life of a gladiator. Life was on the line and the escape from death was the number one and only priority of a gladiator.
Works Cited:
Baker, Alan. The Gladiator: The Secret History of Rome’s Warrior Slaves. Massachusetts: Da Capo Press,2002.
Ridley, Scott, dir. Franzoni, David, writ. The Gladiator,Dreamworks.2000.imdb.com5 May 2000.<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01724957>.
Ridley, Scott, dir. Franzoni, David, writ.The Gladiator.Dreamworks.2000.<http://www.idmb.com/video/screenplay/vii017774361/>.
Dreamworks LLC & Univesal Pictures.2000.7 Feb.2001.<http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2731514112/tt0172495
Gladiator: History & Times.<http://www.murphsplace.com/gladiator/images/Police_Verso.jpg
The Search for Rellivance.7 July 2006.<http://www.aintitcool.com/images/gladi3.jpg>.
Twilight: Better on Page
In the recent best-selling novel Twilight by Stephenie Meyer, published in 2006, Bella Swan is a shy, clumsy and stubborn teenage girl who has just moved to the small town of Forks, where her father lives alone. Bella, although hesitant of Forks seems to be the popular "new girl" when she arrives, and although the girls might seem a bit jealous of all the attention she is receiving, every guy seems to have their eye on her.
Bella pays no mind to these uninteresting boys that are drooling over her and catches the eye of a mysteriously beautiful boy named Edward Cullen. Though awkward compared to the rest of the students at Forks, Edward and the rest of the Cullen family are not only painfully beautiful but have one thing makes them exceptionally different; these beautiful creatures are vampires. Bella and Edward have a strange connection and Edward, the mind-reader, is intrigued by Bella because she is the one girl whom Edward cannot understand or read. As the two become closer and develop a relationship, Bella comes to realize what Edward and his family truly are. This creates drama in the sense that Bella, not one of their own, becomes a major threat to the Cullen's reputation but Edward is so smitten over her that he knows he must protect Bella. The Cullens’ are a good breed of vampires, while Laurent, James and Victoria are the evil vampires of the story. James, who later finds that Bella is a human, is determined to track her down and kill her, which creates all sorts of danger to Bella's family and the Cullens as well. Twilight is a story of courageous love, bold action, and twists and turns to keep the reader on the edge of their seat. Not only was Twilight a best-selling novel but on November 21 of 2008, Twilight was released into theaters as a newly made film directed by Catherine Hardwicke, http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=44287812. After loving the novel and watching the film, I must say I was utterly disappointed with the movie and feel that Hollywood did a poor job of creating the emotionally striking impact that the novel had left on me. In my opinion, Hollywood has the drastic ability to improve or demote the quality of a once previous novel and in making Twilight; Hollywood sadly did not fully capture the original appeal that the best-selling novel had so much of.
First and foremost, Twilight the movie was extremely rushed in all aspects. Many scenes from the novel were either left out and paid no attention to or changed. This seemed to bother me because the novel was so strong and detailed and I felt as though the movie was just a brief overview of the actual plot. Shanna, a blogger on the Twilight review on ew.com stated this on her opinion of the recent novel made movie…
I have to agree with the others. Edward is dreamy no doubt. But…the movie failed in comparison to the book by leaps and bounds. The books were captivating and a fun read. They really drew me into the characters and their lives. The movie missed so much of the book. I have read all of them and think that Twilight was my favorite. Very disappointed in movie!! Too Hollywood for me! (Shanna, ew.com)
I agree completely with Shanna’s opinion and think that the movie actually took away from the novel in the sense that parts were rushed, missing or changed and some characters were extremely underestimated.
In the book Bella and Edward's relationship is formed over many months and intimate conversations. In the movie, Edward and Bella are together within what seems like days and gives off the impression of puppy love which takes away from the novel by rushing every scene the two interact in. For example, in the novel Edward is very cautious physically with Bella because knows he cannot let himself get out of control or it could be to Bella's disadvantage. In the movie however, the first time the two get even the slightest bit intimate they are practically jumping on each other, about to take their clothes off. In chapter 14 of the novel, Edward mysteriously appears in Bella's room that night and they have a long, intimate conversation and he hums her to sleep. "He laughed, and then began to hum that same, unfamiliar lullaby; the voice of an archangel, soft in my ear...I drifted to sleep in his arms" (Meyer, 311). In this particular scene in the film, Edward does not even hum Bella to sleep but instead says he "wants to try something" and goes in for a kiss. Then two get carried away and almost get very physical. This bothers me because I feel that Hollywood has taken the novel and tried to not only rush the story, but make the characters become too physical, too fast. It almost appears as though Edward is not the romantic, beautiful vampire but actually a creepy stalker, due to the lack of time the two spend with each other before getting serious in the film. Another part of this scene that is rushed in the film is the fact that in the novel Bella's father, Charlie, is downstairs with Bella before Edward enters Bella's room. Bella is talking with him about her day and eating dinner with him before she decides to go upstairs to bed. "Finished with the last bite of lasagna, I lifted my glass and chugged the remains of my milk. Charlie surprised me by being observant. "In hurry?" "Yeah, I'm tired. “I’m going to bed early" (Meyer, 296). In the novel this scene is quite a bit longer than it seems and takes up a lot of chapter 14, but yet in the film is left out completely. This, in my opinion, did nothing to help make the film as precise and appealing as the novel and only rushed things all the more.
Furthermore, Twilight the novel was rushed when made into the film by the fact that in the movie Jasper, Edwards adopted vampire brother, plays a significantly greater role in the novel than in the movie. I feel as though in the movie, Jasper’s character was underestimated and given a total of about three lines, whereas in the novel was an important part of the Cullen family. On page 308, Edward describes Jasper to Bella and says…
Jasper is very interesting. He was quite charismatic in his first life, able to influence those around him to see things his way. Now he has the ability to manipulate the emotions of those around him – calm down a room of angry people, for example, or excite a lethargic crowd, conversely. It’s a very subtle gift. (Meyer. 308)
In the film, I remember seeing Jasper only when the rest of the Cullens were present and speaking even more seldom than that. This frustrated me because in the novel, Stephenie Meyer gives the Cullen family and Jasper especially, a more distinct and significant role, whereas the film almost belittles Jasper and forgets about him. Another major part that might as well have been cut out of the movie due to its lack of accuracy from the book was when Edward was explaining to Bella why he could not go out into the sunlight, along with the rest of his family due to the effect that the sun has on their skin. In the novel it says that vampires glow so much that they can hardly stand to be in the sunlight and like that of crystal. In the movie, when Edward shows Bella what his skin looks like in the light, his skin glistens as though it is a good thing. In the movie Bella actually comments that his skin “looks like that of diamonds”. In the novel Bella says “Edward in the sunlight was shocking. I couldn’t get used to it, though and I’d been staring at him all afternoon…A perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marble, glittering like crystal (Meyer, 260). In the film, Edward makes the sunlight out to be a bad thing and states that it makes him an obvious creature. I like the fact that in the novel his crystal skin is a beautiful thing and not a curse and the emotion of the novel in this chapter is particularly stronger than that of the film. This is yet another part that bothers me about the movie, compared to the novel.
After comparing and contrasting Stephenie Meyer’s novel Twilight, from the recently made film I have come to the conclusion that Hollywood has warped Twilight’s original appeal. Not only is the movie rushed but it took away the emotional impact that Twilight left on me mentally. Before watching the movie Twilight I had a wonderful mental picture of all of the characters and the major events of story. After seeing the film, both of those things were distorted and I left very disappointed. Stephenie Meyer comments on slashfilm.com on Summit Entertainment and the letting go of the first director, Catherine Hardwicke. There will be a new director for the next movie in the series, New Moon, will be Chris Weitz and how he hopes to keep the expectations of Twilight followers up…
Summit Films is moving forward with a new director for New
Moon. They’ve asked Chris Weitz, director of American Pie, About a Boy, and The Golden Compass, to join us, and I am very pleased to announce that he’s agreed to be a part of our Twilight world. I’ve had the chance to talk to Chris, and I can tell you that he is excited by the story and eager to keep the movie as close to the book as possible. He is also very aware of you, the fans, and wants to keep you all extremely happy. (Meyer, slashfilm.com)
Due to the disappointment of Hollywood’s portrayal of Twilight, I can only hope that the new director will notice the major rush and flaws Hardwicke might have missed while creating the first film and learn from those with the next film to come, New Moon.
Works Cited
Meyer, Stephenie. Twilight. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2006.
Hardwicke, Catherine, dir. Twilight. Summit Entertainment. 21 Nov. 2008.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.i ndividual&videoid=44287812
Shanna. Movie Review: Twilight. Web log. 23 March 2009. 23 March 2009<http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20241357,00.html>
Sciretta, Peter. “Twilight Author Stephenie Meyer Speaks on Hardwicke’s Departure and New Moon Director Chris Weitz.” Web log post. 14 December 2008. http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/12/14/twilight- author-stephanie-meyer-speaks-on-hardwickes- departure-and-new-moon-director-chris-weitz/
http://www.westportlibrary.org/teenblog/images/twil ight_book_cover.jpg
http://twilightguide.com/tg/wp- content/themes/Aspire/graphics/cat/twilight- movie-photos/bella-swan-twilight-movie.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/Cullens%20from%2 0Twilight/diva_003/movie_cullens1.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/cullensfamily/Twilight/Jasper-2.jpg
A Legend Remade
In 2004, Wolfgang Peterson directed Troy, a movie based off a Homer’sIliad, which was written approximately 800 B.C. However, this movie has several contrasting elements to the original storyline. Peterson’s movie blends an ancient myth with the characteristics of modern day society. In addition the plot sequence, the absence of the gods, and heroism are key fundamentals that are depicted differently in the film than the book.
The Iliad is an epic poem about the events that took place throughout the Trojan War. It is a story about love, pride, honor, and even revenge. At the beginning of the Iliad the Greeks and Trojans have been at a stalemate for 10 years. The war takes place along the shores of Troy. The Greeks are on a conquest to expand their empire, and Menelaus the King of Sparta is trying to take back his wife Helen from the Trojan prince Paris. Because Menelaus is the brother of Agamemnon, the Greek army general, taking Troy becomes of upmost importance to the Greeks. Both the Greeks and the Trojans have the help of exceptional warriors as well as the gods. For the Greeks Achilles is the most renowned fighter. When his name is called all that oppose him cower because of his glory. Achilles is the reason why many women are widows, and is considered immortal by most. He has no fear, and fights for his own glory. The gods that side with the Greeks include: Poseidon, Athena, and Hera. The City of Troy has its own favored warrior as well. Hector who is Priam’s Son and heir to the throne is the greatest fighter within the walls of Troy. He is the leader of the Trojan army and has established great honor. Hector differs from Achilles because he fights for his people instead of his own glory. The Trojan army is watched over by the gods Apollo, Ares, Artemis, and Aphrodite. As the war progresses the Greeks, led by Achilles begin to move forward slaying any Trojan soldier that stands in their way. Eventually the Greeks manage to capture Chryseis from Troy as well as Briseis. After their capture Chryseis father begs Agamemnon to return his daughter. Agamemnon refuses and in return Apollo casts a sickness among the Greeks hindering them from taking Troy. Finally, Agamemnon returns Chryseis and hands Briseis to the soldiers of the Greek army. Achilles is infuriated by this because Briseis was his captive not Agamemnon’s. Therefore Achilles refuses to fight anymore. With Achilles out of the picture the Trojan army pushes the Greeks back to the shores and take the momentum from the Greeks. Agamemnon begs Achilles to return, but Achilles refuses to do so. With the Greeks on the verge of defeat Achilles young friend Patroclus enters into battle with Achilles armor on. The Greeks follow him into battle and begin to push the Trojans back. Hector hears that Achilles has returned and he pushes toward Achilles. Eventually Hector meets Patroclus and fights him not knowing that it is not Achilles. Patroclus fights valiantly, but eventually is killed by Hector. The Trojan army roars with excitement, and the Greeks sit in silence thinking their greatest warrior has been killed. As Hector takes Achilles helmet of Patroclus’s head he learns that it is not Achilles. Hector is ashamed for what he has done and both sides decide to stop fighting for the day. When Achilles hears of Patroclus’s death he rushes into battle immediately killing every man that stands against him. The Greeks eventually push the Trojan army back within the wall of Troy except for brave Hector. It is here where Achilles stands in front of Hector to avenge his friend’s death. Achilles slays Hector, straps him behind his chariot, and returns to the beach with his body dragging behind. Priam the king of Troy travels to the Greeks camp in the middle of the night to beg Achilles for his son’s body in order that Hector might have a proper burial. Achilles finally agrees to give Hector’s body back. Troy mourns the death of Hector for nine days before cremating his body. At this point the Iliad is over, but the movie contrast the book by adding many scenes after the death of Hector.
Perhaps the main difference between Wolfgang Peterson’s Troy and Homer’s Iliad is the plot sequence. First of all, the movie shows the Greeks sailing to Troy and making a fast war with the Trojans. In Homer’s Iliad the war is at a stalemate for 10 years. There are no indications in the movie that the war has been going on for that long. Although this difference may upset those stand strictly by the book, it works well in the movie because it allows the plot to transition smoothly. Second, in the movie Hector kills Menelaus as Paris runs away. While in the book Menelaus returns back to Sparta with Helen. At this point in history Menelaus does not die outside the walls of Troy, and he does not fall to Hector. This is a scene that changes the timeline of the movie yet again. Another big difference in the plot sequence between the movie and book has to do with the death of Hector. The Iliad ends with the burial of Hector. However in the movie there are several events that occur after Hector’s burial including the raid of Troy, and the death of Achilles. While these events do give the viewer important information they completely differentiate the plot of the movie and book.
Just as the plot sequence differs from the book, the absence of the gods in the movie is an element that changes the message of the story. In the Iliad there are many instances in which the gods control mankind’s’ fate. The gods help the armies and characters in the book to win battles, make decisions, and to gain honor. While in the movie the gods are simple put to the side. Rarely in Troy are the immortal gods mentioned. In the movie the characters recognize their dreams, victories, and honor without the help of the gods. On the contrary, this tends to work in the movie because it allows the characters to become more heroic in a sense that they are not puppet-like beings. However,the only instance in which the movie recognizes any sense of the gods or afterlife occurs when Priam begs Achilles to give Hector’s body to him so that his son could enter the afterlife. “He deserves a proper burial, you know that. Give him to me”(Troy, 2004). As Achilles wraps Hector’s beaten body in a cloak he says, “We will meet again, my brother”(Troy, 2004).
Furthermore, Heroism is something that is depicted differently in the book than the movie. In the Iliad heroism is much more barbaric than the movie. For instance, in Troy Achilles seems to become a likeable character. This is because of the relationship that develops between him and Briseis throughout the movie. The Iliad does describe Achilles as a hero that is respected, but this is mainly because of his ability to kill. Overall in the book Achilles actions are far more gruesome and unethical than in the movie.“I only wish my fury would compel meto cut away your flesh and eat it raw”(Homer, Book 22, Line 346).Paris is another example of how heroism is different between book and the movie. In the movie Paris is a coward because he leaves his fight for love instead of honor, yet toward the end of the movie he starts becoming more of a warrior. He begins to practice archery in order to regain his honor. Eventually he opportunity comes and he kills Achilles by shooting him in the heel. In the book Paris is a coward through and through, and even though he does kill Achilles he never gains the honor that his brother had. In fact, in the Iliad Hector tells Paris “he should not have even been born”(Homer, Book 3, Line 41). Even though the movie does differ from the book in the instance of heroism it still reflects the kind of heroism today’s society wants to see. People in today’s society do not want to see a heartless hero who just kills everyone for his own honor. Instead, the movie showed heroism in the form that would be most appealing to the people.
In conclusion, Wolfgang Peterson’s Troy was not a factual illustration of Homer’s Iliad. It changed the plot sequence, took out many references to the gods, and defined heroism in a different manner. Nonetheless the film captivated the hearts and minds of many because it successfully adapted today’s culture to an ancient myth.
Works Cited
BOOKRAGS STAFF. "A Review of the Movie Troy". 2000. March 26 2009. <http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2004/8/21/21632/5877>.
Homer, The Iliad. 800 B.C..
Internet Movie Database. 26 Mar 2009 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332452/quotes>.
"Novel Analysis: The Iliad." Novel Guide. 26 Mar 2009 <http://www.novelguide.com/theiliad/toptenquotes.html>.
Troy. Dir. Wolfgang Peterson. Perf. Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom. DVD. 2004.
The Client
The novel The Client, written by John Grisham, was published in 1993. It was then made into a movie directed by Joel Schumacher in 1994. Both the movie and the book are very similar. The character’s names, the plot, and almost all of the dialogue is the exact same. These pieces of literature are almost identical and it works because the plot of the book is exciting and contains an inspiring mentor relationship, two aspects that movie-goers enjoy.
The movie, as well as the book, starts out with a bang. Mark Sway, a tough eleven year old boy who lives in a Memphis trailer park, and his younger brother, Ricky Sway, steal a couple cigarettes from their mother’s purse as she is on her way out of the house. The boys proceed to head down to the woods by their trailer park to smoke those cigarettes in private. While they are out there a man pulls up in a nice black car, gets out babbling to himself, and connects a rubber garden hose leading from his exhaust pipe to his window in order to kill himself. Mark understands what the man is doing and stays to watch what happens. However, the man gets out of the car and sees Mark hiding in the woods, so the man grabs Mark and pulls him into the car. The man introduces himself as Jerome “Romy” Clifford. Then he tells Mark that he is killing himself because he is an attorney and is representing a mafia hit man, "The Blade" Muldanno, who is on trial for the murder of a corrupt Louisiana senator. Clifford explains to Mark that he knows where the body of the Louisiana senator is and continues to tell Mark where that location is. He explains that he is killing himself before the mafia can kill him, since he knows too much. Mark manages to escapes from the car, so Clifford takes his gun and sticks it in his mouth and pulls the trigger. Mark and Ricky go back to their trailer and Mark calls the police. Mark tells the police that they just found the body and never saw the man alive. However, the FBI determines by using forensic science that Mark was inside the car, and most likely had a conversation with Clifford before he died. The FBI assumes that Mark knows where the body is buried. While at the hospital, where his brother is being treated for going into shock after witnessing the suicide, Mark is threatened by a mafia hit man who is watching the Sway family. Mark knows that he cannot reveal to the FBI what Clifford had told him because is scared of what the mafia is capable of doing to his family. Mark hires an attorney, Reggie Love, to protect his rights when talking to the FBI about what Clifford had told him. After being ordered to stay in jail for not telling the FBI what Clifford had confessed to him, Mark escapes by faking sick and he and Reggie travel to New Orleans to see if the body is truly where Clifford said it is. If the body is not where Clifford said it should be, he will no longer be in danger of being killed by the Mafia. When Reggie Love and Mark arrive where the dead senator is buried, "The Blade" Muldanno and two accomplices show up to move the body to a new location. Reggie and Mark escape and the mafia members are scared off by the neighbors. Mark makes a deal with the FBI that in exchange for the location of the body he and his family will enter the witness protection program. The deal is made and Mark, Ricky and their mother are off to Phoenix with their new identities. The plot of The Client is more than just a mafia thriller; there is also a touching mentor relationship between Reggie Love and Mark Sway that is displayed throughout.
The novel and the film version are almost identical. The plot is exactly the same in both the movie and novel. The characters names and personalities are also exactly the same in the film and the book. The dialogue in the movie is straight out of the book, with some variance, though. The book was also written in the third person, so it easier to transform into a movie script. Another reason the book was easily made into a movie is because it is full of events that are typically in an “action”, a “thriller” and a “drama” type movie (Erik Mankin). John Grisham’s intense word choice helps give The Client a thrilling feel to it. He uses words such as “suddenly”, “crouched”, “popped” and many other words that in the opening scene of The Client (13-20). These words used by Grisham create intensity, which movie-goers enjoy. In a book review by The Orlando Sentential, the novel is described as “heart-pounding!” (http://www.jgrisham.com/the-client-excerpt/). Another reason for the books success of being turned into a movie is due to the special relationship between Reggie Love and Mark Sway. The unique relationship they have emotionally appeals to the reader as well as the theatre audience. Reggie Love is a former alcoholic who lost custody of her children during a divorce from her husband a few years earlier. Mark is a young boy who has to take care of his incompetent mother and young brother and really has no one t cares for him. Throughout the book people try to remind Reggie that he is just a client, but she understands how much he needs her help. They become very close with each other and confide personal information in each other. In a movie review of The Client by Michael Legeros, he describes Susan Sarandon (Reggie Love) and Brad Renfro (Mark Sway) as having “good chemistry” (Legeros). This unique, yet touching relationship was very successful on the big screen because it not that uncommon in real life.
The film version of The Client is almost an exact replica of the novel written by John Grisham. The similarities are possible because the book is written in third person, so it was easy to make into a movie. The book also incorporates the mafia and the legal system, which gives The Client substance and makes it very interesting. Also the book contains a lot of action which Hollywood loves to incorporate into movies.
Work Cited
The Client. 21 May 2005. < http://www.jgrisham.com/the-client-excerpt/>.
Legeros, Michael. Rev. of The Client, dir. by Joel Schumacher. Internet Movie
Database. 25 May 2005. < http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/27/2740 >.
Mankin, Eric. Rev. of The Client, dir. by Joel Schumacher. Internet Movie Database. 25
May 2005. <http://www.imdb.com/Reviews/27/2724>.
Grisham, John. The Client. New York : Island Books 1993.
Schumacher, Joel. The Client. Warner Brothers. 1994.
The Return of the King: A Hollywood Adaptation
When John Ronald Reuel Tolkien Finished writing his three part epic in 1955, called The Lord of the Rings, he had no idea the impact that it would make on modern literature. It made so much of an impact that many years later, a film maker named Peter Jackson set out to put the books into movie form. His movies spanned all three of the books, ending on the one I will be discussing, The Return of the King. By comparing the differences and similarities of the book and the movie, we will see how Hollywood shaped and molded the movie to fit into their mold which they could then sell to the public (Doughan 1).
The book series originally written by Tolkien was in three parts: The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers, and lastly The Return of the King. I am comparing the third part not only because it is the best in my opinion, but because it is so crucial to the story to tie everything together and give closure to the work. A quick rundown of the previous two books is that an evil ring was made by a bad person, the ring was then taken by a greedy person who would not destroy it, so evil lived on. The ring ended up in the hands of the Protagonist, Frodo Baggins (Tolkien 1). The first two books are about the journey to destroy the ring in the fires of Mount Doom. The third book, The Return of the King, begins with all of the characters in the midst of their separate paths, its job is to put an end to the story, and I believe that Tolkien accomplished this quite well. The director of the film series Peter Jackson strived the whole time to make the movie as close as he could to the book, but even before he got started his creative criticism was being overshadowed by forces above him. Jackson once said in an interview, that “I read the books when I was a kid and said, wow that would make a great movie, I had no idea that I would be the one to make it.” (Jackson) All directors have to come with agreements and compromises with not only their superiors, but within themselves when they are trying to direct a movie. There are hundreds of different factors to take into account, such as run time, target demographics, and not to mention the budget you are set to be on. In most Hollywood films today, all of these variables must be considered when trying to stay as close to the original text as possible. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is no different, but in the defense of the director, Peter Jackson I will say that he stayed as accurate with the books as humanly possible while filming his movies. By removing complete accounts from the book, creating new rich stories from almost nothing, and changing the order of things, the producers made The Return of the King fit into the Hollywood mold.
When the movie was brought forth for the first production company to approve, there were originally two movies. This was agreed on by Jackson because he did not think any film company would take the risk of shooting three movies at the same time, because they could have been a total bust proving disastrous for the producers. Funding problems then led the company to make Jackson and his writers shrink the already condensed story to one movie. This was unacceptable to Jackson who broke ties with the company. Shortly thereafter, he approached New Line Cinema, and during a meeting one of the producers said, “Isn’t there three books in the series, there should be three movies.” (Jackson) This was phenomenal news for the director and his staff, and they quickly began work on the new script for the now longer movie. But even as the writers had this longer span of reel to work with problems began to arise with the proposed length of the films. The first and second movies had both run about three hours, which for any theatrical movie to do is pretty long for any audience. I myself remember upon seeing The Fellowship of the Ring, I could sit through another six hours of that because it was so fantastic. But for your average person seeing a film, three hours can become draining. The production team had become accustomed to having to edit out specific scenes that were not central to the plot. Examples like completely eliminating the character Tom Bombadil from the Fellowship of the Ring, who in the book played a major role of helping the Hobbits along on their journey. In The Return of the King, one major scene which was removed was called the scouring of the shire. It showed how when the triumphant hobbits returned victoriously their homes had been taken over by the vanquished wizard Saruman. This entire chapter from the book was found to be not essential for the meat of the story. In all actuality this would have added another twenty minutes to an already lengthy film. So the decision was made not even to shoot the sequence. Since in the book this showed how Saruman died another scene had to be slightly altered to fit their circumstances. He had to be killed so a scene on top of the tower of Orthanc by his angered assistant Wormtongue (Appenzeller 1). Another scene from The Return of the King that was cut was when the Mouth of Sauron came out of the black gate. In the book the Mouth of Sauron delivers the vest of Frodo as a ploy to show that he has been captured. In actuality he was only stripped of this but is ok and continuing on with the quest to destroy the ring. (Tolkien 342) In the theatrical version of the film this does not happen at all. To Jackson’s defense, the scene shows up in the directors extended edition of the films which has been a great way to recover some of the scenes lost to the cutting process. Deleting or not including scenes like these show how movies have to be changed to fit within the constraints of time
Another way movie producers change movies to suit their needs is by adding or fluffing up scenes that are not originally in the book. For example, in the movie Merry knows right away that the rider he is with is Eowyn, but in the book he does not discover this until much later (Piittinen 1). Another scene, or really a series of scenes, is added I believe to draw female movie fans to come and see the movie. The love story that is between Aragorn and Arwen seems a little out of proportion. In the book, she is mentioned several times, but not usually given any script to say, and is almost just a placement character to give Aragorn something that is keeping him around (Tolkien 168). However in the movie this is expanded greatly because female audiences love to see romance. The action and the gore are loved mostly by the men, but there would not be anything there to draw the women unless there was some romance. This is not by any means Hollywood’s first rodeo, and the people working there usually know how to draw a crowd. One scene in the movie is drawn from an obscure portion of the third books appendix, showing how far the writers had to look to get some material so that they did not just come up with one out of the blue (Jackson).
The last way that the editing process of Hollywood movies can affect how it differs from the book is how the order of things in the movies are sequenced. One example is how at the beginning of the movie, The Return of the King it shows how Sméagol became Gollum. (Appenzeller 1) This sequence of events actually happened in the first book, when Gandalf told Frodo the story. (Tolkien 1) Another quite important change was that the scenes with Shelob the Spider, which was originally put at the close of the second book. In the Jackson’s version the decision was made to squeeze it into the final film. Reasons being they didn’t want to put another exiting moment right after the victory at helms deep, they instead wanted to save it be interwoven within The Return of the King. (Jackson)
A critic would have to admit, while the movie differs some from the books it is recognizably the best book to movie adaptation out there. Peter Jackson’s attention to detail and creativity still made it a very worthwhile film that is destined to be a classic. There are still some hardcore Tolkien fans, including his son, Christopher Tolkien that has displayed criticism about the films and their accuracy. Even with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King having to be altered to accommodate today’s mainstream audience it is still a great film and will remain a cult classic for generations to come.
Work Cited
Appenzeller, Gary. ""The Return Of The King" Differences Between The Book And The
Movie." gary.appenzeller.net. 2009. Stumbleupon. 23 Mar 2009
<http://gary.appenzeller.net/RotKDifferences.html>.
Doughan, David. "J.R.R. Tolkien: A Biographical Sketch." www.tolkiensociety.org. 2002. The
Tolkien Society. 23 Mar 2009 <http://www.tolkiensociety.org/tolkien/biography.html>.
Jackson, Peter. The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King. Dir. Peter Jackson. DVD. New Line Cinema, 2003.
Piittinen, Vesa. "Book Vs. Movie : Peter Jacksons Return Of The King." Tolkien Gateway. 2008.
GNU. 23 Mar 2009
<http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Book_vs._Movie:_Peter_Jackson's_The_Return_
of_the_King>.
Tolkien, J.R.R.. The Lord of the Rings The Return of the King. 1st. Houghton Mifflin, 1988.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7YllAOqpF4&feature=related
http://www.henrysheehan.com/reviews/the/return-of-the-king.jpg
The Twilight Saga
Twilight is the new sensation between teens and young adults, such so that it has been named the Twilight saga. The vampire novel written by Stephanie Meyer is New York Times best-selling series. The book was published in 2005 and critics have described it as an epic romance story. This new sensation has recently been turned into a major motion picture. Catherine Hardwicke directed the Twilight movie, which was released on November 2008. Twilight is the story of a forbidden love, a teenage girl falling in love with a vampire. Although both productions are similar in certain parts there have been critiques that say that the Twilight movie was a complete failure and others that it was a success. The book has an advantage of being able to be lengthy, therefore more details go into it than a movie would be able to portray. So was it just bad acting that made the movie not be as good as it should have been, or was it that once one has read the book nothing can carry away the same meaning? It mainly depends on a personal opinion, but one has to be blind not to realize that the movie does not succeed in portraying Meyer’s Twilight sensation.
Twilight, as Meyer portrayed through her book,is a story where Bella Swan moves from Arizona to a small town named Forks to live with her dad, where it is always gloomy and rainy. Bella knew that it would be easy to get along with her dad, “One of the best things about Charlie is that he doesn’t hover” (Twilight 2005). Bella is the new interest of the school, she immediately makes friends though she didn’t really seemed interested in them at all. She became aware of some intriguing people at the cafeteria, almost not human like due to their stunning features, Edward Cullen and his brother and sisters were noticeably segregated from the rest. “Who are they?” she immediately asked to one of her new friends (Twilight 2005). Such creatures fascinated Bella, but apparently Edward didn’t feel the same way about her. At first Edward couldn’t stand being around Bella, until he realize that he couldn’t stand being away from her so he finally gave in and decided to be friends. Edward and Bella develop an interesting friendship through the story that led into a passionate love. Bella was irrevocably in love with Edward and figuring out that he was not human, didn’t change her feelings towards him:
“About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was part of him- and I didn’t know how dominant that part might be-that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.” (Twilight 2005).
Bella wasn’t scared at all of Edward; instead, she felt safe and herself when she was with him, it is a love that is unimaginable that was strong enough to bring a mortal and a vampire together. “So the Lion fell in love with the Lamb” said Edward in the movie, he couldn’t find possible that Bella felt so comfortable around him (Twilight 2008). Edward and his family are vampires that don’t eat humans; instead they drink animal’s blood. For him his love towards Bella is both fascinating and tormenting, he had never thirsted for human blood as much as he did for Bella’s. Even if he didn’t drink human blood it was very hard to control himself around Bella, and that was his major challenge. Bella had become his life now, “if I could dream at all, it would be about you. And I’m not ashamed of it” (Twilight 2005). Edward’s life evolved around Bella since the moment he caught her scent, and there was nothing that could change that. “There is a melancholic feel to their impossible love, yet at the same time they both are unwilling to give up hope that their relationship is not doomed” (www.lovevampires.com). The book emphasizes all of these feeling that Bella and Edward have to put up with their differences; it shows their true life and passion for each other.
The book is told in first person, offering Bella’s perspective through it all. Bella’s character is very shy, lack in confidence, and reserved. Her personality contributes to the book in a favorable way, making the reader want to know more about the Cullen’s and what is going to happen next. Meyer does a great job describing the scenery, which makes the reader engage more in the reading and makes picturing things easier. While reading the book it makes the reader feel the damp air and the rain at Forks, it is almost as one was living the story. Bella’s and Edwards love is intense, intimate, and an unimaginable kind of love that is impossible. Edward’s character is a mystery, making the novel interesting and making the reader eager to know what is going to happen. Overall, Twilight isn’t a book that the reader looks forward to end, instead wanting to know more about it. “It goes against every other vampire story that has been written”, there hasn’t been any other book with vampires that portray such beautiful creatures in such a graceful manner. “Forget any vampire romance you have read before, Twilight is so unique it is almost like it’s in its own genre” (www.lovevampires.com). The way the story is written makes the reader have their own picture of the beautiful vampires and make their own new conclusions about the creatures.
The movie Twilight is based upon the book Twilight, having a similar plot to the book. Kirsten Stewart plays the role of Bella Swan, the teenage girl that moved from Arizona to the small town of Forks because her mom remarried. Bella has always been different and didn’t fit in with the typical girl from Arizona. She wasn’t expecting to have a great time in Forks until she met Edward Cullen, Robert Pattinson, a gorgeous guy that seemed different from everyone else. The relationship between them is awkward at first, but it turns out to be a romance not really comparing at all to the one Meyer’s book described. A critique referred to it as “…the actors’ early, awkward interactions feel particularly forced, and the script gives Stewart virtually nothing with which to convince the audience of her transcendent love for Pattinson.” (www.movie-moron.com). I felt the same way whenever I saw the movie, the actors were just doing their job but they weren’t really thinking in engaging the characters that they were acting as. Everything seemed forced, there was no intimacy in between Bella or Edward, and it almost seemed fake.
Edward had been waiting for Bella for 90 years; he had never loved anyone since he had been turned into a vampire. Though, Pattinson doesn’t do a very good job portraying Edward as he was described in the book. It is very hard for him to be around her because he thirsts for her blood and her scent is very appealing to him, instead of getting the same image as one does on the book when Bella enters the room where Edward is it seems way too exaggerated the way he reacted. It is true that he stiffened but he wasn’t staring at her intently during class, which can be seen in the trailer of the movie, and when he did she was hiding behind her hair (www.twilightthemovie.com). It’s almost been as if the whole essence of the book was lost in poor acting and special effects of the movie. In their already complicated love, three vampires come to Forks: James (Cam Gigadent), Laurent (Edi Gathegi), and Victoria (Rachelle Lafevre). They threaten Bella’s safety, so Edward and his family have to decide what to do in order to protect her. Catherine Hardwick “brings to life, this modern, visual, and visceral Romeo & Juliet story of the ultimate forbidden love affair between a vampire and a mortal” Making the story look more appealing and curious to the public (www.twilightthemovie.com).
Altogether, just by comparing the plot of the book and the movie one can see that they are really similar in the aspect of characters, location, and the scenery both in the book and movie. The truth is that the movie lacks a lot of details and the main gist of the story, which is that irrevocable love between Edward and Bella. Kirsten Stewart didn’t seem Bella at all. Bella’s and Edwards interaction through out the movie seems almost awkward and not so in love that they would do anything for each other. Robert Pattinson might have the looks, but his acting didn’t help at all to portray the perfect vampire Meyer described through her book. One example in the film can be when he was in Bella’s room he tells her “I like watching you sleep, it’s kind of fascinating to me” (Twilight 2008). Even though he is saying that she fascinates him, it is almost as if he is saying what he’s supposed to be saying. There is more to Edward saying what he feels, he shows it through actions, and I think that the film failed to do that. It was almost throughout the half of the movie he was angry with Bella and didn’t treat her as something fragile and fascinating, as the book described. Almost as if Robert hadn’t grasped Edwards’ character by reading the book, his character was definitely supposed to be more than just looks. Such details critiques saw as a failure for the movie. “The overall opinion seems to be that ‘Twilight’ has lost a little magic in the transition from book to film” (www.sugarslam.com/twilight-movie).
Of course it wouldn’t have been possible to see every little detail that the book has in the movie, but in my opinion, there was more to be expected of the movie than what it was. There was a lot of direct quoting from the movie, though it is almost that it got lost in between the awkward acting, the wrong scenes, and the poor special effects. One big difference in the movie is that in the scene where Bella first sees Edward in the cafeteria, she can feel him starting at her and her friend keep pointing it out. The movie doesn’t portray this very well the fascination Edward has towards Bella or how people reacted by noticing a change everyday. There were a lot of little details and more important scenes that could have been included in the movie to make it better and have more meaning to it. There was one scene that was the most shocking for me in the movie, the scene where Edward and Bella are in the forest and she discovers that he is a vampire. In the movie, Edward seems over the edge and really talking rough to Bella. In the book, since the beginning, Edward always view Bella as something really fragile and soft so he would never have that kind of attitude that was portrayed through the film with her. “ The funny, lively banter — the way in which Edward and Bella teased and toyed with one another about their respective immortality and humanity — is pretty much completely gone in Twilight, and all that’s left is a slog of adolescent angst.” (www.movie-moron.com). The film fails to portray a more subtle transition of how Edward and Bella became closer from not being able to be around each other, to not being able to live without one or the other. Obviously the acting didn’t help to make the film to be compatible with Meyer’s vampire love story. In a way they were able to bring a new version of a vampire into the screen, but failed to portray the endless love Bella and Edward have towards each other.
Works Cited
Meyer, Stephanie. Twilight. New York: Little, Brown & Company, 2005.
Twilight. Dir. Catherine Hardwick. Summit Entertainment, 2008.
Lovevampires.com. 2006. Twilight. 13 Feb. 2009. <http://lovevampires.com/smtwilight.html>.
Movie-moron.com. 2008. Twilight Reviews. 20 Nov.2008. <http://movie-moron.com/?p=1680>.
Twilightmovie.com. 2008. Summit Entertainment. March 2009. <http://twilightmovie.com>.
http://media.photobucket.com/image/twilight%20cast/liciaphy/twilight_cast.jpg
What defines a hero today vs. a hero yesterday?
The Iliad is an epic poem written by Homer nearly three thousand years ago. An epic poem is defined as a long narrative poem telling of a hero’s deed’s (Dictionary.com). This epic story has been told for years and is still one of the most widely read stories ever told. The story of the Iliad begins nine years after the start of the Trojan War. The Greek or Achean army sacks the town of Chryse, a town that is allied with Troy. In sacking the town the army captures two beautiful maidens Chryseis, who Agamemnon the leader of the Greeks takes and Briseis, who is claimed by Achilles, the greatest of the Greek warriors. After refusing to release Chryseis, Agamemnon’s Greek army is hit by a plague sent by Apollo. Agamemnon consults the prophet Calchas to determine the cause of the plague. When he finds out that Chryseis is the cause he releases her and demands that he gets Briseis from Achilles. Achilles, is insulted by this, returns to his camp and refuses to fight in the war. He wants to see the Greeks get destroyed and asks his mother Thetis, the sea-nymph, to call upon Zeus, the king of the gods to help do so. With Zeus supporting the Trojans and Achilles refusing to fight, the Greeks suffer great losses. There is great conflict in the days that follow including duels between Paris and Menelaus and Hector and Ajax. The Trojans push the Greeks back and cause them to take refuge behind the ramparts that protect their ships. Achilles although too proud to fight himself agrees to Nestor’s plan to let Patroclus wear his armor in battle. In the battle, Apollo knocks Patroclus’ armor down and he is slain by Hector. When Achilles hears of Patroclus’ death he is filled with such rage that he reconciles with Agamemnon and rejoins the battle. Achilles proceeds to kill every Trojan he sees and then confronts hector outside the walls of Troy. He kills hector and ties his body to his chariot and drags it back to the Achaean camp. The gods then finally agree that Hector deserves a proper burial and send King Priam, Hector’s father into the Achaean camp in hopes of retrieving Hector’s body. Priam pleads with Achilles and he eventually returns Hector’s corpse to the Trojans. Both sides agree then to a truce and Hector receives a hero’s funeral. This story has been told in a variety of ways through the years. Most recently it was told in Wolfgang Petersen’s 2004 film Troy. This film was released on May 14, 2004 by Warner Brothers. The screenplay was written by David Benoiff and it was directed by Wolfgang Petersen. Its star studded cast includes Brad Pitt as Achilles, Orlando Bloom as Paris, Eric Bana as Hector, and Brian Cox as Agamemnon (IMDB).
Petersen’s Troy does, however, have some notable differences when comparing it to the original epic poem. Roger Ebert in his review of the film stated, “Homer’s estate should sue” (Ebert). One difference in the film is they portray the war as only lasting seventeen days when it really lasts ten years. Another significant difference between the film and the original text is that Patroclus is actually older than Achilles and was not his cousin (Holoka). Of the many differences between the epic poem and the film the characters of Achilles and Paris standout the most. These two characters are portrayed differently in the film then they are in the original text. By looking at the characters of Achilles and Paris in Wolfgang Petersen’s 2004 film Troy, it is easy to see how society’s definition of a hero has changed from what it was when The Iliad was written.
In The Iliad, Achilles was portrayed as a much more brutal and savage warrior then he was in the film Troy. He is depicted as a ruthless “no mercy” warrior in the original text. When speaking to Agamemnon Achilles says, “Come, then, only try it, that these others may also see; instantly your own black blood will stain my spearpoint” (Homer, 1. 302-03). He is a fearless warrior with no regard for human life. He once said, “Food and drink mean nothing to my heart but blood does, and slaughter, and the groaning of men in the hard work” (Homer, 19. 213-14). Achilles character in Petersen’s Troy also is less savage simply because of the fact that it is played by Brad Pitt. Brad Pitt brings a certain charm to the character and is able to bring some humor to the character. He says while fighting Hector, “Get up Prince of Troy, I won’t let a stone take my honor” (Troy).The Achilles in the film is still a warrior but is far less savage then in the original text. In the film Achilles is also portrayed as a lover. At the end when he is dying he is grateful to Briseis for what she has given him. He says, “You gave me peace in a lifetime of war” (Troy). The Achilles in the film is portrayed as less savage because in order for the film to do well, the hero Achilles has to be likable by today’s standards. Society’s modern version of a hero is someone good looking and charming like Brad Pitt’s character. In the film Troy, Paris’ character is also different then it was in the original text.
In The Iliad, Paris is portrayed as a pretty boy that does not want to get his hands dirty. It describes Paris as somewhat of a sheltered prince. Hector said this about Paris’ lack of honor, “Surely now the flowing-haired Achaeans laugh at us, thinking you are our bravest champion, only because your looks are handsome, but there is no strength in your heart, no courage” (Homer 3.43-45). In the film however, Paris is portrayed as a lover and a fighter. Paris makes this bold statement when looking for a solution to the conflict between him and Menelaus. Paris says, “So let us fight our own battle, the winner takes Helen home” (Troy). He is willing to fight for Helen because he loves her and claims he will not give her up. The Paris described in The Iliad would not have done so. Paris also in the film is so bold as to encourage Helen to come with him returning to Troy. He says, “You do not have to fear tomorrow, come with me” (Troy). This is uncharacteristic of the pretty boy that was not willing to get his hands dirty in the original text. Paris like Achilles character is also changed based on the simple fact that Orlando Bloom plays the character. Because society sees heroes as being good looking and charming, for the movie to do well they had to make Paris into more of a macho hero for the viewers.
Thousands of years ago, a man known as Homer wrote an epic poem called The Iliad. This great story has been told for years and years and is still being told today. The story of The Iliad begins nine years into the Trojan War and details events such as the capture of Trojan maidens, interactions between Achilles and Agamemnon, the death of Patroclus, and the slaying of Hector by Achilles. In 2004 Wolfgang Petersen directed a film called Troy which was based on this epic. The epic poem and film have many differences such as the length of the Trojan War and the fact that Patroclus is older than Achilles and not his cousin. However, the epic and the film Troy for the most part follow a similar plot. Another major difference can be seen in the characters of Achilles and Paris. In the epic Achilles is portrayed as this ruthless savage warrior who shows no mercy. In the film however, Achilles is played by Brad Pitt and is more of a good looking modern hero. The film makers had to make Achilles more like a modern hero in order for the film to be successful. Paris is the same way. In the original epic he is described as being “a pretty boy” that does not like to get his hands dirty. But in the film in order for Paris to fulfill his hero status he is portrayed as a lover and a fighter that is willing to die for love. The film makers were forced to adapt their characters to fit society’s modern definition of a hero.
Works Cited
"epic poem." WordNet® 3.0. Princeton University. 25 Mar. 2009 <Dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epic poem>.
“Achilles.” Images.google.com. 2008. Mesut Peynirci. 25 Mar. 2009 <
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/Achilles.jpg&imgrefurl=http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/peynirci02.htm&usg=__Y6vveSn3S4o1jiJgnuQtHTSBmpk=&h=375&w=300&sz=31&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=LgT0kC6mcIuFuM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=98&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAchilles%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den>.
“Troy Trailer.” YouTube.com. 18 Dec. 2006. YouTube, LLC. 25 Mar. 2009 <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC9oPseyKCE>.
“brad pitt.” YouTube.com. 28 July 2006. YouTube, LLC. 25 Mar. 2009 <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKxb8arghc8&feature=related>.
“Orlando Bloom—Mr. Wonderful.” YouTube.com. 2 Jan. 2007. YouTube, LLC. 25 Mar.
2009 < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKsXjlf8usk>.
“What defines a hero?.” YouTube.com. 28 Jan. 2008. YouTube, LLC. 25 Mar. 2009 <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijJlvXmRvic>.
Holoka, James. “Troy: Hollywood vs. Homer.” Toshistation.com. 25 Mar. 2009 <
http://www.toshistation.com/troy/>.
Ebert, Roger. “Troy.” Rev. of Troy, dir. By Wolfgang Petersen. RogerEbert.com 14 May
2004. 25 Mar. 2009 < http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040514/REVIEWS/405140304/1023 >.
“Troy.” IMDB. 27 Oct. 2005. IMDB.com, Inc. 25 Mar. 2009 <
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332452/>.
Troy. Dir. Wolfgang Petersen. 2004. DVD. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2004.
Homer. The Iliad. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago
Press, 1951.
http://www.ez-entertainment.net/prod/troy_poster.jpg
http://www.broadwayworld.com/columnpic/0226469409.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40152000/jpg/_40152135_troy_bradjen3_afp.jpg
The Passion of the Christ
Mel Gibson’s 2004 film, The Passion of the Christ, is an illustration of the final 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, as written in the Bible. The surprising similarity that is seen between the film and the Bible accentuates the message and timelessness of the love of Christ, the sacrifice he made in dying, and the effect that it still has on readers and viewers.
This story is very unique in that it is found in four separate books of the Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The film adaptation stretches across these four books, and pulls dialogue and relevant facts from each. The film begins in the garden of Gethsemane, where Christ is praying for strength for what he knows is about to happen. Soon, soldiers arrive to arrest him, led by one of his own disciples, Judas Iscariot. The High Priest of the Jewish Temple had been looking for a way to arrest Jesus in secret, and had convinced Judas to betray Jesus for thirty pieces of silver. The soldiers brought Jesus to the High Priest, Caiaphus, who had gathered many religious leaders that were unhappy with the following Christ had drawn and the threat that it posed to them. The questioned him and repeatedly tried to find a reason for which they could have him killed. They found none until they asked him if he was the Son of God, to which he answered, “Yes, it is as you say,” (Matt. 26:64). This was classified as blasphemy, a crime punishable by death. However, the religious leaders did not have the power to put someone to death, since they were under Roman rule, so they had to take him before the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate. Pilate was unable to find any grounds for punishment, but by this time people had gathered and he was afraid that if he did not grant their request to crucify Christ, that it would create an uprising. Therefore, he ordered Christ to be flogged and sentenced him to be crucified. Christ was then beaten and flogged excessively, then forced to carry a cross outside of the city. There he was nailed to a cross by his hands and feet, and hung on it as he bore the weight of the world’s sin. When his purpose had been fulfilled, he committed his spirit to God, and died, so that others might live eternally. Darkness immediately fell for three hours and an earthquake shook the ground. The temple was destroyed and the curtain, which signified the separation between God and man, was ripped from the top down. Three days later, Christ was resurrected from the grave.
There are practically no distinct contrasts or contradictions in the facts of either the written story or the film. However, there is a vast amount of illustration in the film that is otherwise unspoken in the written Bible. The Bible was written based on essentials, not necessarily on literary element. Therefore, the written form lacks many of the descriptive details that are present in most literature, and that had to be filled in by the filmmakers based on research done on the time and location of the story. Aside from what was previously stated, Hollywood managed to shy away from much of its typical exaggeration and was able to depict a picture extremely similar to the story found in the Bible. The following paragraphs will focus on these similarities, as well as on the occasional difference between the writing and the film.
The first scene of the film takes place in Gethsemane, with Christ praying for strength while his disciples stand watch and pray as well. Christ returns to his disciples to find them sleeping. The dialogue used in the film, when Christ says “Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?” comes from Matthew 26: 40. Jesus goes back to pray, and here the viewer sees some dialogue that is not found directly in the text, but is based on the “sorrow” that the Bible says he was feeling (Mark 14:34). Jesus ends his prayer in the film with dialogue directly from the text, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will” (Matt. 26:39).
Here the film contrasts with the text in some of its illustration. There is an ongoing motif used to represent the presence of Satan throughout the story. This is shown through a character that appears albino and is always covered in a hooded black robe. In the scene in Gethsemane, Satan is talking to Christ while he is praying, telling him that what he is trying to accomplish by taking the sin of the entire world onto himself is impossible. A serpent then slides out from beneath Satan’s robe, but Christ kills it by stepping on its head. This action was an illustration of Old Testament scripture, where it is written that “he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel” (Genesis 3:15).
Judas then leads the soldiers to Jesus, and there is direct matching dialogue in the film from the Bible. Jesus asks, “Who is it you want?” and when the soldiers respond, “Jesus of Nazereth,” Jesus says, “I am he” (John 18:4-5). Judas greets Jesus by saying, “Greetings, Rabbi” (Matt. 26 49) and kisses him, to which Christ responds, “Judas, you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?” (Luke 22:48). A fight breaks out between the soldiers and disciples, and Peter, one of Jesus’ disciples, cuts off the ear of one of the soldiers, Malchus. Jesus demands Peter to stop, saying in the film, “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword,” which is identical to the text (Matt. 26:52). Jesus allows the soldiers to arrest him and he is taken to the High Priest, being beaten along the way.
It does not take the High Priest long to start an uprising. They beat him throughout the questioning, to which he responds, “If I have spoken evil, testify as to what is evil. But if I have spoken the truth, why did you strike me?” (John 18:23). When asked if he was the Son of the Living God, Jesus responded by saying, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 26:64). This caused a great uprising, as it was considered blasphemy. Christ is beaten and then led away to be tried by the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate.
The following scene contrasts slightly with the text from the Bible. In the film, as the uprising continues, Peter tries to flee and is stopped three consecutive times by people accusing him of being seen with Jesus. Peter denies it each time, before realizing what he has done. This fulfilled the words Christ had spoken earlier in the text and had been shown in the film though a flashback. However, the film shows a slight difference from the text. The text says that Peter’s three denials occurred separately and in different locations. The significance of the denials remained unchanged in the film, but was done in a way to tell the story in a smaller amount of time.
Jesus is brought before Pontius Pilate, and the dialogue is extremely similar to that found in the book of John. The religious leaders present Christ to Pilate, and request the ability to execute him, as they do not have the power to on their own. Pilate takes Jesus in to question him, asking “Are you the king of the Jews?” to which Christ responds with the question of “Does this question come from you, or do you ask because it is what others have told you that I am?” (John 18:34). Christ goes on to say, “My kingdom is not of the world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place. You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who hears the truth hears me” (John 18:36-37). Pilate does not desire to sentence Jesus to death, but is forced to grant the wishes of the crowd. In the film, Pilate first has Christ flogged and beaten, and then tries to plead with the crowd to let that punishment be enough. However, this opportunity is never presented in the text. Pilate offers up the opportunity as an idea, but has to abandon it immediately due to the uprising created in the crowd. In both stories he is forced to sentence Christ to crucifixion, and does so against his own will. He speaks to Christ one last time, pleading for Christ to renounce his claims, saying that he had power over Christ’s fate. Christ replies with a direct quote from the book of John, saying, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above” (John 19:11).
In the text, the flogging of Christ is merely stated. However, this scene is the most unforgettable scene of the entire film. Mel Gibson uses this scene to illustrate the unending love of Christ, and to show the viewer exactly how much he went through to show his love. This scene showed his willingness to accept what was required of this task, and the love that remained in his eyes even during the most excruciating pain imaginable. It also showed the anger and malice of those that beat him: the very men that he came to this earth to die for and to save. The scene of the crucifixion was very similar to the scene of Christ’s flogging, in that it provided an illustration far beyond what is provided in the text from the Bible. The Bible does describe the sign that was placed above Christ’s head on the cross, which read, “Jesus of Nazereth, King of the Jews” (John 19:19). Another similarity between the text and the film is in the dialogue between Jesus and his disciple, John. Jesus looked down upon John and his own mother, Mary, and said to Mary, “’Dear woman, here is your son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother’” (John 19:26-27).
As Christ was fulfilling his purpose on the cross by taking the sin of the world upon himself, he cries out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matt. 27:46). This is a very unique line, because the original language is given to the reader in the text, in “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” (Matt. 27:46). It was very interesting to see in the film, because the viewer can see the English subtitles while hearing Christ talk in the original tongue. This is a prime example of the excellent job that writer and director Mel Gibson did in preserving the accuracy of the story. Jesus then announces that his purpose has been fulfilled by saying in a loud voice, “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit” which is a direct quote from the story found in the book of Luke (Luke 23:46).
The film then does an extremely good job of illustrating the events that the Bible only states plainly, and this is wherein most of the contrast between the text and the film lies. The film takes simple statements from the Bible, such as “he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified” (Matt. 27:26), and turns the words into a vibrant and emotional illustration with which the viewer can identify. This was not done in order for the film to comply with the standards or norms of today’s society, but merely to bring to life the words of the Bible. Many people read the story of Christ’s crucifixion, and fail to realize the truth and reality of the events on the page. The film, The Passion of the Christ, was not only extremely accurate in dialogue and fact, but also is able to contrast this shortcoming and allow the viewer to connect with and visualize events that took place over two thousand years ago.
Oleanders Reflected Through Film and Fiction
“The Santa Anas blew in hot from the desert, shriveling the last of the spring grass into whiskers of pale straw. Only the oleanders thrived…” (Fitch 1). These are the words of introduction that begin the journey of a young girl named Astrid in both the book and film version of the novel, White Oleander, written by Janet Fitch and published in April of 1999.The film version of White Oleander, released in October of 2002, starring Michelle Pfeiffer and Alison Lohman (as seen in the pictures below) and directed by Peter Kosminsky, is a very parallel depiction of the novel. The film’s resemblance to the movie is clear-cut in illustrating the unique and, most often, faulty affairs between characters as well as the incredibly troubled odyssey the main character endures. The film precisely mirrorsthemes throughout Fitch’s novelincluding that ofneglect and betrayal within the characters’ relationships, and the theme of hate and the consequences and behaviors associated with it.
In the story, White Oleander, a 15-year-old girl named Astrid is introduced to a world comparable to hell. Her mother, Ingrid, a strong-willed, remarkably beautiful artist breaks all her rules of staying independent and self-relying when she falls for a unlikely preference of partner. Unattractive and annoyingly relentless, Barry Kolker, or as Ingrid at first referred to as “the goat man”, was never imagined in Astrid’s mind as a pick for her mother (Fitch 12). At one point Astrid explains one of Ingrid’s outlooks of life saying, “Beauty was my mother’s law, her religion. You could do anything you wanted, as long as you were beautiful, as long as you did things beautifully. If you weren’t, you just didn’t exist” (Fitch 13). As a surprise to all, Ingrid uncontrollably falls for Barry. When Barry soon after leaves Ingrid for other women, she is enraged with hatred and reacts on these feelings by murdering Barry. The title of the book refers to the way in which she did this, by cooking a concoction of poisonous white oleanders (which can be seen in the below image) and DMSO, something that helps substance absorb through the skin, and painting this mixture upon Barry’s doorknobs. When Ingrid is put in prison for murder, Astrid is submitted to the world of foster care. Throughout her time in foster care, she is placed in and out of foster homes with different caretakers. Although a few of the foster homes from the novel weren’t portrayed in the movie, some which were illustrated in both movie and book include a stint with Starr, the Jesus crazed, post topless waitress, whom boyfriend Astrid falls in love with, and Claire, the troubled, suicidal actress who shows Astrid what its like to feel love. Her mother over the years has a hard time sharing Astrid with others, and does whatever she can in her power to make sure nothing becomes permanent to where she’ll lose her child, stating in a scene at the prison, “I made you. I'm in your blood. You don't go anywhere until I let you go” (Kosminsky). Astrid then replies, “Then let me go” (Kosminsky).Eventually, Astrid gives her mother an ultimatum to tell her the truth about her past or let her go and move on with her life. Ingrid shares Astrid’s history with her and lets her move on with her life when she realizes it’s the right thing to do. Even though Astrid survives all of the foster hells and burdens by her mother, the journey she had to overcome throughout them all was one not many could handle.
Of the many, betrayal and neglect are themes illustrated similarly in both the book and film version. One of the examples of this is the mother-daughter relationship between Ingrid and Astrid. All her life, Astrid grows up trying to live up to her mother’s expectations. Ingrid engraves in Astrid’s head that her and Astrid are a clan of their own, that they are the beautiful ones of the world and nobody should or can put them down. Ingrid says, “Never let a man spend the night… Dawn has a way of casting a pall on any night magic” (Fitch 6). When Ingrid starts breaking rules such as that one, and falls in love with Barry, Astrid is overcome with disappointment. When Ingrid murders Barry, without even the slightest consideration for the consequences for herself and how it would affect Astrid, Astrid is overwhelmed with a feeling of betrayal from her mother. In the film and book, another act of betrayal by Ingrid is her involvement with Claire Richards’, one of the foster mothers, suicide. Being one to create magic with words, Ingrid, in a rage of jealousy, befriends Claire Richards without Astrid’s knowing and later talks her into believing her husband is having an affair, which Ingrid knew would result in Claire killing herself. Ingrid explains to Astrid in a scene at the jail, “Don't attach yourself to anyone who shows you the least bit of attention because you're lonely. Loneliness is the human condition. No one is ever going to fill that space. The best you can do is know yourself... know what you want” (Kosminsky). Astrid is outraged with her mother because she knew Ingrid could understand the relationship that had formed between Claire and Astrid, in which Claire showed Astrid what it was like to be treated and adorned with love, something Astrid had experienced very differently with Ingrid. The film version shows Astrid’s emotions though actions and dialogue just as it had been in the novel. Ironically, another act of betrayal is that of Claire towards Astrid. Claire is the foster mother whom Astrid thinks of as a gift from God. She treats Astrid like her own child. In the movie and book, she takes Astrid on shopping sprees to expensive designers and treats Astrid to ancostly, exclusive painting class. It is Claire who shows Astrid what it’s like to have a real mother.
After a while she stopped crying, I think she fell asleep. I’d never cared about someone so much that I could feel their pain before. It made me sick, that they could do something like that to Claire, and I wasn’t there, to tell her, Quit, you don’t have to do this. “I love you, Claire,” I said softly.
-Astrid (Fitch 239)
Astrid feels betrayed and neglected when she wakes up to find Claire dead, a suicide resulting from a combination of alcohol and sleeping pills. It’s then she realizes she is left with nobody. “What do you want, Astrid? What do you think? No one would ever ask me that again” (Fitch 291). Astrid had thought Claire loved her too much to ever even consider such a thing as suicide and is angry because she feels she wasn’t even good enough for Claire, her Claire that neglected and left her with not a soul to turn to and only dark days to look for in the future.
Hate is yet another theme compared alike throughout the story. At one point in the movie when Astrid is paying Ingrid a visit in prison, Ingrid tells Astrid, “Love humiliates you. Hate cradles you” (Kosminsky). In the novel version, Ingrid elaborates on these ideas saying:
I’m enjoying my hatred so much more than I ever enjoyed love. Love is temperamental. Tiring. It makes demands. Love uses you. Changes it’s mind… But hatred, now. That’s something you can use. Sculpt. Wield. It’s hard or soft, however you need it. Love humiliates you, but hatred cradles you. It’s so soothing. I feel infinitely better now.
-Ingrid (Fitch 38)
Ingrid, not being one to commonly give into temptation such as men, acts upon these feelings of hatred without thought or even saneness when she kills Barry. All of these acts of hatred and outrage are illustrated the same in the movie and book, even including a quick flashback of Ingrid shredding up Barry’s favorite shirt after breaking into his house.
“How do I express that being with someone so dangerous was the last time I felt so safe?” states Astrid in the opening of the movie (Kosminsky). The themes of hate, betrayal and neglect are all composed to create the character of Ingrid, the dangerous one, who’s depicted exactly alike in the film and book version. Along with Ingrid’s character, the rest of the book and movie (whose cover images are below), give or take a few situations within the book, are acted out just as they are written about in the book.
WORKS CITED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7tXjvZWyLo
"White Oleander." IMDB: The Internet Movie Database. 2002. 22 Mar. 2009
<www.imdb.com>.
"White Oleander (2002)." Mooviees! 22 Mar. 2009 <www.mooviees.com>.
White Oleander. Dir. Peter Kosminsky. Perf. Michelle Pfeiffer and Alison
Lohman. DVD. 2002.
Fitch, Janet. White Oleander. New York: Back Bay Books, 1999.
Book Cover picture:
http://clubteenlit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/oleander.jpg
The Notebook-Literature vs. Cinema
The love story called The Notebook is an intriguing work of literature as well as an incredible film. The book was written by romance novelist Nicholas Sparks. The film is directed by Nick Cassavetes. The film and the book are similar in many ways but also have several notable differences. A few of those differences are how Noah and Allie met; the terms Noah and Allie are on when Allie leaves, and how Allie met her fiancé Lon. Nick Cassavetes changes made to Nicholas Sparks timeless romance novel works by adding a more emotional touch for the audience. Both the literature and cinema productions of The Notebook are excellent works of art.
The Notebook is a heart filled love story. Thought out both the book and the film an old man named Duke who is better known as Noah is reading a story to an old lady who is later known to be Allie. The story is about two young lovers named Allie Hamilton and Noah Calhoun. They share a summer romance together. Allie’s wealthy parents disapprove of the young lover’s romance. Allie’s parents then take her away from the town and away from Noah. Allie waits for Noah to write to her but does not receive any letters from him due to her mother keeping the letters. Noah rebuilds the 200 year old house that he and Allie made love in for the first time. Allie got engaged to a man of proper wealth and appearance named Lon after seven years of not hearing from Noah. Allie then sees a picture of the house and Noah in a newspaper. Allie decides to go visit Noah at the house. She then spends a few days with Noah and falls in love with Noah all over again and does not want to leave. Her mother comes to town and tells her she has to make the choice between Lon and Noah because it is not fair to string them both along. Allie chooses Noah. The old man is reading the story is Noah. The story was written by Allie when she discovered she has Alzheimer’s. Their children come to visit them in the nursing home and Allie does not recognize them. The children ask Noah to return home and he tells them, “That’s my sweetheart in there. Wherever she is, that’s where my home is,” (The Notebook 2004). Then later that night, for a brief time, Allie’s memory comes back to her and Noah enjoys a few moments with the love of his life. At the end, Allie and Noah die together in a nursing home bed in Allie’s room. The Notebook is one of the greatest love stories ever wrote.
The film version and literature form of the story have some notable differences. One difference is how Noah and Allie met. In the book, Allie met Noah and they spent time together until the carnival was over. In the movie, Noah jumped on the farris wheel and forced Allie into going on a date with him. Noah says to Allie, “Will you go out with me?” (The Notebook,2004). Allie then refuses to date Noah but he is still hanging from the farris wheel. He then says, “I’m gonna ask you one more time, will you or will you not go out with me? I think my hand’s slipping” (The Notebook 2004). Allie then agrees to go on a date with Noah in the film version, but he makes her sound like the idea of dating was her idea. Noah makes Allie say, “I wanna go out with you” (The Notebook 2004). This change helped pull on the emotions of viewers making the night they first met more memorable. It added a more dramatic effect to the love story. It also helped viewers fall in love with the characters much more quickly. How Allie and Noah met is one difference between the film and literature versions of the story.
Another difference between the film and literature version is the terms Allie and Noah are on when Allie leaves town with her parents. In the literature form, when Allie leaves town, she and Noah are on good terms. In the movie, Noah and Allie got in a fight before Allie left town and later they both grew to regret it. Noah says in a letter to Allie:
My Dearest Allie. I couldn’t sleep last night because
I know that it’s over between us. I’m not bitter any
more, because I know that what we had was real. And
if in some distant place in the future we see each other
in our new lives, I’ll smile at you with joy and remember
how we spent the summer beneath the trees, learning from
each other and growing in love. The best love is the kind
that awakens the soul and makes us reach for more, that
plants a fire in our hearts and brings peace to our minds,
and that’s what you’ve given me. That’s what I hope to
give to you forever. I love you. I’ll be seeing you. Noah
(The Notebook 187).
This change helped pull on the emotions of viewers as well. It made them feel as though Noah really loved Allie no matter what the future held for them. The terms that Allie and
Noah are on when Allie leaves town with her parents in another change that is added to the film that is not in the literature form.
Also, both versions have a difference in how Allie met her fiancé, Lon. In the book, Allie met him at a Christmas party. Duke read, “Allie was surprised how quickly she fell in love with Lon Hammond. He was handsome, smart, funny, sophisticated, and charming. He also came from old Southern money and was fabulously wealthy” (The Notebook 2004). In the movie, she met him when she was a volunteer nurse. He asked her out while he was wounded and she was caring for him and she told him to worry about getting better and they would see what happens. Lon said to Allie, “Will you go out with me?” (The Notebook 2004). This difference is how Allie met Lon does make the movie seem more romantic than the literature form. The literature and film versions of the story have a difference when it came to how Allie met her fiancé, Lon.
The number of letters written is another significant difference between the book form and the film version of The Notebook. In the book, Noah wrote Allie 1 letter a month, meaning a total of 12 letters. In the film, Noah wrote Allie 1 letter a day for a total of 365 letters. Allie said to Noah, “Why didn’t you write me? Why? It wasn’t over for me, I waited for you for seven years. But now it’s too late” (The Notebook 2004). Noah responded, “I wrote you 365 letters. I wrote you everyday for a year” (The Notebook 2004). Allie then asked Noah, “You wrote me?” (The Notebook 2004). Noah said, “Yes…it wasn’t over, it still isn’t over,” (The Notebook, 2004). This difference was significant to the production of the film. It let viewers have a more emotional experience with the love shared between Allie and Noah. The viewers felt as if Noah spent more time writing to Allie which lead to a stronger love. The number of letters wrote plays a significant part in the film version of this romance story.
Another difference between the book and the movie is what Allie’s mother does when she comes back to town. In the book, Allie’s mom talks to both her and Noah. In the movie, Allie’s mom picks up Allie and shows her that she and Allie are not much different. Allie’s mother takes Allie to show her the man that she herself was in love with 25 years ago. She said, “Sometimes when I’m in the area, I just stop here and I watch him, trying to picture how different my life might have been” (The Notebook 2004). Allie’s mother also tells her, “I didn’t spend 17 years of my life raising a daughter and giving her everything so she can thrown it away on a summer romance” (The Notebook 2004). This difference also plays an emotion role in the film. It helps create an image of a mother and daughter who seem like two different people who have nothing in common but actually share something much different. This is a difference between the movie and book about what Allie’s mother does when she comes back to town.
“Southern summers are indifferent to the trails of young love. Armed with warnings and doubts, Noah and Allie gave a remarkably convincing portrayal of a boy and a girl traveling down a very long road with no regard for the consequences,” read Duke (The Notebook 231). Both the cinema production and the literary test of The Notebook is elaborating. They have the basic plot which they both follow. However, the book and movie do have a few differences. Some of the differences are the number of letters that are wrote by Noah and also what Allie’s mother does when she comes back to town. The changes made in Nick Cassavetes film version of the love story adds more of an emotional affect to Nicholas Sparks beloved literary version of The Notebook. The book and the film have both been critiqued as one of the greatest epic love stories ever written or preformed.
Click on the link below to view a youtube
video of The Notebook.
The Notebook Trailer
Work Cited
BookBrowse.com. 2008. The Notebook. 22 Mar. 2009 Info on the Book
Homevideo.about.com. 2005. Movie Quotes From The Notebook. 22 Mar. 2009
Quotes from the Movie
Imdb.com. 2008. The Notebook (2004)-Memorable Quotes. 22 Mar. 2009 Quotes
Movies.about.com. 2009. Hollywood Movies. 22 Mar. 2009 Movie Info
Movies.coolnsmart.com. 2008. The Notebook Quotes (2004). 22 Mar. 2009 Movie Info 2
Newline.com. 2009. Notebook, The. 22 Mar. 2009 Newline Info on The Notebook
Sparks, Nicholas. The Notebook. USA: Warner Books Inc., 1996
Starpulse.com. 2009. The Notebook Pictures & Photos. 23 April 2009. The Notebook Photos
The Notebook. Dir. Nick Cassavetes. Perf. Ryan Gosling, Rachel McAdams, James Garner, Gena Rowlands, Sam Shepard, Joan Allen and James Marsden. 2004. DVD.
YouTube.com. 2009. The Notebook Trailer. 23 April 2009. YouTube The Notebook Trailer
Twilight: A Book or a Movie?
Twilight: A book or a Movie?
Stephanie Meyer wrote the first book of the Twilight series and published it in 2005. Three years later, there is a movie about it, and it is the new rage. What information could the book possibly give that the movie is missing? There are plenty of similarities and differences. The series starts out about Bella Swan who lives with her mother in Phoenix but has decided to live with her father in Forks, Washington so that her mother can go on tour with Bella’s minor league baseball playing step-dad. Dreading the move, Bella finds out after being there a few days that maybe it will not be so bad after all. As a surprise from her unemotional father, she receives an old truck that she absolutely loves. She becomes attracted to a guy in her school that has the darkest emotional look. She becomes infatuated with him, and needless to say, he warned her not to. She later finds out that Edward Cullen, her crush, and his family are vampires that only suck the blood from animals and not humans. There is a scene that shows a vampire of the other type that sucks the blood of humans and he chases after Bella, and Edward saves her. The movie and book are fairly close together except for one or two things. Obviously the movie cannot include every detail of the book but it is fairly close to the dialogue in the book. First of all, there is a part in the book that is different than the movie. When Bella is sitting in Biology class, the teacher takes a needle with a barb on the end of it and pricks the finger of a student. They are performing a lab on blood typing. This is where we first see the Bella gets nauseous at the sight of blood. “He demonstrated, squeezing Mike’s finger till the blood flowed. I swallowed convulsively, my stomach heaving” (Meyer 95). We also see her fear when Meyer writes, “…holding up the dripping red card for us to see. I closed my eyes, trying to hear through the ringing in my ears” (95). This whole scene was completely left out of the movie and I believe it is a crucial piece of the story seeing as how the book is about vampires and vampires suck blood.
Another scene that was in the book and not in the movie was when Edward escorts Bella to Carlisle’s office who is Edward’s father and tells her the story about how the Cullen family began. He starts with when Carlisle is first transformed into a vampire and then continues by introducing each family member and how they became vampires themselves. This scene is crucial because it gives important information about the history of the Cullen’s along with specific details about their behaviors and why they act the way they do. “One night, a herd of deer passed his hiding place. He was so wild with thirst that he attacked without a thought. His strength returned and he realized there was an alternative to being the vile monster that he feared” (Meyer 337).
Bella was invited to go to a dance with her friend Mike but she did not because she told him that she was supposed be in Seattle that weekend. Bella and Edward take off one weekend and everyone thinks they are going to Seattle but they actually go somewhere that is unknown to readers. “Did you tell Charlie what you were up to? Nope” (Meyer 255). Also, Bella has no idea where they are headed either. Edward tells her every move to make while driving. “’Where to?’ I asked. ‘Put your seatbelt on…’ ‘Take the one-oh-one north,’ he ordered” (Meyer 253). This shows that Bella is really starting to trust Edward.
One thing that is from the movie and the book is when Edward saved Bella from a van that was sliding towards her on an icy parking lot. The van lost control and all of the sudden Bella was saved from this van by Edward. There is also a hospital scene directly after where we see Edward and Bella’s first fight. “Two long, white hands show out protectively in front of me, and the van shuddered to a stop a foot in from of my face, the large hands fitting providently into a deep dent in the side of the van’s body” (Meyer 56). This shows the first time that Bella has really started to wonder what was so different about Edward. The good thing about this being in both the movie and the book is that even if people did not read the book, they did not miss this part in the movie.
Another scene that was in both the movie and the novel that was crucial to the story line was the baseball scene. The Cullen Family took Bella up to the top of a mountain with them so they could play baseball. This has to be done during a thunderstorm because they are so strong that when they hit the ball it breaks the sound barrier sounding like thunder. This is also where Bella first comes into contact with James, the bad vampire who feasts on human blood. “This time the bat somehow made it around in time to smash into the invisible ball. The crack of impact was shattering, thunderous; it echoed off the mountains-I immediately understood the necessity of the thunderstorm” (Meyer 370). The Cullen Family was immediately scared for Bella because of the bad vampires. “They emerged one by one from the forest edge, ranging a dozen meters apart” (Meyer 375). Bella noticed that there was something very different between the bad vampires and the Cullen Family. “As they approached, I could see how different they were from the Cullen’s. Their walk was catlike, a gait that seemed constantly on the edge of shifting into a crouch” (Meyer 376). After this is when James starts to hunt Bella for her blood. “ James, a tracker vampire who is intrigued by the Cullen’s relationship with a human, wants to hunt Bella for sport” (Wikipedia).
Movies based off books are fun entertainment but seriously lack information due to time constraints. Novels also have the ability to let the reader use his or her own imagination to create images of the different scenes rather than the producers deciding what a scene should look like. They work well together to give a general idea of what is happening, however, if one would like to know all of the information the movie was based off of, they need to read the novel before seeing the movie. This can be said about any movie because movies are based off of books rather than the opposite way around. The differences and similarities do work well together, however. One might go to see the movie and not get the whole story so now they will have to read the book. The same can be said for people who read the book except that they would want to go see the movie for entertainment rather than information. All in all, there are many similarities and differences between books and their movies, however, books contain much more important information.
Works Cited
Meyer, Stephanie. Twilight. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2005.
Wikipedia.com. 2009. Twilight (novel). 19 Mar. 2009 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_(novel)>
Twilight. Dir. Catherine Hardwicke. DVD. Summit Entertainment, 2008.
Living The Dream-- Or Not.
During the time period of the roaring 1920’s, the First World War had just ended and the stock market was booming in America. The people of the United States now had opportunities for more material goods and wealth than ever before. Most people view the American Dream as the idea, held by many United States citizens, that through hard work, courage and determination one may achieve prosperity no matter his or her origin. Throughout the novel, The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald uses this idea as one of his main themes; later Jack Clayton portrayed these themes through his movie version in 1974. Keeping the script and book alike, Clayton stated, “I guess I love people more than Fitzgerald did. Nothing is really changed in the film from the book except some of the characters are a little more human” (Bahrenburg 184). Jack Clayton’s film interpretation of the The Great Gatsby essentially brings F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words to “life,” completing the scenes that Fitzgerald left to the reader’s imagination and giving the book’s theme visibility.
Fitzgerald, as well as Clayton, utilized many characters in representing his views concerning the American Dream, two of the most notable being Jay Gatsby and George Wilson. Each of their individual stories displays a different type of failure due to various attempts to attain what each of them viewed as the “American Dream.” Despite George Wilson’s role as a seemingly minor character in the novel, through further examination, it is evident that he, along with Jay Gatsby, represents the fall of the American Dream. The way that Clayton dictates these characters in the movie allows a more personal connection with the characters, so that one relates to their conflict and struggles on a better level.
Jay Gatsby, played by Robert Redford, came from a family of relatively unsuccessful farmers. Unsatisfied with his socioeconomic status, he decided he would do whatever it took to climb the social ladder in order to get back his love, Daisy Buchanan, played by Mia Farrow. Gatsby’s father stated, “Jimmy was bound to get ahead,” showing that he was adamant about achieving his goal of success even at an early age (Fitzgerald 182). In attempting to climb the social ladder and achieve success, he found that the best way for him to make his money was through bootlegging. It is not surprising that Fitzgerald made bootlegging Gatsby’s means of acquiring wealth, because it shows us the novel’s overall outlook on the entire social scene at that time. Fitzgerald’s novel never tells you how Gatsby acquires his wealth until the very end, but the lack of information throughout the beginning of the book draws you to that conclusion. To emphasize Gatsby’s mysterious wealth in the movie, different characters give contrasting reasons of how Gatsby became so affluent. One example comes from a party guest, Kathrine, who tries to explain Gatsby’s wealth to one of Gatsby’s neighbors. She says, “He’s German, really, a cousin, or nephew, or something, of Kizor Wilhelm. That’s where he gets all of his money from” (The Great Gatsby 1974). To see scenes such as that one, were a stranger has to tell Gatsby’s own neighbor what Gatsby does for a living, makes you realize that Gatsby is a mystery to everyone. His secrets lure you to thinking he gained his wealth illegally: bootlegging.
In the end, the tone is against the hypocrisy of “new money” and looks down upon the sacrificing of morals in order to gain more wealth. An example of “new money” during the 1920’s was motorcars. They had just been invented, along with many other new advancements in technology, and were known as a symbol of social status and success (Bloom 78). Jay Gatsby owned five of the biggest and best cars made at that time, which seem even larger and more extravagant on film. It is very telling that this symbol of wealth also portrays a symbol of death in the novel. It is Gatsby’s most recognizable car that kills Myrtle Wilson, George’s wife. The car that kills Myrtle happens to be neon yellow and very ostentatious, which represents the superficiality of this symbol of wealth, along with the flaunting of wealth in general (Bruccoli 110). Through Clayton’s directions, whenever the car is on screen, it is the brightest and most illuminating object in the scene. This is done so that subconsciously you realize that the automobile has a deeper meaning than just the flaunting of money and transportation.
Furthermore, through the descriptions of Gatsby’s elaborate parties and exquisite mansion, Fitzgerald shows the reader the appeal of the dream, but also goes on to show how this appeal is misleading. Gatsby is known for entertaining people by throwing parties every weekend but does not even participate in them; much less does he enjoy them. Clayton portrays these parties as wild balls. The party- goers do a dance like the fox- trot, the most tiring dance of that time. He did that to emphasize the extravagance and free-willing nature of the party (Bahrenburg 91). It the opening scenes of the film, Gatsby’s neighbor, Nick, refers to the parties as, “I believe few people were actually invited to the parties, they just went… and after that they conducted themselves in a kind of behavior you would find at an amusement park” (The Great Gatsby 1974).
Gatsby’s dream is to marry Daisy Buchanan, whom he is in love with since before he left for war, but Daisy is married to Tom and lives a lavish lifestyle that even Gatsby cannot duplicate for her. Though Fitzgerald’s story quickly distorted Tom’s character into a bad guy, Clayton’s view of Tom was more compassionate in the film. The actor who plays Tom, Bruce Dern, said during the making of the film, “I play Tom Buchanan more sympathetically than he is in the book, and Jack Clayton made him that way in the script… I found things in Tom that make it clear why Daisy would marry him” (Bahrenburg 184). This point of view in the movie hinders a little on one’s desire for Daisy to leave Tom for Gatsby; however, it does make one more companionate for Tom in the end when he loses Myrtle, who truly is his best friend.
Gatsby’s distorted view of reality, the idea that he will someday win Daisy over, does not allow him to attain his dream; it simply sets him up for failure. “Gatsby dies because he’s a smuck,” actor Robert Redford says, “He had the strength of will to get him where he is, but the fatal mistake is that he believed you can repeat the past” (Bahrenburg 211). Gatsby becomes to more of a realization of this when he sees Daisy and Tom’s daughter, Pammy. He never specifically mentions it, but the novel mentions him staring at her for a particularly long time with a sort of shocked expression upon the sight of her. Pammy portrays a symbol of the bridge between Gatsby and Daisy and the time that has gone by since they were together (Piper 160). In the movie, Clayton does a wonderful job of depicting this scene. In the drawn out moments of Gatsby staring at Pammy, you can vividly see the shock and sad realization of this moment displayed on actor Robert Redford’s face, which provides this event in the story a greater impact.
Also, all of the steps that Gatsby has taken in life, from bootlegging to moving to West Egg, are all based upon this same distorted view. Nick comments on Gatsby’s view when he states, “As I went to say goodbye, I saw that the expression of bewilderment had come back into Gatsby’s face, as though a faint doubt had occurred to him as to the quality of his present happiness. There were moments that afternoon when Daisy stumbled short of his dreams—not through any fault of her own but because of the colossal vitality of his illusion” (Fitzgerald 101). For scenes such as this one, Clayton adds audio impact by playing slow sad melodies in the background. This aspect of Clayton’s directing, where one hears and begin to feel the mood of the scene, rather than just reading it and having to create the feel in one’s mind, creates a more vivid ambiance for the conflict between Daisy and Gatsby.
Furthermore, Fitzgerald’s disdain for the gap between the rich and the poor is also evident in the novel through his description of the Wilson’s and the Valley of Ashes versus the people living in East and West Egg. Clayton’s portrayals of both sceneries amplify Fitzgerald’s descriptions, visually showing a greater contrast between the two. Every time the screen views a scene in East Egg or West Egg, people are always around, even if only in the background scenery. Houses and lawns are tidy, with workers in the yard perfecting every last hedge. The rooms and buildings primarily consist of the color white, symbolizing their purity and cleanliness. However, when Tom drives to Valley of Ashes to Wilson’s shop, the scenery is vacant. The only building visible is Wilson’s shop, and only Wilson and his wife are around. The auto- shop consists of nothing but dirt and clutter, and a burning pile of tires. All the colors are shades of brown and black. The Valley seems dry and disgusting.
These places are polar opposites, just like the social status, and even the actual characters of Wilson versus that of Gatsby. George Wilson is a car mechanic who owns his own small business. He is content with both his wife, and his meager lifestyle, despite the fact that his wife is having an affair with Tom Buchanan, a man much more wealthy than he, who can provide a much more prominent lifestyle for Myrtle. Fitzgerald relates to the character of George who despises wealth and privilege because it has caused his wife to be taken away, not only in the sense of the affair, but more permanently when she is run over by Gatsby’s car (Bloom 52).
In the last scene of the novel, and closing scene of the movie, George Wilson shoots and kills Jay Gatsby while Gatsby is in his swimming pool. In the visualization of this scene, everything is calm and still, even the pool water, all focus is on the conflict between Wilson and Gatsby. The emotion displayed on Wilson’s face, actor Howard da Silva, leaves one with an impression of understanding and tragic sorrow. Wilson shot Gatsby because he thought that it was Gatsby that ran over Myrtle, when in reality it was Daisy driving Gatsby’s car, which you realize more directly when watching it take place of film. This is also Fitzgerald representing Wilson’s view on the entire idea of high society (Piper 112).
Both of their dreams are shattered; Wilson’s to continue his meager life with which he was content, and Gatsby’s to get Daisy back. Nick shows the effects of Gatsby’s distorted view of obtaining Daisy when he states, “He paid a high price for living too long with a single dream” (Fitzgerald 169). This price was ultimately his life. George Wilson may not have worked his way up to wealth or success, as some people view it, but his dream was still shattered because he lost the woman that he loved. He was so overcome with the fact that he did not know what to do with his life after this, that he opted to end it. When Clayton’s film cuts back to Wilson’s auto-shop after his disclosed suicide, the Valley of Ashes is with Wilson’s shop illuminating the scene like a halo. Though one normally is upset with Wilson about killing Gatsby, when Clayton creates respectful sceneries like these, you still have compassion for Wilson.
Jack Clayton’s film interpretation of The Great Gatsby, in 1974, utilizes the main ideas and dialogs directly from F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gatsby, and brings visualization to a scene’s impact, that originally Fitzgerald could only do with a limitation of words. When these men’s dreams, all they were living for, were gone, their lives ended. Even though George knew that Myrtle was cheating on him, she was such a vital part of his life that he forgave her and his love for her did not fail. Without her, he saw no further reason to live. Gatsby knew that he would not hear back from Daisy and had give up hope on this dream. He now knew that everything he had done in life up to this point was useless because he was not getting Daisy back. A combination of losing the women that they loved and the lifestyles, to which they had become accustomed, resulted in the fall of the American Dream. In George’s case, this caused him to commit murder and end his life, and in Gatsby’s case, his life symbolically ended when his dream was gone.
Work Cited
Bahrenburg, Bruce. Filming the Great Gatsby. New York: Berkley Medallion Books,
1974.
Bloom, Harold. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. New Haven: Chelsea House
Publishers, 1986.
Bruccoli, Mathew J. New Essays on the Great Gatsby. Cambridge, New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1925.
The Great Gatsby. Dir. Jack Clayton. Perf. Robert Redford, and Mia Farrow.
1974. DVD. Paramount Pictures.
Piper, Henry Dan. Fitzgerald’s the Great Gatsby: The Novel, The Critics, The
Background. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1970.
Hyperlinks:
“American Dream.” Wikipedia. 26 March 2008. Media Wiki. 25 March 2009.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_american_dream>
“Bootlegging.” Dictionary.com. 2009. Dictionary, LLC. 25 March 2009.
< http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bootlegging>
“The Great Gatsby- Trailer Robert Redford.” YouTube. 20 May 2009. YouTube, LLC.
25 March 2009. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTxxXK9PQT0>
“The Great Gatsby 1974 Robert Redford.” YouTube. 13 December 2008. YouTube,
LLC. 26 March 2009. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uCp2raf0A8&feature=related
“Robert Redford.” IMDb. 2009. Amazon.com. 23 April 2009.
“Symbolism: East and West Egg.” Homework Online. 2009. Home Work
Online, Inc. 23 April 2009. http://www.homework-online.com/tgg/symbolEggs.asp.
Analyzing the Graphic Novel and Film Adapations of V for Vendetta
Alan Moore’s 1982 graphic novel V for Vendetta is a story about a theoretical, dystopian near-future in which a subversive masked vigilante (named V) attempts to introduce anarchy in a post-apocalyptic, fascist-ruled England. Moore’s novel was written and published during the Thatcher Era in England and its political and social themes were very relevant and especially provocative during the time. The graphic novel gained much success, and in 2005 a film of the novel was made into a film; however the film was only loosely based on Moore’s original work. The film was directed by James McTeigue, and the screenplay was written by the Wachowski Brothers (imdb). The film also starred Hugo Weaving as the titular hero V and Natalie Portman as his accomplice, love interest, and the heroine of the story, Evey Hammond. The discrepancies between the original graphic novel and the film are legion—arguably, to the point where they are both completely separate works. Although most the graphic novel’s ideological integrity (both are, in essence, about a mission to destroy an oppressive government and the struggle for personal freedom) was preserved in the screenplay, the film adaptation of V for Vendetta was clearly revised to appeal to movie-goers and the post-millennial generation.
Both the graphic novel and the film begin with the same scenario. They both take place in totalitarian England ruled by a corrupt fascist party named Norsefire. The heroineof the story, Evey Hammond, is rescued by a masked vigilante named V after she was nearly raped by Norsefire agents in a back alley after she was caught staying out past curfew. After disposing of the “fingerman”, Evey accompanies V, and soon after witnesses him destroying a government building (in the graphic novel it was Houses of Parliament, in the film it was the Old Bailey) with powerful explosives. The government is incensed by the act of terrorism and a manhunt is issued for both V and Evey. Since Evey was seen with the terrorist in question, she is stuck with him, for better or for worse. In the graphic novel, Evey is presented as an insecure, desperate, and naïve teenager who is driven into prostitution. In the film, however, Evey is an independent, intelligent, and open-minded (albeit, apathetic) young woman who works at the government-owned news station. The two Evey’s are foils of one another, and the film Evey proves to be the stronger and more relatable of the two. A respectable, modern woman is much more appealing (and can be sympathized with easier, in most cases) than the uneducated and destitute one portrayed in the graphic novel. Despite their distinctly different origins and personalities, the character development of both Evey’s is fairly the same in both the graphic novel and film. In both mediums, V transforms her into a rebellious freedom fighter with a newfound sense of justice. Evey’s basic purpose in both film and graphic novel is to show the transformation of apathy into awareness and ignorance into knowledge.
The titular character V displays a myriad of discrepancies from the graphic novel and the film as well. However, both have the same origin. V is, of course, not his real name. He was a nameless, undesirable prisoner sent to a concentration camp-esque research facility called Larkhill. During his stay at Larkhill, he was subjugated to horrific experiments. Out of all the patients at the facility, he was the only one that proved to be immune to the hormonal injections, and even acquired “super-human abilities”. A beautiful and heartbreaking letter from a former inmate named Valerie serves as the catalyst that transforms the “un-named man in room five” to the masked vigilante named V. After this, V acquired his insatiable desire for freedom and justice, and succeeded in escaping and destroying the facility through his cunning use homemade explosives. The subsequent motives of both V’s following the incident at Larkhill differ greatly in both mediums. In the movie, V is a romantic revolutionary fighter who is completely bent on revenge. He wants to exact divine justice on those who have wronged both him and Valerie as well as eliminate the totalitarian government that has enslaved the country through fear. He slowly breaks the Norsefire government apart through his assassinations and his (rather clever) propaganda campaign. In the wake of all of this, V experiences existential woe, as he wishes to be recognized as not a man, but the embodiment of an “idea”. His strive to be an ideological entity is made all the more difficult by his romantic feelings for Evey, which very much ground him and make him mortal. Despite his immense feelings, V chooses revenge over a life with Evey and, when facing party leader Creedy at the climax of the film states: “behind this mask is not flesh and blood but an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof” (imdb). After being shot by Creedy’s men, V returns to Evey, and in his last moments, confesses his love to her and therefore, acknowledges and accepts his human nature. The dichotomy of “man” and “idea” is reinforced at end and beginning of the film when Evey states in voiceover: “…you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love... And it is not an idea that I miss, it is a man…” (imdb). However, the V portrayed in the graphic novel is very much less of a man than in the film. In the graphic novel, V is a merciless anarchist with limited sympathy who aims to subvert Norsefire by inducing chaos. V has little ties to the human world. Evey is, like in the movie, his companion; however their relationship is solely platonic. Evey, if anything, is his accomplice and intended successor (indeed, Evey takes up V’s mantle after his death). V’s reasons for destroying Norsefire are not personal, either. V, indeed, murders the same individuals in the movie (all related to Larkhill), but not out of revenge. He did so to insure that his identity would never be revealed. By doing so, he is cutting all his ties to his formal, human life. V is also considerably less out-spoken in the novel. Much of his dialogue is not his own personal commentary but quotations from other sources. V is spectre-like and, if anything, is not a man but the spirit of anarchy itself. These changes in character from graphic novel to movie are, much like Evey’s case, to make the character more likeable and relatable to the audience. V for Vendetta was marketed as a superhero movie and typically superhero movies emphasize the hero’s own human weaknesses and nature. If V continued to be just “a manifestation of an idea” he would fail to make any connection with the audience, fail to be a “superhero” (in the modern sense) and thus fail in the theatures. The loquacious, charming, revenge-driven, and vulnerable “human” V portrayed in the movie is much more endearing and relatable to audiences.
Finally, the setting, message, and ending of the film itself is altered quite a bit for the screen. The movie is set in 2028, while the graphic novel took place in the 1990’s (Shadow Gallery). Obviously this was so that the film would seem more relevant, and possibly, serving as a warning to the modern generation. In the movie, the Norsefire party was only able to take control of England after an elaborate biological attack that they set on the nation itself. Adam Sutler, the Norsefire leader, promised the country protection albeit at the expense of their liberties. Driven by fear, the nation accepted, and Norsefire established their totalitarian regime. In the graphic novel, Norsefire did not gain power through unjust means. They were elected simply due to the nation’s abject passivity. The horrific deeds done by the government in the film made it a more formidable opponent for V, Evey and the rest of England to fight against. It was not just the people, but the institution itself that was corrupt, and needed to be stopped. The dictator leader in both mediums is distinctly different as well. Adam Sutler, the dictator from the film, is a vehement fascist and a “big brother” figure, as he is only seen throughout the film on a large screen in a boardroom. Once he is face-to-face with V, however, Sutler is nothing more than a complete coward and fears death. Adam Susan is the dictator from the novel and he is portrayed as a lonely man who truly believes that fascism will save his country. Both dictators are killed in the end; Sutler by his second-in command Mr. Creedy, and Susan by the bitter wife of one of his former cabinet members. Sutler is portrayed as a caricature of the “big brother” leader who rules through fear and intimidation. Susan was portrayed as a much more sympathetic character, and therefore would not resonate well with western audiences (who generally are more inclined to view dictators, of any sort, in a negative light). The ending of the film and the novel is very different as well. The film ends with Evey giving V a dignified “Viking funeral” in a train laden with explosives sent to destroy the Houses of Parliament (like he promised at the beginning of the film) before a massive crowd of onlookers, all wearing his signature Guy Fawks mask. Parliament is destroyed, England is free at last, and the dawn of a new era of freedom has begun. V’s work is finished. The novel, however, does not end so conclusively. V succeeds in murdering all the top government officials and yet dies in the process. The country falls into chaos and the future is uncertain. V still has work to be done, and Evey takes on V’s identity and continues his mission after his death. The film ends conclusively and on a very elated and victorious note. The graphic novel’s ending, although powerful as well, just does not have the same “feel good” element that so many movie-goers are used to and expect.
Although there were many significant changes in the film adaptation of V for Vendetta, they were tasteful, true to the original intention of the graphic novel, and meant to cater to a new and modern audience. Both mediums are powerful and excellent works of art in their own respect, as different as they may be. The same sentiments of justice and personal freedom exist in both graphic novel and film. In the words of Valerie, in her letter that forever changed both V and Evey:
Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have. It is the very last inch of us. But within that inch we are free…An inch. It is small and it is fragile and it is the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it or giveit away. We must never let them take it from us. (imdb)
Sauces
“Memorable Quotes from: V for Vendetta”. Internet Movie Database. 25 March 2009 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409/quotes>
Moore, Alan. V for Vendetta. DC Comics, 1988.
“Timeline”. The Shadow Gallery. 25 March 2009 http://www.shadowgalaxy.net/Vendetta/timeline.html
V for Vendetta. Dir. James McTeague. Warner Brothers Pictures. 2005
“V for Vendetta (2005)”. Internet Movie Database. 25 March 25, 2009
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0434409>
The Chamber of Imagination
Steve Klove’s 2002 film that follows the storyline of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets shows the magical play on words that J.K Rowling used to keep readers glued to the story, and we see the successful transfer of similarities through conflict, boastfulness, and a whole lot of imagery. Both the movie and literature of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets were given the same title but were created in different years. The book was published in 1999 while the film was produced in 2002. The plot of both the movie and book are very similar, except for minor details. It starts out when Harry Potter is living with his aunt and uncle who are both Muggles, which are non-wizards. He is starting his second year at Hogwarts wizardry school, but not before he is visited by a house-elf named Dobby. Dobby warns Harry that bad things are going to happen if Harry goes back to school. Mudbloods at the school, which are wizards that are born into a Muggle family, start getting attacked and petrified and they also see blood writing on the walls. Many believe that only the heir of Slytherin could do these attacks, and most of the school believes it could be Harry. Harry and his friends think the culprit is Draco Malfoy. As Harry searches around for more clues, he finds Tom Riddles diary, finds out why Hagrid was expelled, and reveals what is in the Chamber of Secrets. There are many similarities between the book and the movie. One of them is when Dobby repeatedly tells Harry that trouble is going to occur if he returns to Hogwarts School. Another similarity is Gilderoy Lockhart being the Dark Arts Teacher, and being horrible at it. Whenever Harry, Ron, and Hermione drink a potion to turn themselves into anyone they want to be, it gives them more clues to figuring out more information about the chamber of secrets. This also happens in both the film and literature. The final similarity of the many similarities the book and movie have is the resolution. This is when Harry ends Tom Riddles memory. To start off, we will talk about the conflict in the story.
As Dobby the house-elf warns Harry not to go back to Hogwarts, Harry ignores him and causes the elf to do nothing but trouble for Harry instead of helping him. Dobby says, “If Harry Potter goes back to Hogwarts, he will be in mortal danger. (Rowling 16)” Dobby warns him that danger is going to occur, but will not tell him what the danger is. This is the start of conflict in the story. It is the same in the book and the movie. This scene works out perfectly because the way J.K. Rowling depicts the conflict in the book plays out perfectly in the movie. As she describes Dobby making various loud noises, you can see the scene downstairs where Harry’s uncle is getting very angry. Harry’s aunt and uncle basically disown him because they are scared of his magical powers. Harry says in the movie, “I belong in Hogwarts” (DVD). This is almost similar to the book as Harry keeps telling Dobby that he does not belong with the Dursleys. This scene works because in the movie, you can tell how miserable he was living with his aunt and uncle. Another reason why this works is because later in the movie, you can tell that Hogwarts School of Wizardry is his home by how everyone treats him as an equal. The conflict does not stop here though, but will be explained with boastfulness in the next paragraph.
Gilderoy Lockhart is famous for writing most of the books students at Hogwarts School of Wizardry acquire. He boasts and brags about his books all day long, giving advertisements of where to buy the books and what awards he has one. As the new school year starts, he got the job as the Dark Arts Magic Teacher. In the book, Rowling gave quite a bit of detail on Lockhart about how boastful he was. It was just the same in the movie. In the book, Lockhart says, “Together, you and I are worth the front page” (Rowling 60). This scene works out perfectly because in the movie, Lockhart was signing autographs and giving out pictures, just like he was in the book. Seeing it in the movie gave the audience a perfect depiction of how Lockhart loved being in the spotlight. In the movie, Lockhart says, “I have asked Dumbledore if I could start a dueling club. (DVD)” He says basically the same thing in the book. This scene shows how horrible Lockhart is with magic. The similarities of this scene between the book and the movie work because it shows that Lockhart can’t back up what he says. He says he has done many things to help out society, but there is no real proof that he does. When he does a dueling demonstration in front of the kids at school, he ends up getting beat by Snape. This scene shows the audience exactly what kind of character Gilderoy Lockhart is. With all of the gloating going on, this brings me to my next subject of imagery.
In the scene where Hermione, Ron, and Harry literally change into another character, it used many aspects of imagery to describe the physical appearances they went through. Imagery works in both the movie and the book because without it, the book would be very dull and not as interesting. As Harry changed into Goyle, J.K Rowling describes the scene by saying, “…as the skin all over his body bubbled like hot wax--his robes ripped as his chest expanded like a barrel bursting its hoops… (Rowling 216)” The way Rowling used her imagery within her words makes the audience feel as if they are watching the event unfold right in front of them. Like the quote stated earlier, Harry’s chest was expanding like a barrel bursting its hoops. This played out perfectly in the movie because it depicted almost every aspect of imagery Rowling used to describe Harry in the book. Another reason this scene works for both the literature and film is that someone could have just read the book and picture the scene in their mind and it would be almost the same as in the movie. After Harry transforms into Goyle, Rowling describes his voice by saying, “Goyle’s low rasp of a voice issued from his mouth. (Rowling 217)” From the book, you can imagine someone older, maybe your grandfather talking to you with a low, raspy voice. The reason this type of imagery worked is because most people can relate to this situation of hearing a low, raspy voice. It plays out perfectly in the movie because Harry’s voice did change into a low voice, such as Goyle’s. These are just a few of the reasons why imagery worked in this movie and book combo.
The storyline of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets does show the magical play on words that J.K Rowling used to keep readers glued to the story, and we see the successful transfer of similarities through conflict, magic, and a whole lot of imagery. We can see that the conflict works in both the book and the movie because we can understand the feelings that the characters are experiencing. There are many boastful scenes throughout the movie and book. This works because we can further see what type of character Lockhart is in the film. Finally, the imagery is what holds this storyline together. Without it, the book would be nothing but a dull stack of papers glued together.
Rowling, J.K.. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. U.S.A: Scholastic Inc., 1999.
Kloves, Steve. Columbus, Chris. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. DVD. 2002.
Stuart, Mary. "Curled up with a good book." 2001 24 Mar 2009 <http://www.curledup.com/chamber.htm>.
Wilson, Etta. "Children's Bookpage." 24 Mar 2009 <http://www.bookpage.com/9906bp/childrens/harry_potter.html>.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets." IMDB. 24 Mar 2009 <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0295297/>.