Emma is Clueless
The fairytale novel called Emma, written by Jane Austen in 1816, meets the 1995 hit movie Clueless that was directed by Amy Heckerling (IMDB, 1990). Despite the obvious setting and time differences, these two match up almost perfectly with their characterizations and overall plot. There are alterations between the two versions but not many of them. The novel was transformed into a film that was of a new generation but the story works well both ways. The contrasting time periods of the two demonstrate the versatility of the story, Emma, and its adaptability to different time eras.
The protagonist, Emma Woodhouse, has been raised to value social status and have ambition to raise her status even higher. The novel frequently emphasizes the differences in class, for example, “One half of the world cannot understand the pleasures of the other” (Austen, 1816). Marriage was one particular way to raise one’s status. The Woodhouse family was considered to be of high society and very wealthy. Instead of focusing on herself, Emma overconfidently took an interest in finding her new friend, Harriet, a match with a gentleman. Harriet was not of known parentage and was essentially looked down upon by Emma’s associates and potential espousals for her (Spark Notes, 2009). Emma persuades her into declining the proposal from a poor farmer, Robert Martin, that Harriet had obvious feelings for. She wants her to be matched with Mr. Elton. With encouragement from Emma, Harriet becomes infatuated with him. They soon realize that he is not in love with Harriet because he is smitten with Emma the entire time. In addition, he feels insulted that they think he would join with someone from an unequal class, such as Harriet. Then Mr. Knightley is introduced, Emma’s brother-in-law, who has a very friendly but assertive relationship with Emma. They are fascinated with each other but have never appeared to be affectionate towards one another. Harriet starts to fall for him after getting over the discouragement of Mr. Elton. When Harriet tells her the news, Emma reacts in a way that neither of them expected. Emma feels distressed when hearing of Harriet’s feelings and it forces her to realize her feelings for Mr. Knightley. Emma’s feelings are described as, “It darted through her with the speed of an arrow that Mr. Knightley must marry no one but herself” (Austen, 1816). Almost instantaneously, Mr. Knightley declares his love for Emma and Harriet gladly accepts Robert Martin’s second proposal. To conclude the story is the wedding of Harriet and Robert Martin while in the congregation sits Emma and Mr. Knightley as a blissful couple.
The sequence of events and characterizations in the novel Emma are almost an exact match to the movie Clueless, except it is set in a modern time period. The film is set in California during the 1990’s. Cher, the main character that coincides with Emma, is very wealthy and popular. She meets a new friend at school named Tie who does not seem to be familiar with the type of lifestyle that Cher is accustomed to. In the film she gets teased for being different from the high society students, for example one of the more well-liked girls said, “She could be a farmer in those clothes” (Clueless, 1995). Tie, just like Harriet, is not wealthy but has high hopes to fit in. Cher’s character volunteers to assist her friend in finding a boyfriend of high status instead of Travis, a skateboarder boy at school that Tie has a mutual attraction with, because Cher does not think he is good enough for her. Travis has similar traits of Robert Martin because they are both good, innocent people that are separated from the woman they love because of their roles in society. Cher acquaints Tie with Elton who is a friend of hers that she feels would go well with Tie. Cher’s character instigates Tie into falling in love with Elton. After the fact, they are surprised to discover that Elton is in love with Cher, not Tie. During the film Elton says to Cher, “People like us, well, we make sense” (Clueless, 1995). Later, Cher’s ex step brother Josh starts coming around. The relationship between the two of them is very similar to the relationship of Emma and Mr. Knightley. They both care for each other in an unspoken non- affectionate way. Tie falls for Josh, as Harriet did for Mr. Knightley, and Cher reacts identically to Emma when finding this out. Cher realizes that she would be crushed to lose Josh to Tie, even though she cares about Tie’s happiness. She suddenly envisions her feelings for Josh and falls for him. Josh’s reaction corresponds with Mr. Knightley when seeing that Cher loves him. He declares feelings for Cher and they decide to become a couple. Tie happily accepts Travis as her boyfriend and Cher is overjoyed for her.
Although the duo is very similar, they also have crucial differences. Cher and her friends are slightly younger than Emma. They aren’t concentrated on who they are going to marry, but rather who they are going to date. The part that is similar would be that they are trying to find a man that will help their reputation. Partly from good intentions, Cher and Emma are purposefully influential on Tye and Harriet who are somewhat inferior to them. They use them as if they are projects and don’t always look out for what is in their best interest. They should have encouraged Tie and Harriet to go for Travis and Robert Martin because they were in love with them, not because someone could make them popular or wealthy. In Emma the novel a character says, “It is such a happiness when good people get together—and they always do” (Austen, 1816). In the end, Cher and Emma both realize their feelings for men that they have known for some time but have never thought of them in an affectionate light. Cher and Josh are almost in the same situation as Emma and Mr. Knightley. After all of their time as family friends and picking on one another, they fall in love. In the novel Mr. Knightley says, “I cannot make speeches, Emma… If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more” (Austen, 1816). The passion from Mr. Knightley and Josh is apparent. They act as if they have been waiting for Emma and Cher long before they realized their feelings but did not know if they felt the same way.
The story of Emma can be transformed to work perfectly in numerous time periods. The 1990’s hit movie Clueless was an amazing fit for this story. There were a few alterations that were important to make when creating the film. The setting and time period from the early 1800’s to the 1990’s was easily adaptable but crucial to change so that the film would work.
The novel was converted to a new, hip generation and turned out to be ideal (Ferriss, 1998). The contrasting time periods exhibit the versatility of the story Emma.
Works Cited
Austen, Jane. Emma. John Murray, 1816.
Clueless. Dir. Amy Heckerling. Perf. Alicia Silverstone and Britney Murphy. Film. 1995.
Ferriss, Suzanne. “Emma Becomes Clueless.” JASA. 1998. 24 Mar. 2009 http://www.jasa.net.au/study/ferriss.htm.
Internet Movie Database. 1990. 26 Mar. 2009-03-26
http://www.imdb.com.title/tt0112697/
Spark Notes. 2009. Barnes and Noble. 25 Mar. 2009
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/emma/themes.html.
Figure 1: http://cluelessmovie.com/images/clueless_movie_poster.jpg
"The Phantom of the Opera is there, inside my mind"
“The Phantom of the Opera is there, inside my mind”
The book Le Fantome de L’ Opera, by Gaston Leroux was published in 1911. “…Mr. Leroux has used, for the scene of his story, the Paris Opera House as it really is and has not created a building out of his imagination…” (Paris Opera House.) “Initially, the novel sold very poorly and was even out of print several times during the twentieth century. Today, it is considered to be a classic of French literature, though it is overshadowed by its many subsequent adaptations.”(Wikipedia.) The most known adaptation would be when it was made into one of the most famous plays on Broadway, with Andrew Lloyd Webber as the composer. Then it was made into a movie, “The Phantom of the Opera”, directed by Joel Schumacher and produced in 2004. There are many similarities and differences between the book and the play. But the plot is the same for both, in that it’s based at an opera house in Paris, and tells about the tragic love triangle between the Opera Ghost, Christine Daae, and Raoul de Chagny. In both Leroux’s book and Schumacher’s film we see the characters experience love, tragedy, and how society can drive a person mad.
The book Le Fantome de L’ Opera, begins with Gaston Leroux himself conducting an investigation regarding the “Opera Ghost.” Leroux is trying to prove that he really existed and then we are thrown into the tale of the tragedy that happened at the opera 30 years before. At the end of a performance one night the death of the head scene shifter, Joseph Buquet, who was found hanging in the third cellar under the stage, has everyone in a state. Little Meg Giry, who is the daughter of the box keeper, Madame Giry, and one of the children in the ballet, is causing a scene screaming about the Opera Ghost. Sorelli, who is a principal dancer, is trying to calm all of the ballet girls’ nerves to no avail. Everyone is talking about the opera ghost. They said that he had a deaths head with sunken in yellow eyes, no nose, and a hole for a mouth. Christine Daae was La Carlotta’s understudy and had to take La Carlotta’s place when she became suddenly ill. Daae astounded the audience with her voice and had to be carried offstage when she fainted from the effort. We then meet the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny who rushes to her dressing room, closely followed by his brother, the Comte Phillipe de Chagny. The Comte leaves his brother to go talk to Sorelli, they seem like good acquaintances. Raoul continues on to talk with Christine. We find out that they used to be playmates as children, but Christine refuses to recognize the Vicomte. Raoul listens at her door when she is alone and hears her speaking to a man inside. After she leaves unaccompanied Raoul goes into her dressing room and finds no one, yet he is sure that he heard her speaking to a gentlemen (Leroux, 1-26.)
On this same night, the opera has acquired new managers, a M. Moncharmin and a M. Richard. The previous managers invite them to the office to inform them of the opera ghost demands. He demands they leave box five empty for his personal use, that they also pay him 20,000 francs a month, and that Christine Daae should be the new star, replacing La Carlotta. If they do not see that his demands are met, than the opera is in for some surprises in the future. The new managers believe that someone is playing a trick on them and refuse to meet the demands. On another night of the opera Box five was sold and La Carlotta was playing the lead role. All of a sudden she lost her voice and began to croak like a toad, and then the giant chandelier fell from the ceiling and crashed into the audience. Many were injured and some even killed. And that night Christine Daae disappeared and was not seen again for a month. The managers began to see that the opera ghost demands were met (Leroux, 27-81.)
The opera host a masked ball and Christine meets Raoul there and finally questions begin to be answered. She tells Raoul her story and explains everything that’s been happening at the opera during the last couple months. There really is an opera ghost but he is a man named Erik. He lives on a house by a lake underneath the opera. He came to Christine first as the Angel of Music, whom her dead father said he would send to her. The Angel of Music began to give Christine singing lessons. He then kidnaps her and takes her to his house on the lake and professes his love to her. He wears a mask to hide his face; Christine takes it off and sees that he is hideous with yellow, sunken in eyes, no nose and a hole for a mouth. Erik says he will only release her if she says she’ll come back of her own free will. Christine tells Raoul that she tells Erik she loves him but is actually terrified by him. They plan a secret engagement and to run away after she gives one last performance. She disappears in the middle of the act and no one can find her. Raoul suspects the Opera Ghost and begins his search to find him. He runs into the Persian who is the only one who knows the operas passageways as well as Erik (Leroux, 89-186.)
They find the house by the lake but enter through the torture chamber. Erik really is the monster that everyone calls him. While looking for a way out, the Persian tells the Vicomte everything he knows about Erik for they have a past together. Erik finds them in the chamber and begins to torture them by messing with their minds. They finally get out only finding that Christine has agreed to marry Erik to save the opera from being blown up, and that the Compte Phillipe, Raoul’s older brother has been killed. Erik lets them go and time passes. One day Erik shows up at the Persians house and tells him that he let Christine go and sent her to marry Raoul, because she finally saw past his ugliness to the pitiful person underneath and gave him a kiss on the forehead. He knew he was about to die and told the Persian what he wanted done after his death. Finally the phantom of the opera was no more (Leroux, 187-264.)
The movie the “Phantom of the Opera” follows much the same plot with some differences. Joseph Buquet is actually hung in the middle of a performance when La Carlotta starts to croak like a toad. Meg Giry is actually Christine Daae’s best friend and they are they same age, about 16. Madame Giry is in charge of the ballet not the box keeper. And Christine Daae was just a ballet dancer, not anyone’s understudy. The Opera Ghost had been giving her lessons though and when he played a trick on La Carlotta and she stormed out, it was Madame Giry who gave the idea that Christine should sing in her place. Raoul was also different in the movie. He seemed a young man of great courage and poise, who was mature well beyond his years. In the book even though we are informed that he is twenty-one, he is brought to tears often and acts like a jealous child. There is no Comte Phillipe, Sorelli, or even the Persian in the movie, even though the Persian plays a major role (The Phantom of the Opera.)
Instead of a house on a lake, the phantom lives in a type of open cavern with luxurious furniture, even an organ so he can write his music. We are also never given the phantoms name in the movie like we are in the book. He is always just this mysterious being who hides behind his mask. In the book his Daun Juan Triumphant was never played, and he had spent many years writing it. It was actually performed in the movie where he himself snuck onstage and played a part in it. He gave it to the managers at the masked ball. And also in the movie it is Madame Giry who tells of the phantoms past, how she rescued him from the circus and hid him from the world’s cruelties. In the book we found out that he used to live in India and work for the sultan in designing his palace full of secret passages. Also in the movie, instead of having a deaths head, the phantom face is completely deformed on one side as though he were burned and scarred very badly. In both the book and the film we realize that the phantom doesn’t know how to determine what’s good, and what’s evil (The Phantom of the Opera.)
Both of these pieces of art have their differences, but they also both express the same points. The pain the phantom feels of having to live a solitary life. He feels that he must wear a mask just so that he can be accepted by society. Being shunned and feared your entire life can mess with your mind. From the time he was born he was never seen as a normal human being. What kind of life can the phantom have known except for pain and hatred? Even the sanest of persons would start to see nothing but darkness in the world if they lived their entire life alone. “This face, which earned a mother's fear and loathing ... A mask, my first unfeeling scrap of clothing ...” (Stanza 5, Lines 9-10.) Even his mother couldn’t accept him because of his face. Then there is the phantom’s love for Christine. He loved her the first time he heard her sing and then preyed on her innocence by saying he was her angel of music sent by her father. That was the only way he could get close to her. And even when she knew she had been deceived she still loved him but couldn’t live with him in his world of never ending darkness. I believe she loved both Raoul and the phantom, her dark side loved the phantom, but she couldn’t forgive the things he had done. Her love for Raoul on the other hand, was so great that she would have married the phantom and be miserable just for Raoul to live.
All of the emotions expressed in both of these works are experienced by people in today’s time. I’m not
saying that there is a murdering monster below every opera house, but that there are people out there who
don’t fit the image that society has created. They wrap themselves in pain just as the phantom did. There are
also people out there who love others so dearly that they would give their very lives for them. Both Leroux
and Schumacher did an amazing job in expressing this beautifully tragic story of a man who was deformed,
and his constant battle to win the love of a beautiful singer, who was already in love with her childhood
sweetheart.
Works Cited
Andrew Lloyd Webber. "Down Once More/Track Down This Murderer". Sony Classical, 2004.
Figure 1-http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/nevada/las-vegas/images/s/las-vegas-shows-phantom-of-the-opera.jpg
Figure 2- http://media.photobucket.com/image/the%20phantom%20of%20the%20opera/SHINIGAMIJENNY/PHANTOM%20OF%20THE%20OPERA/01sex3-1.jpg
Leroux, Gaston. Le Fantome de L’ Opera. New York: New American Library, 1911
"The Paris Opera House". 3/25/09 <http://www.readprint.com/chapter-4866/Leroux-Gaston>.
The Phantom of the Opera. Dir. Joel Schumacher. Perf. Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum, Patrick Wilson, Miranda Richardson, and Minnie Driver. Warner Bros. Pictures, 2004.
"Wikipedia". 3/25/09 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_of_the_Opera>.
Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix
David Yates’s 2007 film, Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix, is proof that one will never be fully satisfied with a Harry Potter movie if you have read one of JK Rowling'sbooks. It is just too difficult to fit all 900 pages of pure goodness into a two-hour movie. Too much great background detail, subplots, and dialogue is left out. While reading the book, one gets all the specifics of the setting and sequence of events that the movie just does not have time to give. One really misses the dialogue and back and forth between every character. The reader really gets to know the characters in the book. In the movie, by the time one feels they finally understand the character, the credits are rolling. Don’t get me wrong. Yates did a fantastic job with what he had. In two hours all he could do was give the plot and throw in some special effects, which were great. The movie leaves one wanting more, which is a good thing, but Harry Potter freakslike myself wish we could watch a twenty-seven hour movie (audio-book length) with every detail and every line of the book in it. The director had a very good understanding of the characters because he picked perfect ones. He also did a good job highlighting the important themes of the movie: loyalty, solidarity, and love. Below is a fairly extensive summary of a fairly extensive book:
Harry Potter is spending another wretched summer in London with his awful Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon when a pair of dementors attacks him and his overweight cousin Dudley on the playground. Harry had to perform a Patronus charm on the dementors to get rid of them in order to save him and his cousin. Since underage wizards are not permitted to use magic outside of school, Harry gets expelled from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Overtly depressed, Harry gets a visit from a group of wizards who pick him up from the Dursleys and take him to Number Twelve Grimmauld Place: the home of Sirius Black, Harry’s godfather. Grimmauld Place has become the headquarters for the Order of the Phoenix, a secret group of wizards led by Dumbledore, dedicated to fighting Lord Voldemort and his followers. Here Harry is reunited with his best friends Ron and Hermione. Professor Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts, makes sure that Harry gets a fair trial before getting expelled from the school. Luckily, Harry Potter wins his case in front of the Ministry of Magic with the help of Dumbledore and is reinstated at Hogwarts.
Having just survived an attack by Lord Voldemort the year before, Harry and Dumbledore continue to warn the wizarding world of the return of Lord Voldemort. Harry arrives at Hogwarts and is very unpopular because of false stories about him coming from the Dailey Prophet and the Ministry of Magic. They are both trying to convince the wizarding world that Voldemort is no threat, and in doing so they are trying to defame Harry and Dumbledore. The Ministry of Magic has taken over the school with the help of Dolores Umbridge. As the newly instated High Inquisitor, Professor Umbridge does not allow students to perform magic. Therefore Harry, Ron, and Hermione take it upon themselves to learn magic to defend themselves from dark arts. They form Dumbledore’s Army, a group of students who meet regularly to practice defense spells with Harry instructing them. Meanwhile, Harry continues to have startling dreams about Voldemort and the Department of Mysteries, but wakes up panicked before entering the room. One night Harry has a dream where he is a snake and attacks Arthur Weasley, Ron’s father. When he wakes up he goes to Dumbledore immediately saving Mr. Weasley’s life. Dumbledore tells Harry that Lord Voldemort is invading Harry’s mind and he makes Harry learn Occlumency from Professor Snape.
Dumbledore’s Army continues to meet regularly until they are caught by Professor Umbridge who goes directly to the Minister of Magic. The headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, takes the blame, and lies to protect Harry. Professor Dumbledore is sentenced to Azkaban Prison, but disappears instead. Dolores Umbridge takes over as Headmistress of Hogwarts and instates even more rules and regulations. In the middle of the O.W.L. exams, Harry has a vision of Sirius being tortured by Voldemort at the Department of Mysteries. Harry goes to save him despite the objection of Hermione who warns Harry that Voldemort is probably trying to lure Harry to the Department of Mysteries. Harry’s friends will not let him go alone so they follow him to the Ministry of Magic. Hermione was right, and Voldemort and his followers are waiting for their arrival. Harry sees the sphere with his name on it, which is the prophecy in the Department of Mysteries. He grabs it and it breaks as Dumbledore’s Army and he fight off the Death Eaters. Luckily the Order of the Phoenix arrives and helps the students fight off the Death Eaters. Harry is devastated when his godfather, Sirius is killed by one of the Death Eaters, Bellatrix. Harry chases after Bellatrix who leads him to Lord Voldemort. They both duel and Dumbledore arrives to help Harry forcing Bellatrix and Voldemort to escape.
The wizarding world realizes that Harry and Dumbledore were right about the return of Lord Voldemort so they regain their reputation. Dumbledore is reinstated as Headmaster. At the end of the book, Dumbledore explains the prophecy to Harry that Harry must either destroy Lord Voldemort or Lord Voldemort will destroy Harry. He also explains to Harry that he has one great gift that Lord Voldemort will never have or be able to take from Harry: love.
The two-hour movie just did not have enough time to explain and give important subplots and details. This is not a knock to the movie, but instead just the facts of life for a book turned movie. Missing from the movie entirely was the wizarding game Quidditch. Quidditch is a fairly important part of Harry’s life at Hogwarts and also an important part of the book to readers who are sports fans like myself. Furthermore, the movie leaves out S.P.E.W and the house elves. S.P.E.W, Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare, was the group Hermione founded because she was so disgusted with the way house elves were treated in wizarding society. S.P.E.W was an integral part of the movie because it not only shows the justice and compassion of Hermione’s demeanor (Eve 13), but it was symbolic of real world issues like the civil rights and animal cruelty. Another thing one misses from the book is the sense of relief one feels when Harry gets his hero reputation back earlier in the book. Hermione blackmails the wicked reporter, Rita Skeeter, to write a favorable article of Harry Potter in the Daily Prophet to combat the earlier article she wrote mocking him. One of the biggest disappointments of the movie was the way it rushed the climax of the movie. The most exciting part of the book is at the end in the Ministry of Magic when Harry and Dumbledore’s Army go through the Department of Mysteries. The movie skips half of the guarded and obstacle-course like rooms Harry and the gang go through. The movie does not show any of the dangers and difficulties they face. It completely skips the scene where Hermione gets injured severely. Also, the movie speeds through the most page-turning moments of the book when the Order arrives to help save Harry and his friends by dueling the Death Eaters. Probably one of the biggest discrepancies occurred at the end of the movie when Harry is in Dumbledore’s office. In the movie, Dumbledore explains the prophecy very poorly and Harry has no reaction. In the book, however, Harry is extremely angry with Dumbledore for avoiding him the entire year and not telling him anything. He even goes as far as to scream and smash some of Dumbledore’s possessions. Dumbledore remains silent and is even very sympathetic to Harry. No matter how humble Dumbledore tries to sound, Harry will not settle down. It takes Harry a long time to calm down and listen to Dumbledore explain the prophecy and his reasoning for keeping Harry in the dark. Although there are some major discrepancies with the book, the scenes in the movie are well done. Lucy Barnett, Boston Channel staff writer, says it best: “for any Harry Potter fan, this is a must-see. For any non-Harry Potter fan, you may enjoy it even more, because the inconsistencies will not bother you” (Barnett 2). Maybe that explains why the movie is my little brother’s favorite movie of all time; he never read the books.
David Yates’ biggest achievement was his understanding of the characters. He cast actors who were experts in their roles. Everything about Imelda Staunton was Dolores Umbridge. The audience’s “hatred for Staunton’s character is palpable” (Barnett 1). Staunton’s acting makes the viewer want to just strangle her. The way Staunton would sweetly clear her throat and talk so delicately was exactly the way I imagined Dolores Umbridge in the book. The best addition to the cast was hands down Evanna Lynch. She played the flighty and eccentric Luna Lovegood perfectly. Lynch was a huge Harry Potter fan before joining the cast, and her knowledge of her character was astounding. Critic Peter Sciretta points out that Evanna Lynch “beat over 15,000 girls for the role of the wonderfully weird Luna Lovegood” (Sciretta 2). Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson who play Harry, Ron, and Hermione were there usual perfect roles. We have come to know these characters so well through the past five movies and one would know them even better through the books. This is another unfortunate part of the movie. It just does not have to time to get into the unique relationship between these three best friends. The movie skipped most of the twisted love affair brewing between Ron and Hermione. Another crucial part of the book that cannot be expressed in the movie is what goes on in Harry’s head. Half the book is narrated by Harry’s thoughts. The reader hears the ongoing battles in his Harry’s head. We hear his nervousness in his relationship with Cho, we hear his anger with Dumbledore’s isolation, we hear his fear of Voldemort, and we hear his grief over the losses of his parents, Cedric Diggory, and Sirius. The reader has a close connection with Harry because he is sharing his innermost thoughts. Unfortunately the movie has no way to show this.
One of the movie’s greatest accomplishments was emphasizing the book’s themes of loyalty, solidarity, and love. Dumbledore and Harry bring out loyalty in others throughout the book and movie. The Order of the Phoenix is full of members loyal to Dumbledore. Despite the objection from the Ministry of Magic and the rest of the wizarding world, they continue to back Dumbledore risking life-imprisonment in Askaban. Harry, Ron, and Hermione show their royalty to Dumbledore by creating Dumbledore’s Army, and many other students risk expulsion for Dumbledore. Dumbledore repays their loyalty by taking the blame when they get caught. Harry brings out loyalty in Ron and Hermione. When the Daily Prophet and the rest of the wizarding world defame Harry, Ron and Hermione stand by Harry’s side. Ron physically threatens them while Hermione uses her cunning brains to blackmail Rita Skeeter to writing the truth about Harry. With loyalty comes solidarity. Solidarity is also seen in both the Order of the Phoenix and Dumbledore’s Army. Just like the Order, led by Dumbledore, brings the talents of many great wizards and witches together to fight the dark arts, Dumbledore’s Army, led by Harry, brings the talents of many students together to thwart Umbridge and even later take on Lord Voldemort. Another key theme throughout the book is love. Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of the book and the moviethat there is one great gift that Lord Voldemort will never have or be able to take from Harry: love. Love is what defines Harry.
The movie, Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix, is good enough for me to own and to have seen more than once. Just because the book is better does not mean the movie is bad. Saying the book is better than the movie is not as much of a knock to the movie as it is more of a compliment to the book. I have yet to like a movie better than its book, and I think that tells you something about literature. Literature does not have to have a limit, literature does not have to have sound, literature does not have to have actors. Literature just has to catch one’s attention. J.K Rowling has been very successful in catching readers’ attention.
Works Cited
Barnett, Lucy. "Comparison: 'Phoenix' Book vs. Movie." KCTV5. 19 July 2007. The Boston Channel. 24 Mar. 2009.
Eve, Empress. "Harry Potter 5: the Book vs. the Movie." Geeks of Doom. 18 July 2007. 24 Mar. 2009.
Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix. Dir. David Yates. Perf. Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint. DVD. Warner Bros Entertainment Inc., 2007.
"Harry Potter The Order of the Pheonix." Http://www.wallpaperez.info/movie/download/Harry-Potter-The-Order-Phoenix-Ron-Hermione-Harry-683.html. Wallpaperez.com.
Rowling, J.K R.,Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix. Scholastic.
Sciretta, Peter. "Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix." Slash film. 11
June 2007. 25 Mar. 2009.
"The Notebook" vs The Notebook
The book version of The Notebook and the movie version vary slightly due to thematic needs; however the plot lines of both are quite similar. In the story it is a flashback of how Noah and Allie’s relationship began and their journey through fate, which ultimately brought them together. Noah meets Allie who is a friend of his best friend’s girlfriend. Allie and Noah fall in love and her parents force her to never see him again. Allie moves away, and Noah tried to stay in contact by writing her letters. Later in the story, Noah joins the Army and Allie becomes a volunteer nurse. Allie meets another man named Lon while working as the nurse in a military hospital. Noah’s dad dies and he restores the house Allie used to live in as a little girl. Noah has an article written about his restoration in the local newspaper and Allie notices it. Upon seeing it Allie goes home and confronts Noah. Noah and Allie get in an argument and Allie asks why Noah never wrote her any letters. Noah tells her he wrote her many letters while she was away. Through this argument she learns that her mother had hidden the letters to keep Allie away from Noah. In the end, Allie chooses Noah over Lon and they end up living a fulfilled life until Allie gets sent to a retirement home and Noah moves with her.
There are several differences between the book and the movie. Several of the differences are: how Noah and Allie meet, what happens when Noah and Allie leave each other after she returns home, how many letters Noah wrote her, how Allie met Lon, and how old Noah and Allie were when they first met.
The first difference is how Allie and Noah meet each other. In the book they meet at the carnival and they spend time together. They continue hanging out until the end of the carnival then Noah asks her out. In the movie, however, Noah runs and climbs up on the Ferris wheel into her seat then hangs Ferris wheel bar until she agrees to go out with him. These two scenes are quite different. However in the interest of the movie to create a better thematic element as well as suspense for the audience it was rewritten as shown in the movie. This was able to keep the audiences interest whereas a long scene of the two characters hanging out at the carnival would have lost many people’s interest after a while.
The next difference of the movie and book is when Allie and Noah leave each other after Allie comes to visit Noah when he redoes her old house. In the book, Allie confronts Noah about why he did not write her any letters while she was gone and Noah explains that he did write to her. She discovers that her mother has been hiding the letters from her and now knowing that Noah tried to contact her she leaves the scene happy. However, in the movie Noah and Allie get into a fight about the letters and she leaves upset and both characters regret it. The main reason for this scene being changed is one to create tension and drama in the movie thus recapturing the audience, and second to give the movie time to explain that Allie’s mother had been hiding the letters the whole time.
The third difference between the two is the amount of letters that Noah wrote to Allie while she was gone. In the book version, Noah claims to have written her one letter every month totaling twelve letters. In the movie version Noah says he wrote her one letter every day, which totals 365 letters. The reason behind this is that the more letters showed the audience the seriousness and commitment of Noah as well as the determination of Allie’s mother to keep Noah away.
The fourth difference between the movie and the book is how Allie met Lon. In the movie Allie meets him while she’s working in a military hospital as a volunteer nurse, Lon asks her out on a date and she agrees to after he gets out of the hospital. However, in the book Allie meets Lon at a Christmas party. This scene was changed in an effort to make the audience feel for Lon. Also it was added because it made the movie more up to date for that time period and showed how Allie was going for a military guy to replace Noah.
The last difference between the movie and book is the ages at which Noah and Allie met each other. In the book Noah is 19 and Allie is 15. However, in the movie Noah and Allie are both around the age of 18. This difference is probably one of the only differences made not in the interest of time but rather solely in the interest of the audience and social acceptance. Many people would not be as comfortable with a relationship between a 15-year-old girl and a 19-year-old man in today’s society. Also, many people can relate easier to the story when it is about two people who have just, or are about to reach the age of adulthood. This is the age that most people experienced their first real adult relationship the relationship is more than just dating and meeting people, but rather actually had true feelings. The ages used in the book, however more historically accurate for the time period, are not as easily related to by today’s audiences because this is generally the age that most people today are just starting to have their first real crushes but not really that emotionally attached or having a very mature relationship.
In conclusion, The Notebook has many different elements between the movie version and the book version. The ages at when the characters meet and how they meet are different. Also other scenes are different such as the amount of letters Noah wrote Allie and how the argument between the two affected the outcome of the scene. Lastly the way that Allie and Lon meet other is also different. These differences were made mostly for generating the largest acceptance of the viewing public as well as to update some of the movie to modern themes and elements that both captivate the audience and make it easier to relate to in today’s society and culture.
Works Cited
B, Haley. "The Notebook Movie V.S. Book? - Yahoo! Answers." Yahoo! Answers - Home. 23 Mar. 2009 <http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArPKezNfgCBTtiWBMx9GVMcjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20090301095814AAViDnW>.
The Notebook. Dir. Nick Cassavetes. Perf. Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. DVD. New Line Cinema, 2004.
Sparks, Nicholas. The Notebook. New York: Warner Books, 2004.
Seven Years in Tibet
Jean Jacques Annaud’s 1997 film adaptation of Seven Years in Tibet creates a great reenactment of the historical events that happened in Heinrich Harrer’s life as a climber and adventurer. The story is based on truth and is told from his point of view during his flee from Europe and his journey through tough terrain in the Himalayas in the 1950s. He encounters obstacles along the way and discovers Lhasa, the Forbidden City of Tibet, where he generates a relationship between himself and the Dalai Lama. On Harrer’s journey, and the seven years he spends in Tibet, we see him change from an egocentric man to a nice humble human being.
It is 1939 and a young climber, Heinrich Harrer, a man who had achieved fame at the age of 26 by being a member of the first team to climb the north face of the Eiger in the Swiss Alps, travels to India to partake in a climbing expedition led by expedition leader Peter Aufschnaiter (played by David Thewlis in the movie). Harrer is cold and egocentric, feeling no regret at leaving his pregnant wife behind as he puts the climb before his responsibilities. The audience sees Heinrich Harrer as a loner. He refuses to follow orders and places people’s lives at risk because of this. “Late in 1939 World War II breaks out and Harrer and his team are placed in a British P.O.W camp in northern India” (Seven Years in Tibet pg.311 lines 30-42). Harrer tries and fails to escape many times before the whole team finally makes the escape together after spending about three years as prisoners of war. These events started to shape Harrer’s character, opening his eyes to what it must take to survive. During this time he receives a letter from his wife, asking for a divorce. Their son was born shortly after he left on the expedition and his wife is planning to marry the man he left her in the care of. She tells him that when his son is old enough, she will tell their son that his father died in the Himalayas. After the escape, Harrer promptly leaves the rest of the group and goes on his own way. Because he no longer has a wife and home to go back to he decides to stay in the mountains. He meets up with Peter again and after a couple of fairly funny scenes the two decide to travel together. The audience sees a love-hate relationship form between these two men for two years in the mountains until they discover the Forbidden City of Tibet called Lhasa.
Heinrich Harrer and the Dalai Lama both contributed to writing the book. “It is considered to be the most accurate because Harrer used text out of his journal as well as memory and experiences from his 11 years in the Himalayan Mountains” (Seven Years in Tibet: Old School reviews pg 1). The Dalai Lama kept a journal as well, later forwarding the story and adding his take on what he thought what kind of man Harrer was. In the beginning, the reader can see, from Harrers point of view that Harrer is a selfish, cocky man who cares of nothing but himself. “From the tone of him narrating he also seems angry at someone or something” (Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun pg. 2). Harrer presses on through the mountains but from clues in the reading you can conclude that everyday it’s a struggle for him emotionally after he gets the letter from his wife. In the movie, Heinrich Harrers character is played by Brad Pitt, a well known movie star of today. Some of the things that differ include drama as a whole. After Brad Pitt gets the letter from his wife, there is not a great emotional strain like there is in the book. From Harrers point of view in the book, it’s much more real because it’s his personal feelings written down for everyone to read. Brad Pitt did an excellent job acting as someone else but while you read the book you really connect to what Harrer is feeling from beginning to the end. Although the book did not contain much humor, the movie was surprisingly funny in some instances. For example, when Harrer is with his group in the mountains, he constantly cracks jokes about how he can conquer mountains and how he can get lots of women to sleep with him. Other times including comedy would be when he and his friend Peter joke around with the Tibetans about Germans and other ethnicities in Europe when they get into the city Lhasa. So in this case, Hollywood did put some things extra into the movie to make it sell better or to bring back the attention of the viewers. The movie won some awards but for the most part some viewers and critics were confused on what exactly the movie was about. Some people that had not read the book argued that the movie was about the Dalai Lama and his relationship with Harrer. But in reality the book and the movie were supposed to be about the metamorphosis of a man from being arrogant and egocentric to compassionate guy.
Slowly, we watch as Heinrich and Peter begin to evolve. There are some great scenes were they interact with the Monks. They both turn their attentions to a local woman who is a beautiful seamstress. But in the end Peter’s quiet unassuming manner wins her heart and hand in marriage. During the first 3 years of living in Lhasa, Heinrich hasn’t gone to see the Dalai Lama, neither has the Dalai Lama contacted him. But after the 3 years, the young Dalai Lama becomes quite taken with Heinrich’s outgoing personality. He watches him through a telescope from the roof of the palace where he lives. Finally, he summons Heinrich to his presence. An amusing first meeting takes place as Heinrich finds that the Dalai Lama is much more than a holy figurehead, he is a curious, excited young boy who wants to be tutored in the ways of western civilization. Harrer agrees to tutor the Dalai Lama, but as the film and book progress we see that it is in fact him that is learning more from the young boy than he could possibly teach him. Heinrich gets to know the young Dalai Lama more and discovers his name is Kundun. Kundun asks Harrer to build him a movie house and Harrer agrees. During the scenes in which Harrer builds the movie house, the movie splices in other scenes of him interacting with the Tibetans. It shows him gardening, working on small farms and playing sports with kids in the street. In the book, Heinrich quickly builds the movie tavern and begins to explain to Kundun the purpose and reason film is created. “These are great movies that express western ideas” (Seven Years in Tibet (the book) pg. 260 lines 26-27), Heinrich says. The book brings deeper thought into describing movies. For Harrer, he describes movies as a form of art and that they express themes and ideas toward a subject. In the movie when Heinrich finishes, he just simply watches movies with Kundun and shares with him the differences in films.
We watch and read as Kundun and Harrer build up a close friendship, each learning from the other. Harrer literally metamorphosis’ before your eyes and the once selfish and self-absorbed man becomes spiritually reborn. In 1949, Communist China takes over the neutral Tibet. The pacifist Tibetans try to learn to fight, something which is foreign to their nature but it is one of their own who ends up selling them out by surrendering the Tibetan Army to the Chinese. In the book, the Tibetans surrender without any fighting. The Court Minister surrenders the army immediately and the Chinese over run Tibet. In the movie there is a small battle seen in which Tibetans die defending the city. “The Chinese artillery was no match for the small arms that the Tibetans had” (Seven Years in Tibet and Kundun pg. 3). The Tibetans surrendered after people started to die. The movie industry created the battle scene to show how much the Tibetans loved their land and the willpower they had to try and protect it. Heinrich Harrer leaves Tibet and the Dalai Lama when the Chinese invade. He says farewell and Kundun says: “Go now and make peace with your son for you must tell him what you witnessed here. You were too informal to me to call me your son and to think of you as a father figure” (Seven Years in Tibet starring Brad Pitt). This just exemplifies the respect in which they had for each other. At the end of the book and film, Harrer finally meets his son who at first wants nothing to do with his father. Through a gift of a music box, given to him by Kundun, Harrer finally reaches something within his son and we the audience see the two make the journey to the summit of the mountain…father and son, finally united after a lifetime of separation.
To this day, Harrer and the Dalai Lama remain good friends. In 1959, the Dalai Lama was exiled to India where he still lives to this day. He is also a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Harrer, now in his mid 80s wrote the book “Seven Years in Tibet” in 1953. “It has sold over 3 million copies and has been translated into 48 languages. Harrer has written 19 books since Seven Years in Tibet, based on his 600 expeditions” (Seven Years in Tibet: Old School reviews pg 1).
The movie and the book go hand-in-hand in the way that they both portray a great story in its entirety. Although the acting in this movie was first class, the cinematography was breathtaking. The audience could almost feel the icy winds of the Himalayas and the majesty of the Holy City Lhasa. The only things that are different are the Hollywood elements, such as dramatization of some scenes and some of the ways in which Harrer interacted with the Dalai Lama. The book also gave more detail and depth to Harrer’s thoughts such as his whole family situation. The book expresses his loneliness throughout the text and gives literal elements that the movie ceases to provide, making it a classic novel.
“ Odysseus, Where Art Thou”
J. Blackburn
Comp. 2
March 23, 2009
The Odyssey and O Brother, Where Art Thou? are more similar then most think. The main struggles are virtually the same throughout the book and movie. “O Brother Where Art Thou?” is the modern day version of Homer’s The Odyssey. The movie makes references to the book throughout the whole dialogue. Many of the same names are used for the characters as well. “The film is a Homeric journey through Mississippi during the Depression,” says Roger Ebert. (Suntimes.com). There are many plot parallels throughout the movie.
“O Muse! Sing in me, and through me tell the story…” This is the line of text shown at the beginning of O Brother, Where Art Thou? It is also the first line in the Odyssey. This is the only “direct reference” the movie gives to the book (wikipedia.com). However, there is much more that links the two throughout the movie. One of the more clear references was the Sirens, sea nymphs that are said to be found on an island near Italy, and to lure mariners to destruction (dictionary.net).The main characters in the movie are seduced and tricked by wash ladies in the river. In the Odyssey Odysseus and his men encounter a very similar situation in with Sirens attempt to seduce him and his men, thus causing them to wreck their ship on the rocks (book 12). Another bold reference is to Tiresias, the blind ghost prophet (book 11). The main characters in O Brother, Where Art Thou? experience a similar blind prophet in the form of a blind hobo on the railroad tracks. Odysseus had a bad encounter with a Cyclops on his struggle towards home (book 9). The same encounter is experienced in the movie. The main characters are enjoying a picnic when a large one-eyed man attacks them. The lotus-eaters in the Odyssey are also depicted in the movie by people walking “trancelike to be baptized” (wikipedia.com). In the Odyssey while Odysseus is away many suitors seek his wife’s hand in marriage (book 22). O Brother, Where Art Thou refers to this in the scene where the main character, Ulysses Everett Mcgill, fights a man who is planning on marring his wife, Penny. Throughout the movie the sheriff, who represents Poseidon, chases the main characters. Poseidon, in ancient mythology, is the God of the sea and earthquakes (dictionary.net). In the end of the movie the sheriff is about to hang the main characters when a giant flood comes and swallows everything, very similar to the flood Poseidon causes in the Odyssey. Another reference is made to ancient mythology in the movie when a bank robber shots a cow. In the Odyssey some of Odysseus’s men kill the sun god’s sacred cows (book 12). The men are killed later by a thunderbolt from the sun god, Apollo. In the movie’s version of this the main characters are giving a bank robber a ride, not knowing who he was at the time. The robber randomly shots someone’s livestock. Later in the movie he is caught and is being taken to the electric chair with a mob behind him. Someone had a cow with them and people in the background are yelling, “cow killer”. In the Odyssey a witch turns some of Odysseus’s men into a pig (book 10-11). In the movie one of the men believed a witch turned one of the main characters into a toad. References like these occur all throughout the movie these are some of the main ones.
The movie also plays with the names of the characters. The main character’s name in the movie is Ulysses, with is the Latin form of Odysseus(wikipedia.com). Names such as Menelaus, Homer, and Penny (the shortened form of Penelope) are also names of characters in the movie. In the movie the main character, Ulysses, considers himself the leader and the smart one. Sometimes his pride hinders him and his journey home. The same is true with Odysseus in the Odyssey.
The similarities are undeniable. The movie goes back to the book in nearly every scene, either referring to something that occurred in the book or using the same name for a character. Many people feel the movie brings “Homer's ODYSSEY to the depression-era South” (rottentomatoes.com). O Brother, Where Art Thou? is clearly a modern day version of the Odyssey.
WORKS CITIED
· http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/o_brother_where_art_thou/
· http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20001229/REVIEWS/12290301/1023
· http://www.dictionary.net/siren
· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou%3F#Similarities_between_the_film_and_The_Odyssey
· http://www.bookrags.com/notes/od/PART10.htm
· O Brother, Where Art Thou?
"Bride and Prejudice: A Bollywood Adaptation"
Paragraph. Orchestrated to appeal to modern day film, Jane Austen’s 1813 controversial novel, Pride and Prejudice, was paralleled in 21st century India as the transformation of the classic novel into a movie, Bride and Prejudice. Directed and produced by Gurinder Chadha, the 2004 Bollywood musical is a prominent comical twist of Austen’s infamous original story, with various elements of the Indian culture including marriage, class, and archetype, which all stand undeniably relevant in comparison to Austen’s original masterpiece. With many elements of the book compacted to brief references, this pivoting film still provides the audience with an outward modern glance to Austen’s underlying central idea on how culture and society can affect marriage, reputation, and love. Besides the obvious altercations in time, race, and culture, Bride and Prejudice’s plot, themes, characters, and social complexities remain surprisingly intact and parallel to the original novel. Although these two pieces of literature are almost 200 years apart, the themes of Pride and Prejudice are pertinent and oddly exactly relevant to modern day India.
The overview and summary of the international movie is notscrupulously duplicate to the plot of Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, but the similarities are compatible and interchangeable, in that when one watches the movie it is obvious that it was originally derived from Austen’s infamous work. At the early start of the movie, Lalita Bakshi, an Indian modern day version of Elizabeth Bennet, mentions to her sisters “All mothers think that any guy with big bucks is shopping for a wife” (Chadha). In this opening conversation between the women of the Bakshi family, who represent the Bennet family from Austen’s novel, it is obvious that the mood and theme of the entire film is based upon courtship and the pressures of marriage for young women in India, which is also the basis of Pride in Prejudice. The young sisters’ mother, Mrs. Bakshi, adds a great deal of pressure surrounding marriage when she tells them that the eldest must marry first or the rest of her daughters are doomed to the same fate of never getting married. Mrs. Bennet, in Pride and Prejudice, has the same goal of marriage on her mind, and like Mrs. Bakshi, she frets and worries about the fate of her daughters throughout the entire book, and often becomes annoying and tiresome. It is revealed that the young Indian girls are getting ready for a friends wedding ceremony in which Lalita is formally introduced to an wealthy American businessman, William Darcy. Although an obvious attraction for one another is apparent with eye contact and brief exchanges, Darcy comes off to be “arrogant and conceited” towards Lolita in his abrupt dismissal in an offer to dance with her (Chadha). During this time, Lalita’s eldest sister, Jaya, meets Balraj, Darcy’s best friend and representation of Mr. Bingley, and they instantaneously fall in love as they dance and laugh together during the wedding ceremony. In the book, the couples meet at a ball in a nearby town of Meryton, where the same interactions between the characters take place, down to Darcy’s refusal to dance with Elizabeth. Darcy’s simple refusal to dance acts as an insult in both the movie and film as a sign of arrogance because in both Regency England and India, dancing holds a special but different importance’s in both cultures. In the start of the novel, Darcy blatantly describes Elizabeth as “ tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me”, also coming off self absorbed and arrogant like Darcy in the movie (8). After a few more run-ins and a short trip to one of Darcy’s potential hotel buys, the relationship between Darcy and Lalita becomes even more tense and indifferent, while Jaya and Balraj fall even more for one another, which excites Mrs. Bakshi, who wants her daughter to marry into a wealthy family. The two relationships between the two sisters and two friends is much the same in the novel, and Elizabeth even decides that her Jane is “in a way to be very much in love” with Mr. Bingley (33). Throughout the novel and the Bollywood film, class plays in an important part between the relationship of Jaya and Balraj, and is the bias to many of the arguments between Darcy and Lalita. Following the plot of Pride and Prejudice, a distant family member named Mr. Kholi, known as Mr. Collins in the book, decides to visit from America to marry a beautiful Indian girl. Because he is wealthy, Lalita’s mother is extremely hospitable and fond of him, and pushes Lalita to marry him, but of course when Mr. Kholi proposes she refuses without question, as does Lizzy does to Mr. Collins in the novel. In exact words of Jane Austen, after Lalita’s refusal her father, Mr. Bakshi says “She is saying that she will never speak to you again if you do not marry Kholi and I will never speak to you again if you...do” (Chadha). In both the movie and the novel Mr. Bakshi or Bennet shows a complete favoritism in his two older daughters, especially Lalita, or Elizabeth. In the novel, Mr. Bennet says that his other daughters are “silly and arrogant like little girls; but Lizzy has something more of a quickness than her sisters”(3).
After Kholi leaves the Bakshi household and settles for Lalita’s best friend, Chandra Lamba, a new character, Johnny Whickham who is briefly mentioned earlier in the movie, comes to stay with the Bakshi family for a few days and it is revealed that he and Darcy have known one another for a long time but they do not get along. In the novel, Whickham is a militia solider who is stationed nearby, whereas in the movie Lolita meets him on the beach at a hotel. The change was made in his profession to make him more relevant to modern times in India. The similarities, however, in Johnny Whickham’s character in both the film and the book of deception and mistrust are equal, in that he informs Lalita that Darcy cheated him out of a job and inheritance, while also making the youngest daughter fall in love him. After the girls and their mother fly to America to Kholi’s wedding, they stop in London to visit Balraj who had still not contacted Jaya, and to her dismay he was not present at the time of their arrival. This situation is almost identical in that of the book, but they do not come in town for the wedding but just to visit, but the chances of Jaya, or Jane, to marry become bleak due to the coldness of Balraj, or Bingley. At their time in London, Lalita begins to spend a lot of time with Darcy, and they become extremely fond of one another and shortly after he confesses his love to her. In reply, Lalita tells him “Only you could say that you love me and insult me at the same time”(Chadha). After finding out a few things about Darcy from his sister, Georgina, Lalita tells Darcy of his undeniable arrogance, and then scolds him for driving Balraj away from Jane and from stripping Whickham away from his job and inheritance. In the novel, the same situation occurs to Elizabeth, with an abrupt proposal from Darcy followed by an immediate rejection telling “Mr. Darcy, if you suppose that the mode of your declaration affected me in any other way, than as it spared me the concern which I might have felt in refusing you, had you behaved in a more gentleman-like manner”(168). In the movie, however, Lalita is introduced to Darcy’s “girlfriend” prior to the scolding where as in the book there is no other woman involved. In Bride and Prejudice, Lalita returns home and shortly thereafter receives a visit from Darcy in which he explains why he and Whickham don’t get along, because the man impregnated his little sister and tried to run away with her. In comparison to this situation in the book, Lizzy receives a letter from Darcy informing her of Whickham’s plan to elope with Georgina; distraught she replied, “How despicably have I acted! I, who have prided myself on my discernment and I, who have valued myself on my abilities”(178). Although this is the part in the plot where things have setting differences and lack exact detail, the concepts and all around nature of the scenes and chapters are much alike. In both the Pride and Prejudice, and Bride of Prejudice, the youngest daughter, Lydia or Lakhi, runs away with Johnny Whickham. In the film, Lakhi goes out shopping but meets up with Whickham and runs away, but the following day Darcy and Lalita go and rescue her in London. After being tracked down in a movie theatre and brutally beaten by Darcy, Whickham shouts out “It was always you Lalita!” resulting in a slap in the face by both sisters. In Austen’s version, Lydia and Whickham actually end up eloping and depart to Whickham’s new assignment in North England. Both versions of this romantic love story ends happily in which both couples end up together and wed as the story comes to close.
Although it seems comparing manners or Regency England to the colorful cultural India is odd and irrelevant, there could not be a better match. A highly renowned movie critic, Roger Ebert describes Bride and Prejudice as “a free-spirited adaptation of the Jane Austen novel, in which Mr. Darcy and the unmarried sisters and their family are plugged into a modern plot that spans London, New York, Bombay and Goa”(Ebert). Austen’s story proves to be timeless because of the relevance of her original work that still exists in a multicultural Bollywood film, even decades past. Reputation is evident in both works of art, that in both societies, a woman is expected to behave in certain ways and removing oneself from the social norms or the different cultures makes women vulnerable and no long praise worthy. When Jaya’s mother tells her “To make sure you don’t say anything to intelligent”, it is obvious that women are suppose to stand still and look pretty, but not to obtain an opinion (Chadha). Jaya and Jane both step outside the norm with their undeniable intelligence and love for reading, and most importantly not excepting marriage if it was not out of love. Along with reputation, the theme of class is intertwined deeply in both works of fiction. The beauty of it is that Austen’s plot proves that love and happiness can overcome prejudice and class boundaries in both pieces. Courtship and marriage has an obvious effect on how the story plays out. Pride and Prejudice opens up with the famous quote that “It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want for a wife”(1). In the movie, a modern day phrase based upon this famous quote is created and even made into a song, “ No life without wife”(Chadha).
Lastly, love is one of the most triumphant and important themes that is evident throughout both Bride and Prejudice and Pride and Prejudice, in which they both represent one of the most cherished and timeless love stories of all time. While Lalita’s pride dampers her first impression of Darcy, so does his prejudice on her social class and India itself as a culture. In the end however, they fall in love and realize that they stood for the same things in life, which is apparent, both Regency England and the “multiculturalism” represented in India (NY times).
Austen’s sole purpose was to suggest that true love is a force much stronger and more powerful than any society, no matter what time, culture, or place which is relevant in both the movie and the film.
Work Cited
Austen, Jane. Pride and Prejudice. New York: Bantam Dell Inc., 2003.
Bride and Prejudice. Dir. Gurinder Chadha. Perf. Aishwarya Rai, Martin Henderson,
and Nadira Babbar. 2004. DVD. Miramax Films, 2008.
“Bride and Prejudice”. Movie Reviews 1 January 2009. Chicago Sun Times. 22 March
2009 < http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050
210/ REVIEWS/502100302/1001>
“Bride ad Prejudice”. World Independent Film. 200. About.com. 21 March 2009
< http://worldfilm.about.com/od/a/fr/bride.htm>
Dargis, Manonila “Mr. Darcy and Lalita, Singing and Dancing” Movie Review 11
February 2005. The New York Times. 23 March 2009 <http://movies.Nyti m
es.com/ 2005/02/11/movies/11boll.html>
Figure 1, http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/files/2009/02/pride-and-prejudice-
and-zombies.jpg
Figure 2, http://thegirlfromtheghetto.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/bride_
and_prejudice.jpg
Figure 3, http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4600000/Lalita-and-Darcy-
bride-and-prejudice-4660874-390-220.jpg
Figure 4, http://www.sawnet.org/cinema/images/b_and_p8.jpg
Figure 5, http://media.photobucket.com/image/bride%20and%20prejudice/
ciaron212/bride.jpg
How the Grinch Stole Christmas
Paragraph. Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSMoN7HZPBc
Ron Howard’s 2000 film, “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”, depicts many similarities to Dr. Seuss’s original work that successfully transfers to audiences the true meaning of Christmas as originally depicted in the popular children’s book. In 1957 Dr. Seuss’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” was released targeting young children, but also attracting mature audiences with its use of literary criticism in making fun of the commercialization of the Christmas Holidays and satirizing those who believe this is what Christmas is all about.( Turner) Forty-three years later it was made into a film starring Jim Carrey that also takes a look at the criticism and satire use in the book. By not straying to far from the original Seuss novel, director Ron Howard has made a comparatively similar adaptation to the big screen of this Christmas classic. Although similar in many ways, the novel and film are not without their differences. Although not exact replicas of one another, the similarities and differences in film and novel version of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” do come together to “work” and proclaim the true meaning of the Christmas holidays.
“How the Grinch Stole Christmas” by Dr. Seuss is the story of a creature known as the Grinch who despises Christmas and lives by himself with his dog Max on a hill above the town of Who-Ville. Dr. Seuss explains the Grinch’s hatred of Christmas by saying, “It could be his head wasn't screwed on just right; It could be, perhaps, that his shoes were too tight; But I think that the most likely reason of all; may have been that his heart was two sizes too small.”(Seuss) The people of Who-Ville, the Whos, love Christmas and regularly sing and celebrate the coming of the holiday. This angers the Grinch who sets out to ruin Christmas for all of Who-Ville. Scheming in his cave the Grinch plans, “"I know just what to do!" The Grinch laughed in his throat. And he made a quick Santy Claus hat and a coat. And he chuckled, and clucked, "What a great Grinchy trick!" "With this coat and this hat, I look just like Saint Nick!" (Seuss) The evil Grinch then proceeds to travel down to Who-Ville where he steals the Who’s stockings, presents, and Christmas feast. While stuffing a Christmas Tree up a chimney he runs into little Cindy-Lou-Who who asks why the Grinch is doing this unto which he replies, “"Why, my sweet little tot," the fake Santy Claus lied, "There's a light on this tree that won't light on one side." "So I'm taking it home to my workshop, my dear." "I'll fix it up there. Then I'll bring it back here." (Seuss) The lie fooled the child and the Grinch proceeds to steal all the gifts from the rest of Who-Ville. His plan fully realized, he goes to a cliff where he waits to hear the people of Who-Ville wake up and cry in despair at their new misfortune. To his surprise all he hears is singing as he realizes that he hasn’t stopped Christmas from coming at all. He then realizes, “"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store." "Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"” (Seuss) It is then said that the Grinch’s heart grew 3 sizes that day. He then comes around and decides to return all the gifts to the town of Who-Ville and he himself joins in on the fun. Seuss uses the Grinch in his book as a scapegoat to all the people who believe Christmas is about material things and gifts. The Grinch is a satire on that particular population as he believes that by taking away the people’s stockings, presents, food, and Christmas Trees, he can ruin Christmas. The people of Who-Ville’s undying faith in the spirit of Christmas prove him wrong and help him realize the errors of his ways. This helps the Grinch to discover the true meaning of Christmas.
Ron Howard’s adaptation of “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” is essentially the same story with a few added elements. In the film the Grinch’s hatred of Christmas is explained via flashbacks, showing a scene where the Grinch as a child made an ornament for a girl Who named Martha. Scared she would dislike his facial hair, he shaves and ends up cutting himself making him the source of ridicule the next day at school, thus causing him to despise Christmas. Cindy Lou Who from the book is obsessed with getting the Grinch to rediscover the Christmas Spirit but she too is unhappy with the public’s love affair with gifts and toys. She feels the Christmas Spirit has been lost on the town of Who-Ville. She invites the Grinch to participate in Christmas activities with the town where he is then embarrassed by the current mayor of Who-Ville, Maywho, who presents him with a razor and proposes to Martha the girl of his dreams. This infuriates the Grinch who exclaims, “the holiday (Christmas) is about nothing but greed” (Howard) and he returns to his cliff where he plans the heist explained in the book of stealing the gifts and presents from all of Who-Ville. Replicating a scene from the book the Grinch is caught at Cindy Lou Who’s house dressed as Santa where Cindy Lou Who (believing the Grinch to be Santa) asks for Santa not to forget about the Grinch this Christmas. This has some effect on the Grinch but he proceeds with his plan anyway and steals the rest of the gifts. Like in the novel he then proceeds to the cliff where he awaits the sobs and sorrow of the townspeople. When the townspeople awake they are originally angry until Cindy Lou Who’s father steps in and reminds them that they all still have the Christmas Spirit and that that cannot be purchased from a store. They then begin singing and when hearing this the Grinch’s heart swells and he rediscover’s his Christmas Spirit. Talking to himself, the Grinch realizes Christmas “is something that can't be stolen” (Howard) and he travels to Who-Ville to return the gifts with Cindy Lou Who. On his arrival, Martha realizes her love for the Grinch and gives back the mayor’s engagement ring. Ron Howard keeps with Seuss’s original message of conveying the true meaning of Christmas through the townspeople’s coming together after the realization of their stolen gifts. He also mocks societies understanding of Christmas throughout the film when he shows the townspeople showing off their expensive Christmas lights and decorations to each other in competition of who can afford the best material. The Grinch’s change of heart shows Ron Howard understanding of the true Christmas Spirit and he conveys it to us on the big screen.
Dr. Seuss’s original story “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” along with Ron Howard’s adaptation have many similarities but also have their share of differences. Both works have the principal character of the Grinch as a grumpy Christmas hating anti-hero. The movie unlike the novel goes into more depth to explain the Grinch’s hatred of Christmas showing him being humiliated at school as a child during the Christmas season. The movie also has many excess scenes which while unnecessary to the plot of the original story are necessary for the film to be of a feature length motion picture. For example, the character of Cindy Lou Who is witnessed once in the novel but is the major supporting character in the movie and tries to change the Grinch throughout. The major climax of the book remains the same in the film as the Grinch proceeds to steal all the gifts and Christmas accessories from all of Who-Ville. The falling action also remains the same as the townspeople’s singing together prompts the Grinch to change his feelings about Christmas. While the conclusion is basically the same, the movie differs in showing Martha fall for the Grinch at the end, leaving her fiancée the mayor to do so. In the novel, not only did the Grinch not have a love interest but there was no Martha or Mayor to begin with. In both works, the Grinch, “starts out as a villain, but it's not how you start out that counts. It's what you are at the finish."(Giesel) Bob Smithouser of Plugged In Movie Reviews writes, “If only the "new material" weren’t so distracting. “While some of the additions to Ron Howard’s “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” seem rather silly and unneeded it still conveys the original message of the meaning of Christmas that is so evident in Seuss’s novel.
Although able to point to a substantial number of minuscule differences in Dr. Seuss’s original book “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” and Ron Howard’s film version the underlying theme and message remains the same. The differences are noticeable but do not keep both versions from “working” and conveying the true message of Christmas to audiences. Both novel and film poke fun at society’s obsession with materialistic items and goods defining how the Christmas Season is spent. By using the Grinch’s realization that he could not ruin Christmas by stealing the town’s gifts both Howard and Seuss show the silliness of what gifts and toys really mean to the Christmas Spirit. There may be a decent-sized number of differences between book and film storyline but there is absolutely no difference in theme, meaning, and purpose between the works.
In 2000 Ron Howard successfully bridged a connection between Dr. Seuss’s original novel “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” and his film adaptation of the same story. Both book and film show the story of a Christmas-hating Grinch who goes on discover the true meaning of the Christmas holidays. Both Howard and Seuss use satire to poke fun at society’s obsession with materialistic items during the Christmas season. While Howard’s version differs from Seuss’s in ways, the original purpose and meaning stays the same. The similarities in the novel and film are enough to make “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” work in both a book and film form. Thanks to Seuss and Howard viewers may now have a better understanding of the true meaning of Christmas.
Works Cited
Blair, Elizabeth. "How The Grinch Stole Christmas." Npr. 23 Dec. 2002. 23 Mar. 2009 <www.npr.org>.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas. Dir. Ron Howard. Perf. Jim Carrey. DVD. Image Entertainment, 2000.
Seuss, Dr. How the Grinch Stole Christmas. New york: Random House Children's Books, 1957.
Smithouser, Bob. "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas." PluggedIn. 23 Mar. 2009 <www.pluggedonline.com/movies/movies/a0000305.cfm>.
Turner, Tasha. "How the Grinch Stole Christmas." Bella Online. 23 Mar. 2009 <www.bellaonline.com>.
Image 1 http://www.impawards.com/2000/posters/dr_seuss_how_the_grinch_stole_christmas_ver2.jpg
Image 2 http://www.childmodelsadvice.com/images/CINdylouwho.jpg
Image 3 http://www.impawards.com/2000/posters/dr_seuss_how_the_grinch_stole_christmas_ver3.jpg
Title.
Paragraph. Film of the 1950s is renown for an array of classic westerns. Among these timeless movies is the 1957 Walt Disney Productions movie, Old Yeller. Directed by Robert Stevenson, it is strictly based on the book Old Yeller, written by Fred Gipson just one year previous (1956). The movie’s screenplay is also written by Fred Gipson, and his book version was written with the purpose of being used and transformed to a film audience. This explains the strict parallel versions of this story. The 144 page book about a country family and their heroic dog sets up a smooth conversion to a visual version in film. Walt Disney Productions brings this story to mainstream audiences with film as it utilizes a popular western premise and action filled events to demonstrate the path to manhood found originally in the book.
Image 1 Image 2
During the 1950’s, images of western life and western heroes fascinated American audiences. The ruggedness of a Texas cattle drive and the thrill of a pursuit via horseback left people wanting more. Everything from the legendary movies starring John Wayne, to films like, Oklahoma! and, Annie Get Your Gun, all utilized the wild west to capture America’s attention during this era. Both the film and literature version of Old Yeller were no exception, as both came out in the 1950s, and both had identical western settings. Professor Yahnke at the University of Minnesota describes what is happening during this time: “With the 1950s came the advent of television sets in every home… what begins to happen [in the 1950s]is a movement away from the big Studio Film to the little film about believable characters” (Yahnke). Old Yeller gives the audience a personal glance at the lives of a western family. Old Yeller takes place on a Texas ranch sometime during the 1860s when financial stability is scarce. “Papa” leaves the family to go on a cattle drive where he hopes to bring money back to the family. The book says; "Still, they needed money, and they realized that whatever a man does, he's bound to take some risks" (Gipson 3). The risk was that the family was alone without a man, their father, to help and protect them. This leaves “Mama” and her two younger boys, Arliss (age 7) and Travis (age 15), to fend for themselves. A conversation in the film between the two brothers shows this: “Arliss: What's Papa gonna sell our steers for? Travis: For money, of course. Arliss: What's money? Travis : That's what you buy things with. Arliss: What do you mean by buy things? Travis: Well when you have money, you give it to people for stuff. They say you can get anything for money” (Old Yeller). As the man of their family, Papa tries to overturn the financial instability. As shown in their conversation, this is not fully understood by the two young brothers. Without any hesitation, the film and book bring old yeller, a dog, into the picture to fill the gap that Papa left as the man of the family.
Image 3:
Old Yeller, the hero in this western story, comes on the scene as soon as Papa is gone. Disney movies in the 1950s had a strong way of introducing characters with theme songs. (Here is a link to the Old Yeller theme song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_bz-hpSf4s). The book describes this dog character like this: "He was a big ugly slick-haired yeller dog. One short ear had been chewed clear off and his tail had been bobbed so close to his rump that there was hardly stub enough left to wag" (Gipson 16). Old yeller is not a majestic dog and author and directors leave no room for him to have any splendor from the sight of him at all. Because of this, Old Yeller is rejected from most of the family at the start. In spite of being loathed by Travis at first, Old Yeller takes a strong role protecting the family while Papa was gone soon after he comes into the story. Since there was no longer a man to take head of the household, Old yeller begins protecting and helping the family in a multitude of ways. Both the book and film extensively illustrate this with numerous action packed events that bring difficulty and danger to the fatherless family. One movie critic describes this by saying, “Most of the show is little more than a charming series of animal incidents. We have bucking horses, raiding raccoons, hiding snakes, brawling bears, attacking hogs, and charging mother cows. Old Yeller manages to be a hero…” (Rhodes).
The book and movie are made to be appealing to a family audience. The events keep readers or viewers excited and anxious for more, while growing them deeper in love with the scrappy mongrel, Old Yeller. In every incident, the emphasis is on Old Yeller saving the day. The first example of this is prominently shown when Old Yeller saves Arliss from an angry black bear. Travis tries initially to save him, but is an inadequate savior. Nonetheless, Old Yeller comes to save Arliss from the bear, and Travis begins to appreciate Old Yeller. Although each event in the movie and book seem predictable and typical to other ordinary dog movies, they are set apart from the others. The beauty of the countryside captured in film, and utilization of an old rugged dog to fend off wildlife is exclusive to this movie. In this black bear example, the bear is strikingly wild and appearing undomesticated in its natural environment, making this scene a beautiful image. It is brilliant how Stevenson and Gipson are able to use an old dog in the movie instead of a prominent actor like John Wayne, to make this western story as great and unique as it is. This trailer of a western movie of the 1950s shows the vital role of having a dominant male hero:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6rZ28ObFUI .
These action filled scenes build off each other in the book just like in the movie and eventually there is an even deeper threat. The rabies virus had been spreading rapidly throughout the region they live. In the movie, the family is educated of the rabies’ symptoms by Burn Sanderson, a family acquaintance, who said,
Burn Sanderson: You can't hardly tell at first, not till they get to the point of slobbering and staggering around. When you see a critter in that fix, you know for sure. But you want to watch for others that ain't that far along. Now, you take a bobcat or a fox. You know they'll run if you give 'em the chance. But when one don't run, or maybe makes fight at you, why, you shoot him and shoot him quick. After he's bitten you, it's too late. (Old Yeller)
This poses danger to the family, because this disease is shown most prevalent in wildlife, which is what Old Yeller continues to make interactions with in order to protect the family. Eventually in the film and book, Travis esteems Old Yeller even higher, and so do the audiences. At this time, with the peril of rabies lingering, Old Yeller fights his last fight with a rabid wolf. It becomes very clear in both stories that Old Yeller has rabies and will then be a dangerous threat to the family. Suddenly the story shifts from the triumphs of this heroic dog, to a boy becoming a man. With the safety of the family at stake and Papa being gone, Travis finds it his duty to kill Old Yeller. It is at the fall of his beloved dog that Travis becomes a man. Papa said this in the movie about what happens to men: “Papa: Now and then, for no good reason, life will haul off and knock a man flat” (Old Yeller). This could not be more evident in this situation, when after many obstacles Travis faces heartbreak. In the book, describing his change of fervor towards old Yeller, Travis says: "He made me so mad at first that I wanted to kill him. Then, later, when I had to kill him, it was like having to shoot some of my own folks. That's how much I'd come to think of the big yeller dog" (Gipson 1). When Old Yeller dies, both in the movie and in the novel, it is bluntly sad. There is not many other ways besides sad to describe the ending of Old Yeller. One movie critic describes the ending: “The emotional impact of the ending is matched by only a few films” (Walls). The role of the man in the family transitions after Papa leaves, and Old Yeller takes part of this role over by protecting the family. Ultimately, Travis succeeds during hardship and becomes a man. The journey through the story in the book and the movie is a wonderful illustration of this major theme.
The short book Old Yeller, from 1956, directly set up its film replica one year later in a parallel fashion. This smooth conversion enabled it to be a magnificent piece in cinema. Robert Stevenson was able to make this story into a classic western which flourished even among some of the other timeless western films of that era. The endless action and beautiful countryside setting found in Fred Gipson’s book, made for a wonderful motion picture. Walt Disney Productions demonstrates well the theme of the path to manhood found originally in the book. The book and movie of this story both establish how Old Yeller is about much more than a boy’s friendship with his dog, but about a boy becoming a man. As Papa said, “Now and then, for no good reason, life will haul off and knock a man flat” (Old Yeller). With the obstacles Travis faced and with the emotional ending of Old yeller, Travis got knocked flat and became a man.
Works Cited
Gipson, Fred. Old Yeller. Harpercollins, 1956.
Old Yeller. Dir. Robert Stevenson. Perf. Dorothy Mcguire and Tommy Kirk. Walt Disney Productions, 1957.
Rhodes, Steve. "Old Yeller." All-Reviews.com Movie/Video Review. 1996. 22 Mar. 2009 <http://www.all-reviews.com/videos-3/old-yeller.htm>.
Walls, Jeff. "Old Yeller." 22 Mar. 2009 <http://www.allmovieportal.com/m/1957_Old_Yeller63.html>.
Yahnke, Robert. "Cinema History, Chapter 4 The 1950s--Focus on American Films." University of Minnesota. 23 Mar. 2009 <http://www.tc.umn.edu/~ryahnke/film/cinema4.htm>.
Image 1 http://guyfawkessociety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/old-yeller2.jpg
Image 2 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vqvrCz_OYTo/R6Vwlli97iI/AAAAAAAAAKI/J7MS1kf5Ink/s400/Yellercover
Image 3 http://www.bettiesharpe.com/graphics/blog/images/Old-Yeller-movie-01.jpg
Othello/"O"
The play Othello written by William Shakespeare discusses the issues of race, jealousy and betrayal in the seventeenth century. Tim Blake Nelson’s version of Othello, written in 2001 and called “O,” is a modern day interpretation of today’s society dealing with the same issues. Although some critics believe that this Hollywood reproduction of Othello warps Shakespeare’s play, I believe that by focusing on the same major themes as well as using relative characters, the movie is a nice interpretation of a classic play.
In the movie Tim Blake Nelson changes the names of the characters but the plot and themes remain the same. Both the play and the movie have a black man, Othello/ Odin, who is living in a white dominated society. This character is the main character. Othello, a moor, is looked down upon for being black and in the movie Odin is the only black student in an all white private high school. In Shakespeare’s play, Othello is a military leader and in the movie “O” Odin is the leader of the basketball team. Nelson uses basketball as a metaphor for the war fought in Shakespeare’s play.
The remaining characters in the movie all relate to a character in the play. Iago, the villain of the play, relates to the character in the movie Hugo. Roderigo, a jealous character in the play, is similar to the character Roger in the play. Michael Cassio is a basketball team mate of Odin and best friend in the movie and the play has a character with the same name who is Othello’s friend.
The movie is about a black student and basketball player, Odin. Although he is the only black student at the wealthy private high school, he has extensive popularity among his classmates. His girlfriend is Desi Brable, a dean’s daughter, and best friend is Hugo, the coach’s son. Although Hugo is Odin’s best friend his jealousy of Odin’s attention received from the coach and other students pushes him to manipulate and deceive Odin. His jealousy brings him to lie to his best friends and in the end pull off a plan that leaves two people dead. In the end he takes his own life, knowing that all there is left for him is jail.
The play is about a black man, Othello, who is a general in Venice. His best friend is Iago. When Othello gives a promotion to another person, Michael Cassio, Iago becomes incredibly jealous. Iago creates a situation in which Othello becomes increasingly suspicious of his wife Desdemona and her fidelity. When Othello speaks to Iago about his suspicion they come up with a plan to poison Desdemona. In the end Othello ends up smothering his wife to death and after learning of Iago’s part in the whole lie he stabs Iago. Once he has done this he also takes his own life.
Both the movie and the play end in a similar way, with Othello/Odin speaking about how he only wants to know the truth of the events that took place. Othello says,
“When you shall these unlucky deeds relate,
Speak of me as I am; nothing extenuate,
Nor set down aught in malice: then must you speak
Of one that loved not wisely but too well;
Of one not easily jealous, but being wrought
Perplex'd in the extreme; of one whose hand,
Like the base Indian, threw a pearl away” (V. ii.).
Although some critics say that the plot of the movie strays too far away from the original plot of Shakespeare’s play, I believe that the movie is a powerful representation of the modern day tragedy. By putting a modern-day twist on the play it makes it more relatable and more understandable for younger people. The Chicago Sun Times says that the move is, “A good film for most of the way, and then a powerful film at the end, when, in the traditional Shakespearean manner, all of the plot threads come together, the victims are killed, the survivors mourn, and life goes on.” The movie is powerful and gets the serious point across of betrayal and jealousy that Shakespeare intended in Othello. One critic from the LA Weekly says that, “The makers of this malnourished teen drama haven't just dropped six letters from the title of Shakespeare's Othello, they have excised everything that gives the original its troubling power -- principally a point but also furious passion.” One opinion of The New York Times is that,
“One of the biggest problems with ''O'' is that its volatility has been erased. Hugo's Iago ffffffffmotivation is that he feels he has been displaced by Odin in his own home. His cold, ffffffffwithdrawn father (Martin Sheen), who is also the team's coach, treats O like a son. When ffffffffOdin receives the M.V.P. award, Hugo is consumed with rage, though it is never clear if ffffffffhe was unjustly ignored or if he is deluded about his place on the team. Either scenario fffffffwould provide more dramatic motivation than eliding the point, which is what ''O'' does.” fffffffIn my opinion the contemporary adaptation makes it easier to understand for students who fffffffall read this classic in school.”
Both the play and the movie have very similar themes of jealousy and deceit. The movie gives a modern adaptation of the situations and events that occur in the play by Shakespeare. Although many critics claim it to be a terrible Hollywood reproduction of the classic play, I believe that it is an applicable movie for young readers and viewers.
Works Cited
Figure 1 Educational Technology Clearinghouse. 27 Apr. 2009 jjjjjjjjj<http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/5700/5781/othello_3_lg.gif>.
"O (2001): Reviews." Movie Reviews, Music Reviews, TV Show Reviews, Game Reviews, jjjjjjjjjBook Reviews - Metacritic.com. 25 Mar. 2009 jjjjjjjjj<http://www.metacritic.com/video/titles/o?q=O>.
Shakespeare, William. Othello. 26 Mar. 2009 <http://pd.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/othello>.
"O." Movie Reviews, Showtimes and Trailers - Movies - New York Times. 25 Mar. 2009 ssssss<http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?_r=2&res=9D05E1D81230F932A0575BC0A9 jjjjjjjjj679C8B63>.
Figure 2"Shakespeare." Globe Theatre. 23 Apr. 2009 <http://www.globe-theatre.org.uk/globe-aaaaatheatre-jshakespeare.htm>.
Hollywood
David Yates’ film, Harry Potter and the Order of the phoenix, is an example of Hollywood’s changes from literature to screen play when compared to the literary origin: J.K. Rowling’s, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. J.K. Rowling’s novel piece: Harry Potter was published June 21st, 2003, as the fastest selling book in history. For this reason it is certain that many people across the world have read this book. When Hollywood brought forth the news that the 766 page novel was going to be turned into a book, many had high expectations. David Yates’ film was released July 2007, and topped the box office charts. Yates won director of the year for this film but, many Harry Potter fans were disappointed. Most were outraged, because they felt that for such a long novel the film was not long enough. The film makers also had many things wrong with the final fight. Another dissatisfying part of the movie was the beginning, and how much information it left out for the viewers. That’s how Hollywood is, they compact long stories into small action films.
Harry Potter spent his time out of school with his Aunt and Uncle. While Harry was staying with them he was kept in total isolation. Harry was at the park one evening, unknowing of his parents killer Voldemort’s return, Harry is attacked by Dementors. Harry was able to fight the Dementor’s off him and his cousin, Dudley, using magic. Harry and Dudley arrive home safely, and Harry is informed by mail that he might be expelled from Hogwarts for using magic. His Aunt and Uncle leave with Dudley to take him to the hospital. While they are gone, wizards show up to rescue Harry. Harry is taken to Sirius Black, which is the headquarters for the Order of the Phoenix. The Order is a massive group of wizards dedicated to fighting Voldermort and his minions. The Order is led by a man named Dumbledore. Harry is then informed that Voldemort is back and he is building a massive army. Shortly after, Harry faces his hearing to the ministry about his illegal use of magic. Dumbledore speaks up for Harry, and he was permitted to attend Hogwarts School of Magic again. When Harry returns to School, he is faced with many difficulties. The School newspaper publishes things about him that are untrue. Harry ignores these actions and continues on with his studies. Harry’s teacher, Umbridge, refuses to teach her students any defense spells, so harry and his friends form a group that learns defense moves on their own. Umbridge became High Inquisitor of Hogwarts and now controls everything that goes on. She prevents Harry and all of the other students from reaching other wizards outside of Hogwarts for help and information. Harry sneaks into Umbridges office and uses her fireplace to go find Sirius to inform him on what is happening. When Harry is informed on the location of Sirius he heads back to Hogwarts, just to find out he had been caught in Umbridges office. Harry and his friends talk Umbridge into following them into the woods to show her where they are hiding the weapon that Voldermont is looking for. When she goes there Centaurs take her away. Harry and his friends then head to the Ministry to find Sirius. Sirius is not there, but Harry sees a glass sphere with his name on it, and grabs it. When he does so, Death Eaters surround Harry and his friends and attack. They fight them off with help of older wizards in the Order, but in the mist of the fight Harry dropped and broke the Sphere. Also during the fight Sirius is killed by his own cousin, Death Eater Blallatrix Lestrange. Dumbledore shows up after the fighting has ended and Voldermort and Lestrange get away. Dumbledore explains to Harry that the orb contained love, which is something that Voldermont does not know, and that the only way it can be sealed is by blood. Thus telling Harry that he must continue spending his time with his Aunt and Uncle, since they are the only blood related family he has.
The beginning of the book starts off with Harry in total isolation, living with his Aunt and Uncle. Harry has nightmares every so often about a scene that happened in the previous books. The scene is of Cedric, his friend, being killed. Cedric was killed on Voldemort’s orders during the Triwizard Tournament. Then the book heads to a playground. This is where the movie begins. Harry is swinging, when his cousin Dudley shows up with some friends to pick on Harry. They make fun of him and his nightmares about Cedric, and Harry starts to become angry. Just as the two are about to fight the sky’s turn black and they are attacked by Dementors. In this scene Dudley was yelling at Harry “Don’t kill Cedric!” (Rowling 48). Without the information from the begging of the book, where Harry has his dreams, the views are already confused. Another very important part of the book that is completely left out of the movie is also one of the most surprising. Ron Weasley becomes a Gryffindor perfect in the book. A house perfect at Hogwart’s school is a student that is chosen by the current headmaster, in this case Dumbledore, and is a great honor for ambitious students (Cook 1). The importance to this is that Ron was always looked at as Harry’s sidekick, and everyone expected Harry to be the Gryffindor perfect. This scene was very important to Harry in the book, but was left completely untouched in the movie. Like most scenes in the book it was either cut out, or shortened to where viewers who haven’t read the books are left confused.
Many viewers were upset with the length of the movie. When Yates’ takes the longest book in the Harry Potter series, and makes the shortest movie in the series, you know things have to be missing. While there where many key points missing from the book, Yates’ capped on the major action scenes, which really grabbed the viewer’s attention. The only downside to this would be the fans that wanted to see their favorite parts of each scene. Most would not mind spending four or five hours watching the movie to this book, but that would cause Hollywood to lose money (Cook 2). If Yates’ would have made the movie twice as long it would have enabled more information and important scenes. Though leaving the Harry Potter fans satisfied, the viewers watching for the first time would not be. The first time Viewer’s would either not watch the movie, or be very tired of sitting after two hours in. This is the main reason why Hollywood cuts so many scenes out from the books. To keep it short and sell more tickets. Most of the scenes that where cut out of the movie are not nessasarry, but they add enjoyment to the journey all Harry Potter fans look for. The cutting to scenes it not knew to Potter fans though, since as the series goes on more scenes are being cut (Cook 2).
Figure 2
The final battle at the Ministry of Magic between the Order of the Phoenix and Lord Voldemort’s Death Eaters was incorrect. When Harry and his friends first show up to the Ministry they go through a few rooms before they get to the Prophecy Room. In the movie, Harry and his friends show up to the Ministry and walk right into the Prophecy Room. The first few rooms that Harry goes through in the book are full of magic and would have been an excellent addition to the movie (Cook 2). There were a few other things that are cut from the movie, but are in great detail in the book. A few things are when Neville Longottom is attacked and torchered by Death Eaters. This was very graphic in the book, yet it was not in the movie at all. One reason for leaving scenes like these out would be for the overall viewing age of the movie. Another part would be Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, Harry’s friends. Hermione gets hurt during the battle, and Ron has creatures attacking him in a separate room (Cook 2). One of the most surprising, yet plain scenes was Sirius’ death. As Sam, a responder to Cook, said “When Sirius dies in the book it brought me to tears, when he dies in the movie it just kinda ended.” Viewers like Sam want Yates to emphasize and make these kinds of scenes just as dramatic as they are in the book, but he fails at doing so. Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of the book after all of the fighting that Voldemort did not know who the “chosen one” was. Voldemort did not know if it was Harry or Neville Longbottom. Voldemort chose Harry sense he was half-blood like the Dark Lord himself (Eve 12). The prophecy states that one cannot live while the other one survives. They are talking about Voldemort and Harry here. What this means is that Voldemort will make another return and either him or Harry will be killed. In the movie the only part of this that is mentioned is the end. Then the movie goes straight on after that to tell Harry that the only people who can keep him safe is his Aunt and Uncle, so he will have to spend the summer with them again. This does not make Harry very happy.
In the end the book was fair, but could have been a lot better if they just made it longer. Yates needs to figure out that taking such a long book that is loved by many and making a short movie that it will leave people unsatisfied. That is how Hollywood works though; they make things short and full of action to be attracting to the viewers. In this case it wasn’t that great of an idea, for the majority of viewers had already read the book and was expecting much more.
Works Cited
Empress Eve. “Harry Potter 5: The book vs. The Movie.” 2007. Geeks of Doom. July 18th.
<Http://geeksofdoom.com/2007/07/18/harry-potter-5-the-book-vs-the-movie/>
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. David Yates. Warner Brothers Production. 2007.
IMDb. “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.” 2007. IMDb.
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/>
J.K. Rowling. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Bloomsbury, 2003.
Joshua Cook. “Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: Movie vs. Book.” 2007.
Associatedcontent. July, 18. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/310486/Harry_Potter_and_the_order_of_the_phoenix_book_vs_movie/
Figure 1. <http://www.iamthatgirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/hollywood-sign.jpg>
Figure 2. <http://us.i1.yimg.com/img.movies.yahoo.com/ymv/us/img/flickr/94/54/000465209454.jpg
A Modern Twist on Love
A forbidden love is a type of love that draws the heart in. It has a sort of power to it that makes people chase after it even if it could end in destruction. This is the exact type of love Stephanie Meyer released in September 2005, in her first book Twilight. In fact, this book was so intriguing that it led Catherine Hardwicke to direct the movie Twilight and show it to the world three years later on November 21st. This is a love story that is a twist on past literature’s romances, but with a modern day touch to it. The book is very well written and a very popular story throughout America, but it deserves to stay on paper, rather than on a film, because written words are the only things that can capture the beauty and grace of Stephanie Meyer’s writing.
A Twilight craze has spread across America. According to the movie’s official website, over three hundred and fifty fan sites have been created just for this book. Young girls go crazy over the fictional character Edward Cullen because he is seen as the “perfect” boyfriend, which is ironic considering he is also a vampire. This is one of the reason’s that it is so popular. The story is a new kind of forbidden love, not the typical family feud, but instead, a dangerous, life-threatening love. Not only is it that, but it is a love between two people that should never belong together. Meyer said in her entry about Twilight, that her book is based on a very “vivid dream” she where two people were having an intense conversation in a meadow (Meyer, par. 4). “One of these people was just your average girl. The other person was fantastically beautiful, sparkly, and a vampire” (Meyer, par. 4). The two of these people, Edward and Bella, do not only not belong because one is human and the other vampire, but also because one is stunningly beautiful, and the other just an ordinary, everyday girl. This small fact about the story automatically sucks girls into the story because it somehow gives each one of them out there a little hope for themselves. Because this story was written so beautifully and included so many details, it is absolutely impossible to capture on film. Many critics have said “Twilight has lost a little magic in transition from the book to film” (My Opera, par. 6).
The imagery Meyer uses in the book is the first main problem the film industry has. Bella’s first sight of the Cullen family explains why these details were so hard to match. Bella describes this family as devastatingly, inhumanely beautiful” (Meyer, 19). She says the exact reason why putting this on film is not possible. Inhumanely. Of course gorgeous characters such as Robert Pattison, who played Edward Cullen, and Nikki Reed, who played Rosalie Cullen, were cast, but they could never represent this “inhumane” beauty that Meyer describes. Not only is the beauty of the Cullens not captured, but the film missed their gracefulness and speed as well. During the same scene, when Bella first saw the Cullens, one of the main things she points out is the grace and quickness of one of the sisters (Alice Cullen on right) that walks past her. She says “ the small girl walked away with a quick, graceful lope that belonged on a runway. I watched amazed at her lithe dancer’s step, till she dumped her tray and glided through the door, quicker that I ever though possible” (Meyer, 19). Both of these characteristics emphasized over and over again throughout the book are yet another detail that the film could not capture. Mooridian, the producer, and Hardwick attempt to show this in their movie by using special effects, but in the end, it turns out looking forced and awkward, rather than smooth and graceful as the book describes it. Along with the problems of the characteristics, Hardwicke also leaves out many scenes that could have added much more meaning into the movie.
Leaving out key scenes may have made the movie a more reasonable length, which is understandable, but the problem with this is that it lost a lot of emotion and emphasis of the story. The first huge scene left out by Hardwicke was right after Edward first met Bella. After his first encounter with her, he found that her mind is the only one that he cannot read, and this really frustrates him. The movie included this piece of information, but they left out all of the details on how he attempts to over come this. In the book he says he cannot hear her thoughts because “maybe [her] mind doesn’t work the same way as the rest of the [people’s] do,” so he attempts to find ways around this (Meyer, 181). During school he eaves drops on all of Bella’s conversations, listening to others thoughts in order to find out her feelings about him. By leaving this out of the movie, the viewers lost their opportunity to see how much Edward really cares about her from the beginning. If they included this scene, it would emphasize the fact that Edward is having feelings that he has never experienced before, and how he truly struggles with this, when he never struggles with anything. Another important scene Hardwicke leaves out is the chapter in the book called “blood type.” During this chapter Bella’s biology class is assigned to prick their finger in order to test their blood types. Before Bella has the opportunity to prick her own finger she becomes nauseous and nearly faints at the sight of her partner’s blood. On her way to the nurse’s office, she runs into Edward who laughs and says, “So you faint at the sight of blood?” (Meyer, 96). This is ironic because the one thing that Edward craves is the one thing that Bella cannot handle. If Hardwicke had put this in the movie, it would have put even more emphasis on how different these two are, and given another reason why they should not be together. One other important scene from the book that was not included is from the very end during Bella’s crisis with the tracker vampire who is trying to kill her. During this part of the book, Bella is with two of Edward’s siblings and they are on the way to reunite her with Edward at the airport. Before going to the airport, Bella receives a phone call from James, the vampire who wants to kill her, saying that he has her mother and if she wants her to live then she must meet him at her old dance studio. In the movie this same thing happens, but she escapes the watch of Edward’s siblings at the hotel rather than at the airport. By skipping over the fact that Bella was on her way to be reunited with her love when she runs away, the movie skips over this intensity. If the director had added this then it would have directed the viewer’s attention to the fact that she was choosing her mom over her love. The addition of these three scenes could have brought a lot more emotion to the movie, but when they were left out it made the movie that much worse.
Although this modern day love story is amazing and sent a craze through America, it belongs on paper. The film served no justice for the book, and just like the critics said, “it lost its magic” (My Opera, par. 6). No director would be able to capture the beautifully written words Meyer used in her book, and that is why is should have never been transformed into a movie.
Works Cited
“Figure 1” http://210teenlibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/twilight.jpg
“Figure 2” http://www.flickr.com/photos/hvyilnr/3322252264/
“Figure 3” http://www.flickr.com/photos/123005/3326386318/
“Figure4” http://www.makeup411.com/411_product_images/0307_Ashley%20Greene_Twilight_DeanaNewcomb.jpg
“Figure 5”
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ecMcf3B-ZR4/SI_o9GXVeCI/AAAAAAAABs0/24IhQI70Df0/s400/edward-and-bella-twilight.jpg
Meyer, Stephanie. Twilight. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005.
Meyer, Stephanie. “The Story Behind Twilight.” The Official Website of Stephanie Meyer. 23 March 2009. <http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/twilight.html>
Twilight. Catherine Hardwicke. Stephanie Meyer. 2009. DVD. Summit Entertainment. 21 November 2008.
Twilight Movie Critique. 8 December 2008. My Opera. 23 March 2009. <http://my.opera.com/princessofdeath/blog/twilight-movie-critique>
Twilight-The Official Website. 2009. Summit Entertainment. 23 March 2009 <http://twilightthemovie.com/>
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest
The book “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” written by Ken Kesey was published in 1962. The Movie “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” directed by Milos Forman was released in 1975. The Plot and setting of the movie and the film are essentially the same but the narrator in the book is different than the narrator in the film. Although the plot is the same in the book and the film, the different narrator in the film changes how the audience perceives the story. The book version of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” had to be changed in order to be successful in Hollywood.
Kesey’s book is narrated by a Native American man named Chief Bromden. Bromden suffers from a mental illness that is characterized by his paranoia and frequent hallucinations. Bromden plays deaf and dumb to hide from society. Bromden is living in a mental institution ran by Nurse Ratched who is a very strict and controlling member of the inmates in the institution and also the staff of the institution. Randle McMurphy is sent to the mental institution because of “too much fighting and fucking,”(Kesey). McMurphy is not actually insane but he didn’t fight against his label as a psychopath so he could get out of a work camp he was sentenced to. McMurphys presence changes everyone in the mental institution.
Nurse Ratched holds group therapy meetings everyday for the people living in the mental institution. Ratched knows the weaknesses of every patient and encourages the patients in the group therapy sessions to taunt each other because of their weaknesses. Following the first meeting the other inmates tell McMurphy that Nurse Ratched cannot be handled because she is too powerful. McMurphy makes a bet with the patients that he can make Nurse Ratched lose her temper in one week. McMurphy provides the other patients with hope. The other patients look up to McMurphy and seem to prefer his ideas over Nurse Ratched’s. McMurphy’s defiance to Nurse Ratched leads to the other patients not following Nurse Ratched’s rules either. McMurphy tally’s up a vote between the patients to let Nurse Ratched turn on the television so everyone can watch the World Series. When Ratched refuses to turn on the television; McMurphy and the rest of the patients crowd around the blank television cheering like they were actually watching the World Series. Nurse Ratched screams and orders them to stop; this is the first sign of Ratched losing her power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syPZZxxFCe0&feature=related
McMurphy finds out that he cannot leave the mental institution until the staff at the institution says he is ready to leave. After hearing about that, McMurphy stops standing up for the other patients. Cheswick, one of the patients, commits suicide by drowning himself when McMurphy fails to help him stand up against Ratched. McMurphy then gets sent to receive electroshock therapy. McMurphy begins to realize the power that the staff at the institution has over him, McMurphy seems like he is losing his sanity.
McMurphy escapes from the hospital and brings ten other patients with him to go on a fishing trip. He shows the other patients that they have power and that they just need courage to be able to use it. McMurphy also plans for one of the patients, Billy, to lose his virginity. He continues to show the patients how it feels to live a normal life.
McMurphhy gets into a fight with one of the guards at the institution and chief Bromden tries to help them. Nurse Ratched sends both McMurphy and Bromden to electroshock therapy. During this time McMurphy realizes that the chief is not deaf and dumb and they begin to bond. McMurphy’s presence seems to clear the hallucinations that the Chief has. After McMurphy’s electroshock session Nurse Ratched sends him back to the group therapy sessions to show the other patients McMurphy in a weakened state. When McMurphy returns to the group he seems like the shock treatment didn’t harm him.
Later that night McMurphy pays off the night guard at the institution to let people in. Two women enter the mental institution with alcohol and marijuana and the patients have a party. McMurphy sends Billy off into a room with one of the women; Billy loses his virginity. McMurphy planned on escaping from the mental institution that night but he was too drunk and he passes out. When Ratched returns in the morning she sees the mess leftover from the party the night before. Ratched finds Billy in a room with the woman. Ratched tells Billy that he is going to notify his mother and tell her that he had sex with a woman. When Billy hears Ratched’s threat he loses control of himself and commits suicide by stabbing himself in the neck. When McMurphy sees what has happened he attacks Nurse Ratched by chocking her. The guards break up the violence and Nurse Ratched orders the staff to give McMurphy a lobotomy. McMurphy returns to the ward in a vegetative state. Chief Bromden does not want to see McMurphy in a situation like that so he suffocates McMurphy to death with a pillow. Bromden feels like he has overcome his Mental illness after killing McMurphy and breaks out of the mental institution. All of the patient transfer to different hospitals and Nurse Ratched finally becomes weak and loses all of her power (Kesey).
The Movie version of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” has the same plot as the book. The book version is narrated by Chief Bromden while the movie is centered on McMurphy. The movie doesn’t show that Chief Bromden is not deaf and dumb until the scene when McMurphy finds out. The Movie had to make these changes because it would have been almost impossible to portray all of the character development as it is in the book. It would have also been hard to create a visual image on screen of how Chief Bromden perceives his surroundings. The main characters in the book are also slightly different than they are in the movie.
McMurphy is seen as a very smart man in the book. In the movie McMurphy seems like he is actually insane. McMurphy always screams and laughs and creates havoc during every scene in the movie. The movie is set up so the audience cannot tell whether McMurphy is sane or mentally ill. The book show McMurphy as a man that is sane but is losing sanity because all of the things that he is witnessing.
In the book and the movie Nurse Ratched is the exact same character. She is power mad and she rules the whole hospital with an iron fist. Ratched is seen as a ruthless character and keeps control of all of her emotions until McMurphy attacks her at the end.
Chief Bromden’s character is not as developed in the movie. His background is what turned him mentally ill but the movie only briefly talks about the chief’s father who was an alcoholic. Bromden sees the world as a machine and everyone that conforms controls the machine. He believes that everyone that cannot conform to society is sent to mental institutions. The Chief’s background sets up the mood for the entire plot of the book; this mood is never actually achieved in the movie. Hollywood had to change up the way the story is told the movie was written to be fast-paced and if the movie was exactly the same as the book it would be extremely long (Forman).
“One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” is story centered on defying authority when it is too powerful. Both the original book by Ken Kesey and the movie directed by Milos Forman portray the plot very well. The characters in the movie are slightly different than they are in the book. The book is also narrated by the Chief while the movie follows McMurphy. All of the features in the book were too complicated to make the movie exactly the same as the book. The director had to make changes to catch the eye of the movie going crowd.
Works Cited
Kesey, Ken. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. California: Viking
Press, 1962.
Forman, Milos. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Salem, Oregan:
United Artists, 1975.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/OneFlewOverTheCuckoosNest.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y11/coolio421/one_flew_over_the_cuckoos_nest_ver1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jReNeEHH2lQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syPZZxxFCe0&feature=related
Fight Club
Fight Club
“Welcome to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club. The second rule of Fight Club is: you DO NOT talk about Fight Club!” (David Fincher). David Fincher’s 1999 film, “Fight Club” captures the meaningful yet grotesque nature of Chuck Palahniuk’s novel “Fight Club,” but the film was also change by Hollywood because of society’s need for films with justified acts of violence and resolution.
The first half of the film is almost identical to the book with a few exceptions. It all starts with two men on the roof of a skyscraper. A man by the name of Tyler Durden has a gun in the mouth of the nameless narrator. The narrator tells the story of how he got in this predicament. He starts by talking about how he has been going to testicular cancer support group for the two years. He had insomnia and the doctor told him to come to a support group to see real pain. Going to support groups help him sleep at night. He then backs up farther and talks about his job. His job is to travel around the country to look at car accidents to see if the company needs to initiate recalls on certain items. On one of his trips he meets Tyler Durden, a soap salesman. The narrator goes on to talk about all the places he has been. In the book he is very monosyllabic. The movie scenes capture his attitude, “The interior monologue of the narrator becomes the voice-over narration of Edward Norton, delivered in a dead-pan drone that also mirrors the blunt style of Palahniuk’s prose” (Baker). Like the book Fincher also never reveals the narrator’s name. Keeping the narrator nameless gives great meaning to the plot, “This gives the book a sense of “everyman” that I believe forces especially, male readers to identify” (Book Reviewson).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QgFWXLN-ug
The plot begins to discuss how the narrator met Marla Singer. He met her at a support group and when she is there he is unable to cry and consequently sleep at night. He finally confronts her and they decide to split the week. Both Marla and the narrator came to the support groups even though they were not sick. The narrator comes because he is sick of this life, “Our main character is tired of life, tired of his job, tired of wanting to own things only to have those things own him” (Book Reviewson). In the movie he is a skinny normal looking white man, that looks like he has not slept in weeks. Marla Singer was pale white, skinny, and trashy looking in the movie, which is what she is described as in the book. She felt dead compared to everyone else, so she came to support groups to feel better about herself.
When the narrator gets back to his condominium, he finds that it has been blown up. So he calls Tyler and they have a beer. Tyler agrees to let him move in as long as the narrator would do him one favor, “Tyler said, ‘I want you to hit me as hard as you can” (Palahniuk 46). They fight and move in together in an old dilapidated house. They start fighting like this every week until eventually they have a huge group every night coming to fight. In the book Palahniuk stresses the fact that all of this stuff that narrator owns is his identity according to society, “The things you own end up owning you. It’s only after you lose everything that you’re free to do anything” (David Fincher). The movie represents Palahniuk’s view on this subject by placing small descriptions and price tags on everything in the room as if it was in a magazine. Inside Tyler’s house there are stacks of old magazines that are filled with phrases that state a person and an organ or a body part. The film uses this to let the viewer know how the character is feeling, “I am Joe’s Boiling Point” or “I am Joe’s Broken Heart”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agi8PUmlAKU&feature=related
Tyler has a conversation with Marla on the phone and he goes over and gets her because she was trying to commit suicide. The next morning he had come to realize that Tyler and Marla had sex. He becomes very irate because she was intruding on his life, “She had invaded my support groups, now she had invaded my home” (Palahniuk 60). After Marla leaves they begin the process of making soap. Tyler explains all of the explosives that you can get from soap. Fight Club begins to get quite large and Tyler starts giving out homework assignments. Tyler than invents a group called Project Mayhem. It is the next step up from Fight Club. This group goes out and performs random acts of violence throughout the community. There are four divisions: Arson, Assault, Mischief, and Misinformation. A big issue in the book is that each member of project Mayhem has to go buy a gun and make 12 human sacrifices. While in the film they make it a point not to kill anyone unnecessarily.
One of the major differences in the book and the movie is that the movie lacks death. The film is very adamant that no one gets killed. The only person that gets killed is Big Bob and it was accidental. In the novel unjust and unnecessary killings are crucial ingredients to the overall theme of the book, “And just so you don’t worry about it, yes, you’re going to have to kill someone”(Palahniuk 125). These human sacrifices were a sign of loyalty to Project Mayhem. It repeated throughout the book that any one person is expendable. The film strayed from mentioning these human sacrifices because it would have not have been accepted by most viewers. Today’s culture does not want movies to show murders for no reason but to prove loyalty. If there is a murder, than there needs to be a good reason or the man should be punished for his actions. Neither of these things happened in the book. If human sacrifices were kept for the movie, the viewers would have not liked the narrator. The narrator is supposed to be the hero of the story, and heroes cannot murder people for no reason.
The similarities between the book and the movie start to decrease towards the end. Tyler disappears and the narrator finds airplane tickets stubs in his drawer. He travels about the country looking for him, all the while finding more fight clubs. The narrator figures out that Tyler Durden is his split personality. He is everything that he wants to be, “All the ways you wish you could be, that’s me, I look like you want to look, I fuck like you want to fuck. I am smart, capable, and most importantly I am free in all the ways you are not” (David Fincher). The narrator figures out that Tyler planted explosives in all the major credit card buildings and decides to try to stop him.
The book and the movie have completely different endings. In the book Marla follows the narrator when he becomes Tyler and sees him kill people who are opposing fight club. He then goes to roof of the skyscraper and puts a gun in the narrators mouth. The building is supposed to blow up in ten minutes. Tyler disappears as Marla and all the people from the support group come running up and tell him that they want to die with him. The explosives malfunction and nothing blows up, but the narrator then shoots himself. He wakes up in a mental institute that he describes as heaven. He thinks his psychiatrist is God. People who work at the institute walk by and whisper, “We miss you Mr. Durden” and “We look forward to getting you back” (Palahniuk 208). In the movie the Tyler does not kill anyone. The narrator tries to stop the explosions, but Tyler stops him and takes him to the roof. The narrator gets the gun and shoots himself. He shoots himself in the cheek and is ok, but Tyler has a bullet hole through the back of his head and falls to the ground and disappears. Then Marla comes in and they proclaim their love for each other and hold hands as the buildings around them fall to the ground.
The difference between the film and the book is resolution. In the book there is no resolution at the end and everything keeps going as if nothing happened. Project Mayhem members are still there telling him, “We’re going to break up civilization so we can make something better out of the world”(Palahniuk 208). Viewers need resolution at the end in order for it to be an enjoyable movie. Hollywood had to change it to have a nice conclusion to the movie because that is what people like to see. Most of the audience of the movie would not have liked the end of the book because after all the challenges the narrator went through it did not change anything.
David Fincher’s 1999 film, “Fight Club” captures the meaning behind Chuck Palahniuk’s novel “Fight Club”. However, the movie did have a few significant changes in order for it to become more enjoyable to the viewers. In the book human sacrifices and killing to protect fight club is a very common thing, but in the movie they try to steer away from that completely. In fact only one person dies in the movie and that is by accident. Also the movie has a completely different ending then the book. This ending is more conclusive and satisfying then the book’s ending. The movie is almost identical to the book because it maintains the demented and psychotic theme of the book, but changes key events so that it is more enjoyable for the audience.
Works Cited
Baker, Chad. "Evaluating the book to film adaptation of Fight Club - by Chad Baker - Helium." Helium - Where Knowledge Rules. 26 Mar. 2009 <http://www.helium.com/items/587866-evaluating-the-book-to-film-adaptation-of-fight-club>.
Book Reviewson. "Fight Club by Chuck Palahniuk - A Book Review « Scott William Foley." Scott William Foley. 29 Aug. 2008. 26 Mar. 2009 <http://scottwilliamfoley.com/2008/08/29/fight-club-by-chuck-palahniuk-a-book-review/>.
Palahniuk, Chuck. Fight Club: A Novel. New York: W. W. Norton, 2005.
Wallace, Joe. "Fight Club: The Book and Film: Essential Reading and Viewing - Associated Content." Associated Content - associatedcontent.com. 1 Oct. 2005. 26 Mar. 2009 <http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/9377/book_film_of_fight_club_essential_reading.html?cat=38>.
Fight Club. Dir. David Fincher. Perf. Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter. DVD. 20th Century Fox, 1999.
twilight
Figure 1
On June 2, 2003 Stephenie Meyer awoke from a dream and began to write down what she could recall. She was so intrigued by this great love story, and by October of 2005, Meyer had published her first novel, Twilight. The book became an instant success and everywhere people were calling themselves “twilighters” or “fang-girls”. Director Catherine Hardwicke soon noticed the buzz surrounding the book and decided to make Twilight into a movie on November 21, 20808,http://www.twilightlexicon.com/?p=890. Catherine Hardwicke’s film adaptation of Twilight carefully depicts the characterization of the main characters as well as not straying to far form the main story line.
Twilight is a passionate love story between a teenage girl and a young vampire. Isabella ‘Bella’ Swan moves from Phoenix, Arizona to Forks, Washington to live with her father after her mother gets remarried. Bella has always been the clumsy girl in school who doesn’t really fit in, “I stumbled over a book in the walkway and had to catch myself on the edge of the table” (Meyer 23). While in Forks, Bella quickly becomes the object of everyone’s affection. Edward Cullen, the local vampire who can read minds, also notices the new addition to the student body. From the moment she saw Edward, Bella couldn’t stop obsessing over him. Edward wants to do the humane thing and leave Bella alone, but her constant behavior of getting into accidents prevents him from doing so. Edward and his family have chosen to be “vegetarians” and only drink the blood of animals so that they can live among the humans, “I don’t want to be a monster” (Meyer 187). With the help of her friend Jacob, Bella discovers what Edward truly is and only becomes that much more fascinated with him. One night, Edward takes Bella to play baseball with his family. A group of “nomad” vampires happen to be passing by and stop to join in on the game. James, the leader of the pack, smells Bella and wants to drink her blood. When Edward becomes very protective of Bella, he makes the hunt that much more exciting for James because he is a tracker. The chase leads them to a ballet studio where James and the Cullen’s face off in an epic battle. In the battle, James is ripped to pieces and burned, which is the only way to kill a vampire. James managed to bite Bella before he was killed, and Edward has to suck her blood in order to get all of the venom out. After Bella recovers, Edward takes her to the prom. Another “nomad” vampire Victoria is still on the loose, setting the scene for the remainder of the books in twilight saga.
When casting for a movie, it can be difficult finding the right person to play each character. The film version of Twilight did a great job casting the main characters. In her book, Stephenie Meyer described in great detail each of her characters. Bella is pale with brown hair and brown eyes. She also is known to be very clumsy. The Cullens are described as the most beautiful people in the world. Rosalie is a tall blonde with a gorgeous figure, “the kind that made every girl around her take a hit on her self-esteem just by being in the same room” (Meyer 18). Alice is short and pixie like. Emmett was big Figure 2
Figure 2
and muscular, while Jasper was leaner with blonde hair. Edward had a more boyish figure and is the object of everyone’s affection. He was “a perfect statue, carved in some unknown stone, smooth like marble, glittering like crystal” (Meyer 260). Catherine Hardwicke did an excellent job casting the characters. When I was reading the book, I had my idea of what each of the characters looked like. When I found out what actors were playing each character I was thrilled. Each actor fit the description of his or her character so well. It was like the characters literally transformed from the page to real life. Some people were angry about the actor’s chosen, but I do not think the director could have chosen anyone better to fit the roles.
The main characters also did a great job getting into the role of their character. Stephenie Meyer gave Robert Pattinson a copy of Midnight Sun to prepare for the role of Edward. Midnight Sun is the first chapter of Twilight written from Edward’s perspective. Meyer writes, “There was no image violent enough to encapsulate the force of what happened to me in that moment” http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/pdf/midnightsun_chapter1.pdf. Robert Pattinson did a great job of depicting this emotion in the movie. When Bella walked into the room and he smelled her scent, Pattinson immediately covered his face with his hand. He looked absolutely disgusted. Pattinson also showed the love Edward felt for Bella. He spoke in a loving manner when the time called, “and so the lion fell in love with the lamb” (Twilight). In my opinion, Robert Pattinson did a great job displaying the love and heartache Edward experienced in the movie.
Figure 3
I was very impressed by how the movie did not stray far from the book’s storyline. Being such a long book it is hard to fit every detail in the movie. The movie included many direct quotes from the book including, “And you’re worried, not because you’re headed to meet a houseful of vampires, but because you think those vampires wont approve of you” (Meyer 320). Also, Hardwicke elaborated more on some scenes than Meyer did in the book. The movie included a much more dramatic fight scene between James and the Cullens in the ballet studio. James yells at Bella, “Tell him to avenge you” (Twilight). But Bella does not want the Cullens to get involved. However, Edward arrived just in time to save his sweetheart. The intense action of the scene was a great way to draw more boys to the theatre. There were some scenes I wish had made it into the movie, but overall the movie managed to stay close to the main plot.
When Stephenie Meyer first wrote Twilight, she did not know what kind of impact her novel would have on society, or that it would become a movie. Now, four years later, Twilight remains the highest grossing opening weekend ever for a female director. Everywhere people are addicted to Twilight. Hundreds of websites and blogs have even been dedicated to the series, http://laurensbite.blogspot.com/. In my opinion, the cast was perfect and the story line stayed very close to the book.
Works Cited
Figure 1. http://stepheniemeyer.com/twilight_movie.html.
Figure 2. http://stepheniemeyer.com/twilight_movie.html
Figure 3. http://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-content/images/twilightprodphoto.jpg
Lauren. Laurens Bite. Web log. 22 March 2009. 24 March 2009. http://laurensbite.blogspot.com/.
Meyer, Stephenie. “Midnight Sun.” The Official Website of Stephenie Meyer. 24
March 2009. 23 March 2009.
http://www.stepheniemeyer.com/pdf/midnightsun_chapter1.pdf.
Meyer, Stephenie. Twilight. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2005.
“Official Twilight Teaser Trailer.” Twilight Lexicon. 5 May 2008. Twilight Lexicon. 23
March 2009. http://www.twilightlexicon.com/?p=890.
Twilight. Dir. Catherine Hardwicke. Perf. Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson. DVD.
Summit Entertainment, 2008.
The poorly expressed Twilight film
“And so the lion fell in love with the lamb” (Meyer 274). Twilight, the film came out in November 2008 and is about the forbidden love between a mortal (the lamb) and a vampire (the lion). These two characters express their intense love throughout the novel, but fail to show it in the film, which is criticized by much of society. Catherine Hardwicke’s film, Twilight, shows weak expressions and characteristics of most of the characters and fails to show several smaller events that capture the true meaning of what Stephenie Meyer expressed in her novel Twilight in 2005.
Both the film and the novel have the same overall plot summary. A young, pale girl named Bella moves from Phoenix, Arizona to Forks, Washington to live with her father, so she can give her mother the time needed to get to know the new man in her life without her daughter being around. While sitting in the lunch room during her first day at Forks High School, she spots the Cullen family. “I stared because their faces, so different, so similar, were all devastatingly, in humanly beautiful,” is Bella’s reaction towards the Cullen family because they look so very different from the rest of the students (Meyer 19). Her fascination of the Cullen family grows after Edward gives her an awful look in Biology class one day. One icy day, Tyler, a friend of Bella’s, drives over some slippery ice and loses control of his car. Bella has only seconds until the van smashes her into her truck and so she closes her eyes waiting for the impact. In a brief instance, she sees to hands, belonging to Edward, shoot out in front of her to protect her and she feels him gripping her body, swinging her legs out of the way, and her head hits the ground (Meyer 56). After almost being hit by a car, Bella realizes that Edward is different. After Edward saves Bella from another incident in Port Angeles, he drives Bella home and she finds out the truth about him. After asking many questions and telling Edward several theories she has about him, she figures out that he is a, vampire. Once the secret is revealed, Edward and Bella are never seen apart and have created a, never to have thought exist, relationship. After Edward and Bella accept that they cannot be away from one another, both the novel and film go through events and places that the two go together and experience. For example, Bella is taken to watch Edward and the rest of his family play baseball, which can only be played during thunderstorms. They are surprised by some unexpected visitors, who are also vampires, but differences exist. Edward’s family eats only animals, whereas the visiting vampires eat humans. Bella tries her best to hide her scent, but is soon revealed by one of the male vampires, James. Bella is taken out of Forks and to Phoenix to hide until Edward and others catch James and kill him. James gets a hold of Bella and tricks her telling her that he has her mother and she must come to where he is and if she doesn’t, he will kill her mother. Bella goes and is attacked and terribly beaten by James, but Edward and his family save the day. Edward has to suck out the venom from James’s bite and Bella is hospitalized, but both the film and novel have a happy ending with Edward taking Bella to prom.
The film does show the basic plot of what happens in the novel, but it is very poorly expressed and doesn’t illustrate the true characters. Also, various scenes were skipped in the film that would have been crucial in establishing the true meaning. It is very hard for a director to pick out the great pieces from a novel and create this same scene in a film. For instance, Catherine Hardwicke seems to have had her actors and actresses create different roles than the ones expressed in the novel. Secondly, she has definitely shown the major parts from the novel in the film, but left out some minor events that happened in the book that express how much Edward and Bella want to be together and the things that they will do and go through just to make this relationship work.
To analyze this further, one must begin with the actors playing the main characters, starting off with Edward Cullen played by Robert Pattinson and Bella Swan played by Kristen Stewart. They do not express the true passion towards each other in the film, like the desire illustrated in the novel. Edward Cullen was suppose to look like a Greek God with porcelain skin, yet in the film, Robert Pattinson portrayed Edwards as someone who appeared in pain or constipated through the film. He also tried to symbolize him as “the boy next door” (Chang). Robert Pattinson was suppose to extremely express his forbidden love for this mortal, Bella, but he appears to do the opposite with always trying to drive the mortal away and not seeming to care about her. He acts very fierce throughout the film and sometimes shows great rage in some of the scenes. In one part of the movie, he starts having a fit and throwing around tree branches and running around showing Bella that she shouldn’t be with him because of how strong and fast he is.
Bella Swan is a strong, well-behaved and opinionated girl who no doubt loves Edward and cannot stop thinking about him and loses her mind the second he leaves her. However, Kristen Stewart throughout the movie portrays Bella as lifeless and unappealing, which is a sharp contrast than how she is portrayed in the book. In the kiss scene she seems to attack Edward making her seem very immature. It seems like the movie was made for the audience and fans to fall in love with the Edward and Bella’s characters only and not the meaning or movie itself. Catherine Hardwicke portrays Edward the way she does because she wants the girls to fall for the very attractive and physical features of Robert Pattinson rather than the meaning of Edward and how he expresses his love towards Bella. Robert is a very handsome actor and this is why when the movie came out into theaters, so many girls went crazy waiting in line to see him. In an interview Robert Pattinson says,
“I think I played it different to how it is in the book. I felt like I was doing it slightly differently. In the book he is so in control of himself, even though he says he isn’t, you get the feeling of security. When he says I don’t want to do anything to harm you, you know he will never harm you, ever. Many things I had to change because it was different from the book like in the end at the prom, I did silly little things; I tried to make it look painful (Variety Video).”
Even Robert thinks he portrayed Edward Cullen differently than how he was expressed in the novel and when he says that he made the prom scene look painful in the end, he is talking about when he bends down to bite Bella’s neck because she has asked him too, however, in the book he just simply moves his head towards her neck and gently kisses her.
Not only does Catherine Hardwicke not express the major characters the same in the film, but this also applies to some of the minor characters as well. An example of this is Alice Cullen who is one of Edward’s stepsisters. In the novel, Alice is closer to Edward than any of their other siblings and she is the one to rely on and in the end, Bella and Alice become the best of friends. However, in the film, she is shown as a minor character with only a few lines and is non-important to the film. The reason for Alice not being given a big part in this film was because this film is to revolve around Bella and Edward and giving Alice a major part would have taken away from the couple (Pauline). On the other hand, Catherine Hardwicke accomplished recreating some of the characters exactly how they are in the novel and then later into film. An example of this is Carlisle and Esme Cullen who represent the parents. They are just as breathtaking as their adoptive children and show their love and support towards Edward and Bella’s relationship, because Edward hasn’t had anyone special in his life for a very long time now. Carlisle and Esme are minor characters in the film and as well in the novel, so it would be hard for the director to change the way they acted in the film.
Also, another character who takes on the exact description from the novel is the enemy vampire, James. His job is to strike fear into everyone he encounters, including the audience and he portrays such a menace and has a distinct arrogance about him. Changing up James’s character in the film would have been very difficult because Catherine would have had to make the audience aware of how dangerous it was for Bella to be involved in this relationship.
Secondly, there were many scenes and events that happened in the novel, that weren’t shown in the film and these parts may have helped express the meaning instead of just relying on the very attractive actors and actresses. First of all, throughout the novel there were many kiss scenes, but only one scene was shown in the film. The most glaring fault in the film adaption is the kiss scene, which was Bella and Edward’s first kiss and it was suppose to show that they were trying to get past this forbidden love to show how they truly cared for each other no matter what they had to go through to be together. However, it seems as if Catherine Hardwicke was forcing this scene into the film and she makes this part awkward and fast and Bella and Edward aren’t able to express how they really feel about each other. In the book, Edward tells Bella that there was something that he wanted to tell her. He hesitates to test himself, to see if it was safe, and to make sure that he was still in control of his needs. He gently presses his lips softly to hers and Bella’s blood boils and she faints. Maybe Catherine believed that this wasn’t a very important point to the story and that it needed to be short and quick, even though this scene should have been the first moment in Bella and Edward’s relationship when they knew that they could control what was to happen later on in their lives. Second, there is a scene in the book that takes place in Biology class and the activity for the day is to prick one’s finger and see what type of blood they have. Edward skips the day already knowing what was to take place in Biology and Bella fights the dizziness and nausea created from the sight of blood. She ends up being taken to the nurses by a friend, Mike and once outside she lays on the concrete sidewalk, which feels cool on her face. Edward sees them and he freaks out thinking something is terribly wrong with Bella. He picks her up and takes her to the nurses, where she begins to feel better. Another student comes in later with his finger pricked and is dizzy as well, but instead of Edward leaving the room he stays with Bella, making sure she is okay. Edward loves Bella and would never leave her when she is not herself. Edward stayed strong for Bella and was there to help her, even though he is surrounded by fresh blood which is difficult to maintain control of one’s actions when one is a vampire. This scene should have been in the film because it showed that Edward would go through anything for Bella, even if it was something that he could not stand to be around. Finally, in the end of the film when Bella gets the call from James, she goes straight to the ballet studio; however in the book Alice and Jasper take her to the airport to meet up with the rest of the family and this is where she escapes and goes to rescue her mother and meet James. Before going to the airport and after she gets the call from James, she writes a letter to Edward. It basically says that she loves him and is very sorry but that she had to do this because James had her mother and to not go after her because she doesn’t want anyone else getting hurt (Meyer 432). Writing this letter for Edward expresses that Bella really does care, not just for him but for his family. If this was in the film, this would have shown the audience how much their forbidden love had grown and that it is not easy to give up one’s life knowing that they make never see their true love again. Bella was willing to do this for the safety of everyone’s lives.
“First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was part of him and I didn’t know how potent that part might be that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him” (Hardwicke). Bella expresses these three major points in the movie after finding out the truth about Edward. This part of the film was one of the only times that the two characters ever really expressed their true love for each other. If Catherine Hardwicke had made the actors and actresses act somewhat more like the true characters in this book or had added more of the minor events, much of society would not be criticizing the film at this moment and the movie might have been held as an equal success to the novel.
Works Cited
Chang, Justin. Twilight. 19 November 2008. Daily Variety. 23 March 2009. <http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939072.html?categoryid=3565&cs=1>
Hardwicke, Catherine (Director). Twilight. Summit Entertainment, 2008.
Image 1 http://www.myrml.org/teens/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/twilight_movie_poster-7184.jpg
Image 2 <http://www.westportlibrary.org/teenblog/images/twilight_book_cover.jpg>
Image 3 <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3226/3000618480_642bcbcd14.jpg
Image 4 <http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/photo.php?pid=30394573&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=1515840297&id=1248633299>
Image 5<http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/4100000/Esme-And-Carlisle-Cullen-esme-and-carlisle-cullen-4126699-323-498.jpg>
Image 6 <http://www.reelmovienews.com/images/gallery/james-twilight.png>
Image 7 <http://new-moon-movie.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/twilightkissingscene.jpg>
Meyer, Stephenie. Twilight. Little, Brown and Company, 2005.
Pauline, Humphries, K., Gilliam, P., Liufalani, L., Hickman, J., Longo, J., & Foster, R. How does Twilight the movie compare to the book series? 2009. Helium. 23 March 2009. http://www.helium.com/knowledge/199339-how-does-twilight-the-movie-compare-to-the-book-series
Robert Pattinson-Interview. Variety Video. Reed Elsevier Inc., 2009. 23 March 2009. <http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=videoBC&bcpid=714034225&bclid=713046265&bctid=1906945203>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nur4ZqQ4Cu4>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSUS2YgZfQw>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxjNDE2fMjI>
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZzSSrTftFY&feature=PlayList&p=35025209CDEBF77C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=19>
"1984 v. V for Vendetta"
George Orwell’s 1984, published in 1949, contains a fictional dystopian society where totalitarianism really is total. In comparison James McTeigue’s V for Vendetta debuted in 2006 depicting the epic battle of “V” against the oppressive authority of England. Both the book and the movie are testimonies to the phrase “power corrupts, and absolute power absolutely corrupts”. These two futuristic tales are frightenly told in order to warn people of the dangers of authority and how it limits freedom. 1984and V for Vendetta share the same basic setting, conflict, and rising action, yet there are necessary differences that allow the movie version of V for Vendetta to be more marketable to the masses.
First, these two stories have similar settings. 1984 takes place in Oceania, which includes the United Kingdom, where the story is set, known as Airstrip One. It was published in 1949 and therefore written for 35 years into the future. V for Vendetta is also set in London, England in the near future. They also share a similar conflict of overreaching authority jeopardizing personal freedoms. In 1984 the people are ruled by the omnipresent and omnipotent Big Brother and in V for Vendetta the people are ruled by High Chancellor Sutler. In order to maintain control both leaders have to unite the people against a common enemy. In 1984 it is Emmanuel Goldstein who was originally a founding father of Oceania, but he betrayed the party’s ideals and is used as propaganda for Big Brother to unite the people in the “two minute hate” as they show pictures and videos of him (Berg 34-36). Winston is the protagonist in 1984 and he finds himself feeling sorry for Goldstein but the “two minute hate” has him feeling angry after thirty seconds. In V for Vendetta the common enemy is the main character “V” who is portrayed as a terrorist by the High Chancellor. Both main characters recognize the oppressive governments and wish to change them. Winston, in 1984, begins to take action by committing a thought crime by writing “Down with Big Brother” (Orwell 16) over and over again in a journal. V also takes action by planning and executing various terrorist attacks. He plans his pivotal attack based on Guy Fawkes with the saying, “remember, remember the 5th of November, the gun powder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gun powder treason should ever be forgot” (V for Vendetta). In both stories the characters test rules that can be stretched and broken. Evey the main character from V for Vendetta begins in the movie by walking around in the town after curfew and Winston from 1984 also walks in a forbidden place in the parole, or working class, district. Also both governments ban certain items. In 1984 Winston gets in trouble for his journal and in V for Vendetta Dietrich gets in trouble for his Koran. Also both stories blatantly break the rules with their forbidden love. Winston and Julia engage in an affair in 1984 and Evey and V for m a unique love in V for Vendetta. There are consequences in both societies for breaking these rules. Winston and Julia are taken to the ironically named Ministry of Love to be punished for their crimes and those who disobey in V for Vendetta are blacked bagged like Dietrich and Evey’s parents. Finally, both stories are drawn together as at Larkhill, where he is tortured, V is in room 5 and in 1984 room 101, which is binary code for 5, is the infamous torture room (Beck 7).
Although 1984 and V for Vendetta display many similarities, they also show many differences especially in the ending and the way love is portrayed. The biggest difference with the main characters is V acts upon his thoughts and carries out a plan to kill all the doctors who tortured him at Larkhill and to bring justice to the country and Winston begins to act on his thoughts but folds to the government when he is tortured. The main difference in the stories is the endings. Big Brother wins as Winston gives in and “in the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy” (Orwell 74). The government had broken Winston in the climax with the torture of the rats in room 101 and he succumbs to the power and logic of Big Brother and all hope is lost for a revolution. On the other hand, in the end of V for Vendetta V is able to sacrifice himself for the greater good and put his plan into action of blowing up parliament which symbolizes the government and therefore begin the revolution (Philips 3-6). The idea that “people should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people” is brought to life with the ending of this movie ( V for Vendetta). In 1984 Winston and Julia are beaten by their fears and in V for Vendetta V and Evey are liberated by their fears. This difference in the story endings is necessary for many reasons, but mainly due to the fact that Hollywood and the audiences need a happy ending unlike the book version in 1984. Another noted difference in the stories is the renovated and nice newly furnished buildings in V for Vendetta contrasted with the old, broken down buildings and urban decay in 1984. This difference is necessary because audiences want to see the more aesthetically pleasing nice buildings as opposed to the drab old buildings. Also, the extremities of the control, rules, and consequences are much more prevalent in 1984. For example the children in 1984 are so brainwashed they will turn in their own parents for disobeying the laws, but in V for Vendetta the children are not as harsh and even end up joining the revolution (Orwell 16-17). This difference is necessary because Hollywood cannot go to the extreme of children tuning evil because it will not sit well with the common audience. Also the people in V for Vendetta have more freedoms that the people in 1984 who have the extremities of thought police and telescreens. The more freedoms is necessary since it makes the movie more realistic and to make a more lasting impression on the audience. Another big difference is the way love is portrayed in both stories. In 1984 all pleasure is removed from sex and love is not accepted. On the other hand, in V for Vendetta the families are allowed to co-exist and love and sex are not flaunted but at least accepted. A movie with no love or sex would not do well in Hollywood, so the movie version must have these elements. Another large difference with love in the movie is the ending of the couples in each story. In 1984 Julia and Winston betray each other in the end and fall prey to Big Brother, while V and Evey profess their love to each other in the end as V sacrifices himself for the cause. This is necessary because Hollywood movies usually have the main love interest work out for the best.
George Orwell’s 1984 explores the dangers of totalitarianism, psychological manipulation, physical control, and control of information and history. In contrast James McTeigue’s V for Vendetta illustrates the epic fight of “V” against the oppressive authority of England. The book and the movie both display the power of authority and the dangers of it being in the wrong hands. These two dystopian narratives allow audiences of movie viewers and readers alike to appreciate his or her freedoms and warn against the slippery slope to lose them. 1984 and V for Vendetta share many of the same basic theatrical elements, but the differences allow the movie to be more entertaining to the public as a film medium and the book to be more fulfilling as a print medium of the same message.
Works Cited
Beck, Bernard. "Reaping the Whirlwind: The Wind That Shakes the Barley, Liberation and After in the Movies." Multicultural Perspectives 10.1 (Jan. 2008): 24-26. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Mullins, Fayetteville, AR. 26 Mar. 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31561397&site=eho st-live&scope=site>.
Berg, Chris. "'Goddamn you all to hell!': The revealing politics of dystopian movies. (Cover story)." Institute of Public Affairs Review Mar. 2008: 38+. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Mullins, Fayetteville, AR. 26 Mar. 2009 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=31720011&site=eho st-live&scope=site>.
Phillips, Lawrence. "Sex, Violence and Concrete: The Post-war Dystopian Vision of London in Nineteen Eighty-Four." Critical Survey 20.1 (Jan. 2008): 69-79. Academic Search Elite. EBSCO. Mullins, Fayetteville, AR. 24 Mar. 2009 <http://0- search.ebscohost.com.library.uark.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=33535139& site=ehost-live>.
“Picture 1” http://openvein.com/image/s/vforvendetta.jpg
“Picture 2” http://img.listal.com/image/products/200/B000B83Z4O/dvds/-v-vendetta-169090.jpg
“Picture 3” http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/pics/1984/1984-signet1981.jpg
“Picture 4” http://www.cheesebikini.com/art/1984.jpg
Orwell, George. 1984.Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc. 1949.
V for Vendetta. Dir. McTeigue, James. Perf. Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rae, and John Hurt. Silver Pictures, 2006.
"The River"
Paragraph. “The River”
By using historical literary criticism through a biographical aspect, we are able to take parts of Bruce Springsteen’s history and background to determine the specific meaning in the lyrics of the song “The River.” In 1979 Bruce Springsteen introduced the song “The River” at the No Nukes concert at Madison Square Garden (mixonline.com).” In the time this song was written, the economy was suffering which is a historical basis to the nature of “The River.” Furthermore, dipping into Springsteen’s biography shows us another aspect that heavily influences the nature of this song. Springsteen’s poetic “The River” has been said to be possibly this superstar’s finest work.
Bruce Springsteen’s single, “The River”, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q3LvjD-eZ8> was first performed in 1979 in Madison Square Garden and has since been come to be known as one of his most popular and touching songs. The song begins with Bruce explaining where the character in his poem comes from, down in the valley where he is enrolled in high school raised by a poor family. Springsteen uses first person through the entire song which is a use of verbal irony, as the person he is actually talking about is his brother-in-law. The entire song is true and continues on to tell us that Bruce (but actually his brother-in-law) took his girlfriend down to the river where at nineteen he got her pregnant. Springsteen writes, “Oh down to the river we’d ride, Then I got Mary pregnant, and man that was all she wrote, and for my nineteenth birthday I got a union card and a wedding coat.” The song goes on to express despair at a seemingly jovial situation as the tone of the song tends to bring across a sense of being at a funeral other than a wedding. The song then continues to stay that Springsteen was forced to get a job to support the family, but because of the economy, jobs were scarce. Springsteen writes “Now all those thing that seemed so important, well mister they vanished right in the air.” This describes how the mistake Springsteen made ruined his dreams and aspirations for the future, as he was now forced to work a dead-end job just to support his new family. The song concludes with Springsteen recanting on childhood memories that “haunt me like a curse” and sends him “down to the river, my baby and I, oh down to the river we ride.”
We can further understand lyrical meaning in “The River” by taking a historical point of view to analyze the song. In the song Springsteen states he cannot find much work, on account of the economy. When this song was written, America was experiencing inflation and slow economic growth post World War II. (bookrags.com) Springsteen’s character in “The River” is feeling the hardships brought on by this recession in his struggle to find good work to support his new family. In the lyrics it is stated that Springsteen’s character “got a job working construction for the Johstown Company. But lately there ain’t been much work on account of the economy.” This line infers that Springsteen was let off from his job and forced to find new work, much like thousands of American are experiencing now in our economic struggles in 2009. By using a historical literary approach we can determine that the events in his life and the world at this time had heavy influences on how this song was construed. If the character in Springsteen’s song was not a victim of the times then this song would have been missing several key elements as well as the historical criticism literary criticism device to approach it.
Historical approaches to literature can be studied in three aspects, including biographical, cultural, or political.(McMahan) In the case of Springsteen’s the river we can use the biographical aspect to further understand the background of this song through the song’s featured character’s past personal experiences. As explained earlier, the character the song “The River” is about is Springsteen’s brother-in-law and actual events in this character’s life that led to the creation of this song. “The River” is “based on conversations Springsteen had with his brother-in-law. After losing his construction job, he worked hard to support his wife and young child, but never complained” (songfacts.com). The series of events is clearly stated through Springsteen’s lyrical poetry when he states that his brother-in-law was let off by the Johnstown Construction Company in lieu of the suffering economy. Also stated in “The River” is the situation of Springsteen’s brother-in-law getting his girlfriend (Springsteen’s sister) pregnant and in turn being compelled to an early marriage. This is also a true statement, as the “shotgun wedding in the story relates to Springsteen’s sister who got married as a teenager” (songfacts.com). Apparently, when Springsteen’s sister first heard the song she “knew it was about her and her husband” <http://www.songfacts.com/ >. By dipping into Springsteen’s biography we are able to use another type of literary criticism to analyze “The River.” The events that actually transpired in Springsteen’s life had monumental value to the weight of this song.
Thanks to the techniques used in historical literary criticism through a biographical context we can thoroughly analyze this particular song. When superstar Bruce Springsteen introduced “The River” to audiences in 1979 he told a compelling story of two young teens and their struggles to get by in a bad economy and support a new family. By taking a historical critique to “The River” we can discover how the events going on in the world at the time this song was written heavily influenced the nature of the work. Furthermore by dipping into Springsteen’s biography we see the events that transpired in the song were actually true which gave us another way to critique. Springsteen’s “The River” is a touching and compelling story of life and its struggles for families in the late 1970s.
Works Cited
Droney, Maureen. "Classic Tracks: Bruce Springsteen's "The River"" Mix. 1 Oct.
2003. 2 Mar. 2009 <http://mixonline.com/recording/interviews/audio_bruce_springsteens_river/>.
Gale, Thomas. "America 1970-1979: Business and the Economy." Bookrags. 2005-2006. 3 Mar. 2009 <http://www.bookrags.com/history/america-1970s-business-and-the-economy/>.
"The River." Songfacts. 3 Mar. 2009 <http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=997>.
McMahan, Elizabeth. Critical Approaches for Interpreting Literature. New Jersey Pearson Prentice Hall.
Image 1 http://blog.jacarandafm.com/breakfast/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/bruce-springsteen.jpg
Image 2 http://www.allaboutjazz.com/photos/profile/bruce_springsteen.jpg
Image 3 http://cathylwood.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/bruce_springsteen.jpg
Title.
Film of the 1950s is renown for an array of classic westerns. Among these timeless movies is the 1957 Walt Disney Productions movie, Old Yeller. Directed by Robert Stevenson, it is strictly based on the book Old Yeller, written by Fred Gipson just one year previous (1956). The movie’s screenplay is also written by Fred Gipson, and his book version was written with the purpose of being used and transformed to a film audience. This explains the strict parallel versions of this story. The 144 page book about a country family and their heroic dog sets up a smooth conversion to a visual version in film. Walt Disney Productions brings this story to mainstream audiences with film as it utilizes a popular western premise and action filled events to demonstrate the path to manhood found originally in the book.
Image 1 Image 2
During the 1950’s, images of western life and western heroes fascinated American audiences. The ruggedness of a Texas cattle drive and the thrill of a pursuit via horseback left people wanting more. Everything from the legendary movies starring John Wayne, to films like, Oklahoma! and, Annie Get Your Gun, all utilized the wild west to capture America’s attention during this era. Both the film and literature version of Old Yeller were no exception, as both came out in the 1950s, and both had identical western settings. Professor Yahnke at the University of Minnesota describes what is happening during this time: “With the 1950s came the advent of television sets in every home… what begins to happen [in the 1950s]is a movement away from the big Studio Film to the little film about believable characters” (Yahnke). Old Yeller gives the audience a personal glance at the lives of a western family. Old Yeller takes place on a Texas ranch sometime during the 1860s when financial stability is scarce. “Papa” leaves the family to go on a cattle drive where he hopes to bring money back to the family. The book says; "Still, they needed money, and they realized that whatever a man does, he's bound to take some risks" (Gipson 3). The risk was that the family was alone without a man, their father, to help and protect them. This leaves “Mama” and her two younger boys, Arliss (age 7) and Travis (age 15), to fend for themselves. A conversation in the film between the two brothers shows this: “Arliss: What's Papa gonna sell our steers for? Travis: For money, of course. Arliss: What's money? Travis : That's what you buy things with. Arliss: What do you mean by buy things? Travis: Well when you have money, you give it to people for stuff. They say you can get anything for money” (Old Yeller). As the man of their family, Papa tries to overturn the financial instability. As shown in their conversation, this is not fully understood by the two young brothers. Without any hesitation, the film and book bring old yeller, a dog, into the picture to fill the gap that Papa left as the man of the family.
Image 3:
Old Yeller, the hero in this western story, comes on the scene as soon as Papa is gone. Disney movies in the 1950s had a strong way of introducing characters with theme songs. (Here is a link to the Old Yeller theme song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_bz-hpSf4s). The book describes this dog character like this: "He was a big ugly slick-haired yeller dog. One short ear had been chewed clear off and his tail had been bobbed so close to his rump that there was hardly stub enough left to wag" (Gipson 16). Old yeller is not a majestic dog and author and directors leave no room for him to have any splendor from the sight of him at all. Because of this, Old Yeller is rejected from most of the family at the start. In spite of being loathed by Travis at first, Old Yeller takes a strong role protecting the family while Papa was gone soon after he comes into the story. Since there was no longer a man to take head of the household, Old yeller begins protecting and helping the family in a multitude of ways. Both the book and film extensively illustrate this with numerous action packed events that bring difficulty and danger to the fatherless family. One movie critic describes this by saying, “Most of the show is little more than a charming series of animal incidents. We have bucking horses, raiding raccoons, hiding snakes, brawling bears, attacking hogs, and charging mother cows. Old Yeller manages to be a hero…” (Rhodes).
The book and movie are made to be appealing to a family audience. The events keep readers or viewers excited and anxious for more, while growing them deeper in love with the scrappy mongrel, Old Yeller. In every incident, the emphasis is on Old Yeller saving the day. The first example of this is prominently shown when Old Yeller saves Arliss from an angry black bear. Travis tries initially to save him, but is an inadequate savior. Nonetheless, Old Yeller comes to save Arliss from the bear, and Travis begins to appreciate Old Yeller. Although each event in the movie and book seem predictable and typical to other ordinary dog movies, they are set apart from the others. The beauty of the countryside captured in film, and utilization of an old rugged dog to fend off wildlife is exclusive to this movie. In this black bear example, the bear is strikingly wild and appearing undomesticated in its natural environment, making this scene a beautiful image. It is brilliant how Stevenson and Gipson are able to use an old dog in the movie instead of a prominent actor like John Wayne, to make this western story as great and unique as it is. This trailer of a western movie of the 1950s shows the vital role of having a dominant male hero:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6rZ28ObFUI .
These action filled scenes build off each other in the book just like in the movie and eventually there is an even deeper threat. The rabies virus had been spreading rapidly throughout the region they live. In the movie, the family is educated of the rabies’ symptoms by Burn Sanderson, a family acquaintance, who said,
Burn Sanderson: You can't hardly tell at first, not till they get to the point of slobbering and staggering around. When you see a critter in that fix, you know for sure. But you want to watch for others that ain't that far along. Now, you take a bobcat or a fox. You know they'll run if you give 'em the chance. But when one don't run, or maybe makes fight at you, why, you shoot him and shoot him quick. After he's bitten you, it's too late. (Old Yeller)
This poses danger to the family, because this disease is shown most prevalent in wildlife, which is what Old Yeller continues to make interactions with in order to protect the family. Eventually in the film and book, Travis esteems Old Yeller even higher, and so do the audiences. At this time, with the peril of rabies lingering, Old Yeller fights his last fight with a rabid wolf. It becomes very clear in both stories that Old Yeller has rabies and will then be a dangerous threat to the family. Suddenly the story shifts from the triumphs of this heroic dog, to a boy becoming a man. With the safety of the family at stake and Papa being gone, Travis finds it his duty to kill Old Yeller. It is at the fall of his beloved dog that Travis becomes a man. Papa said this in the movie about what happens to men: “Papa: Now and then, for no good reason, life will haul off and knock a man flat” (Old Yeller). This could not be more evident in this situation, when after many obstacles Travis faces heartbreak. In the book, describing his change of fervor towards old Yeller, Travis says: "He made me so mad at first that I wanted to kill him. Then, later, when I had to kill him, it was like having to shoot some of my own folks. That's how much I'd come to think of the big yeller dog" (Gipson 1). When Old Yeller dies, both in the movie and in the novel, it is bluntly sad. There is not many other ways besides sad to describe the ending of Old Yeller. One movie critic describes the ending: “The emotional impact of the ending is matched by only a few films” (Walls). The role of the man in the family transitions after Papa leaves, and Old Yeller takes part of this role over by protecting the family. Ultimately, Travis succeeds during hardship and becomes a man. The journey through the story in the book and the movie is a wonderful illustration of this major theme.
The short book Old Yeller, from 1956, directly set up its film replica one year later in a parallel fashion. This smooth conversion enabled it to be a magnificent piece in cinema. Robert Stevenson was able to make this story into a classic western which flourished even among some of the other timeless western films of that era. The endless action and beautiful countryside setting found in Fred Gipson’s book, made for a wonderful motion picture. Walt Disney Productions demonstrates well the theme of the path to manhood found originally in the book. The book and movie of this story both establish how Old Yeller is about much more than a boy’s friendship with his dog, but about a boy becoming a man. As Papa said, “Now and then, for no good reason, life will haul off and knock a man flat” (Old Yeller). With the obstacles Travis faced and with the emotional ending of Old yeller, Travis got knocked flat and became a man.
Works Cited
Gipson, Fred. Old Yeller. Harpercollins, 1956.
Old Yeller. Dir. Robert Stevenson. Perf. Dorothy Mcguire and Tommy Kirk. Walt Disney Productions, 1957.
Rhodes, Steve. "Old Yeller." All-Reviews.com Movie/Video Review. 1996. 22 Mar. 2009 <http://www.all-reviews.com/videos-3/old-yeller.htm>.
Walls, Jeff. "Old Yeller." 22 Mar. 2009 <http://www.allmovieportal.com/m/1957_Old_Yeller63.html>.
Yahnke, Robert. "Cinema History, Chapter 4 The 1950s--Focus on American Films." University of Minnesota. 23 Mar. 2009 <http://www.tc.umn.edu/~ryahnke/film/cinema4.htm>.
Image 1 http://guyfawkessociety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/old-yeller2.jpg
Image 2 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_vqvrCz_OYTo/R6Vwlli97iI/AAAAAAAAAKI/J7MS1kf5Ink/s400/Yellercover
Image 3 http://www.bettiesharpe.com/graphics/blog/images/Old-Yeller-movie-01.jpg
The Legend of Sweeney Todd
The eerie legend of Sweeney Todd is one that has been told for hundreds of years to spark fear in those who hear it. It combines comedy, horror, and tragedy all into one story. However, the first time it was actually written into a play was in 1973 by Christopher Bond, which was later transformed into a musical by Stephen Sondheim. It soon after became a very popular musical that has been adapted and redone countless times since. The most recent version of Sweeney Todd is the golden-globe winning movie directed by Tim Burton released in 2007 starring Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter (view the trailer at, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_hgrfZVlJA). The thing to notice about this version is that it really compliments the aspects and plot of the play, while in return also making its own unique characteristics of a must see movie. Stephen Sondheim, the music director, said, “This really is an attempt to take the material of the stage musical and completely transform it into a movie. It’s not a movie of a stage show, this is a movie based on a stage show” (Sondheim in interview).
Sweeney Todd is a story of revenge and how it “eats itself up” (Sondheim in interview). The main plot is that Judge Turpin ruined Benjamin Barker, a.k.a. Sweeney Todd’s, life by falsely sentencing him to prison so that Turpin may take his wife and child. Once Todd returns fifteen years later to hear his wife is dead and Turpin has his daughter he becomes completely consumed with revenge and avenging his wife’s death that he turns into a serial murderer. He kills everyone that comes to his barbershop for a shave, hoping that Turpin and his accomplice, Beadle, would be among them. Todd teams up with Mrs. Lovett who makes the “worst pies in London,” and helps him with his plan for revenge (Carter in Sweeney Todd). Mrs. Lovett then comes up with a way to dispose of the bodies that Todd kills – by turning them into delicious meat pies! Surprisingly, the meat pies turn out to be very popular among the town people, and Todd and Lovett have a successful business in their hands now (Sweeney Todd).
Todd eventually kills the Beadle and the Judge and just once he thinks “his demons are silenced” and the revenge he sought after was finally completed he learned of something terrible (Logan 113). His wife was not dead when he returned like Mrs. Lovett led him to believe, but she was one of the people that Todd had killed in his mad rage without knowing it was her (Sweeney Todd). Mrs. Lovett lied to Todd because she wanted to be the one he loved and when asked why she lied she said to Todd, “I was only thinking of you” (Carter in Sweeney Todd). In fury, Todd throws Mrs. Lovett into the oven, but when he turns around he is surprised to see Toby, the young boy that Mrs. Lovett hired to help run the shop who was the only one to catch on to what Todd was up to. Toby then slits Todd’s throat, ironically killing him the same way that he had killed his victims (Sweeney Todd).
Although the movie and the stage musical have the same plot and almost the same script, there are quite a bit of differences in the movie that led to it becoming number one throughout the world. Burton had seen the play three times and “he was very excited about the possibility of reinventing the musical into a movie” (MacDonald in interview). When asked in an interview about Burton, Johnny Depp said that this movie is completely “his vision.” Burton himself was quoted saying he wanted “to be as true to the spirit of the story” regardless of what changes they made to it (interview).
One of the major aspects of the movie that cannot be put into a live play is the creativity of the cameras filming the movie. One noticeable thing is the dark and graphic coloring of the film, just like an old gothic horror movie. From the opening scene until Todd takes his last dying breath, everything looks washed out except for the deep red color of blood. Also, the way the camera angles move and slide to emphasize certain scenes. For example, in this clip (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh-qbXqGm5M) when Todd is reunited with his razors and says the dramatic line, “my arm is complete again,” the camera sharply focuses in on Todd and then continues to zoom out through the window, but keeping him in focus the whole time (Depp in Sweeney Todd). Another difference that is harder to do on a live performance is the graphic bloody violence. On a stage performance they can use blood, but it is very limited compared to the gore that a director can add to the movie with all of the special effects and editing being put to use. “Film gives you an opportunity unlike a stage production to do Sweeney Todd with full blood,” (Rickman in interview).
Another major aspect that added to the brilliance of the play while enhancing the likeability of the movie was Burton’s choice of a cast. He chose Johnny Depp to play the character of Sweeney Todd and “Johnny Depp plays him like only Johnny Depp can do” (Richard D. Zanuck in interview). Burton was so set on having Depp play the lead that he signed him on before he had ever heard him sing before, and luckily, he was happily surprised when he saw and heard what Depp could do with his voice and the character (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cJLmYPgUhk). Johnny Depp completely takes on the character of Sweeney Todd and makes it his own, mesmerizing everyone who watches. The advantage of making a movie is being able to use top of the line actors like Depp who have been acting for a long time and are very well respected. One big surprisingly thing about this entire cast is that every one of them used their own voices in the movie with no help from the computer (Burton). This is one element that really relates the stage production of Sweeney Todd to Burton’s movie version because when the actors are on stage they are truly singing themselves, and when the actors in his movie are on screen they really are singing themselves as well.
One of the biggest choices Burton made about this movie was to take out quite a few lines from the original script. When an audience watches the play and then sees the movie they may notice some of the more vulgar and/or controversial lines from the original play or not used in the movie. It is as if Burton wanted to avoid any controversy topics like religion or foul language in his movie. For example, in the original play the young boy Toby says, “She’s a real lady. Model of all true Christian virtue” and “you’re a real Christian indeed” but these comments were simply removed from the movie script (Logan pg 33-34). Most of the vulgar and curse words from the original play were removed from the movie as well, even though the movie still remained at an R rating for bloody violence. Another major part that was left out of the movie was the idea of Todd’s ghosts that follow him throughout the play. These ghosts represented his anger and the need for revenge that he let haunt him but were simply never shown or mentioned in Burton’s movie.
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street is a tale that will continue to haunt audiences for many years to come, and as been adapted into countless plays and movies, yet some stand out more than others. Tim Burton’s 2007 movie of Sweeney Todd compliments the original play by keeping the script and plot, but also adding elements to make it one of the most memorable movies of all time.
Works Cited
Bond, Christopher, John Logan, and Stephen Sondheim. Sweeney Todd. 2006. <www.broadwayworld.com>
Official Sweeney Todd Trailer. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_hgrfZVlJA>.
Sweeney Todd and Judge Turpin Picture. <http://content.expressen.se/blog/66/02/10/linusfilmblogg/images/sweeney-todd-depp1.jpg>
Sweeney Todd and Ms. Lovett Picture. <http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/de57/SweeneyTodd.jpg>
Sweeney Todd. Dir. Tim Burton. Dreamworks, 2007.
Sweeney Todd: Bonus Disc. E.P.K. Interviews and footages include, Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, Laurie MacDonald, Alan Rickman, Stephen Sonhheim, and Richard D. Zanuck. Sam Hurwitz Productions, 2007.
Sweeney Todd Movie Poster. <http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2007/07/27/sweeney-todd-poster.jpg>
Sweeney Todd Song 5: My Friends. By Tim Burton. Ft. Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh-qbXqGm5M>
Sweeney Todd Song 12: Pretty Women. By Tim Burton. Ft. Johnny Depp, Alan Rickman. <http://ww
Title.
J. Blackburn
March 23, 2009
“ Odysseus, Where Art Thou”
The Odyssey and O Brother, Where Art Thou? are more similar then most think. The main struggles are virtually the same throughout the book and movie. “O Brother Where Art Thou?” is the modern day version of Homer’s The Odyssey. The movie makes references to the book throughout the whole dialogue. Many of the same names are used for the characters as well. “The film is a Homeric journey through Mississippi during the Depression,” says Roger Ebert. (Suntimes.com). There are Plot Parallels throughout the whole movie.
“O Muse! Sing in me, and through me tell the story…” This is the line of text shown at the beginning of O Brother, Where Art Thou? It is also the first line in the Odyssey. This is the only “direct reference” the movie gives to the book (wikipedia.com). However, there is much more that links the two throughout the movie. One of the more clear references was the Sirens, sea nymphs that are said to be found on an island near Italy, and to lure mariners to destruction (dictionary.net).The main characters in the movie are seduced and tricked by wash ladies in the river. In the Odyssey Odysseus and his men encounter a very similar situation in with Sirens attempt to seduce him and his men, thus causing them to wreck their ship on the rocks (book 12). Another bold reference is to Tiresias, the blind ghost prophet (book 11). The main characters in O Brother, Where Art Thou? experience a similar blind prophet in the form of a blind hobo on the railroad tracks. Odysseus had a bad encounter with a Cyclops on his struggle towards home (book 9). The same encounter is experienced in the movie. The main characters are enjoying a picnic when a large one-eyed man attacks them. The lotus-eaters in the Odyssey are also depicted in the movie by people walking “trancelike to be baptized” (wikipedia.com). In the Odyssey while Odysseus is away many suitors seek his wife’s hand in marriage (book 22). O Brother, Where Art Thou refers to this in the scene where the main character, Ulysses Everett Mcgill, fights a man who is planning on marring his wife, Penny. Throughout the movie the sheriff, who represents Poseidon, chases the main characters. Poseidon, in ancient mythology, is the God of the sea and earthquakes (dictionary.net). In the end of the movie the sheriff is about to hang the main characters when a giant flood comes and swallows everything, very similar to the flood Poseidon causes in the Odyssey. Another reference is made to ancient mythology in the movie when a bank robber shots a cow. In the Odyssey some of Odysseus’s men kill the sun god’s sacred cows (book 12). The men are killed later by a thunderbolt from the sun god, Apollo. In the movie’s version of this the main characters are giving a bank robber a ride, not knowing who he was at the time. The robber randomly shots someone’s livestock. Later in the movie he is caught and is being taken to the electric chair with a mob behind him. Someone had a cow with them and people in the background are yelling, “cow killer”. In the Odyssey a witch turns some of Odysseus’s men into a pig (book 10-11). In the movie one of the men believed a witch turned one of the main characters into a toad. References like these occur all throughout the movie these are some of the main ones.
The movie also plays with the names of the characters. The main character’s name in the movie is Ulysses, with is the Latin form of Odysseus (wikipedia.com). Names such as Menelaus, Homer, and Penny (the shortened form of Penelope) are also names of characters in the movie. In the movie the main character, Ulysses, considers himself the leader and the smart one. Sometimes his pride hinders him and his journey home. The same is true with Odysseus in the Odyssey.
The similarities are undeniable. The movie goes back to the book in nearly every scene, either referring to something that occurred in the book or using the same name for a character.Many people feel the movie brings “Homer's ODYSSEY to the depression-era South” (rottentomatoes.com).O Brother, Where Art Thou?is clearly a modern day version of the Odyssey.
WORKS CITIED
· http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/o_brother_where_art_thou/
· http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20001229/REVIEWS/12290301/1023
· http://www.dictionary.net/siren
· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_Brother,_Where_Art_Thou%3F#Similarities_between_the_film_and_The_Odyssey
· http://www.bookrags.com/notes/od/PART10.htm
· O Brother, Where Art Thou?
"A Series of Unfortunate Events"
Lemony Snicket is the writer of a sequence of books called, “A Series of Unfortunate Events.” His first three stories; “The Bad Beginning, 1999,” “The Reptile Room, 1999,” and “The Wide Window, 2000,” were created into a film by Brad Silberling in 2004, so cleverly called, “Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events.” After a brief synopsis of the plot of these stories, “A Series of Unfortunate Events,” one will then read some of the many differences that came out of the film to make the visuals more climatic, dynamic and suspenseful. These stories are very unfortunate and are not for the light hearted; however they are great to read, and although the film has its slight differences from the original plot, it is well reworked to make the movie itself more climatic and absorbing.
The stories of “A Series of Unfortunate Events” relate one misfortune after another that occurs to the Baudelaire children, Violet, Klaus, and Sunny. First, the children are at the beach when they are told that their house had burned down, killing their beloved parents and destroying all of their possessions. The now Baudelaire orphans are then left to an evil guardian, Count Olaf. This so called relative of the orphans is only out to secure the fortune of the Baudelaire’s. However, the children counter Olaf’s plans, and spend thereafter escaping from his immoral schemes.
The children lose two of their guardians to Count Olaf’s murderous plots, including their great Uncle Monty, who was known for his infatuation with reptiles, and their Aunt Josephine who was fearful about anything and everything. Although throughout these stories the Baudelaire orphans find everything continuing to go from bad to worse, they overcome their difficulties by sticking together, and always being on the top of every situation. Life never improves for these poor and unfortunate orphans, but the Baudelaires, who are bright, decent, and determined, manage to get out of one problematic situation after another.
Like the books, the film contains an assortment of clues to the mystery of the Baudelaire’s parents’ deaths. For instance the children discover that all of their relatives seemed to own spyglasses, and attain one themselves in the end of the movie. Count Olaf has an eye-shaped tattoo on his ankle, and Aunt Josephine’s wide window is also eye-shaped. However, the movie has many differences, for example, the initials “V.F.D.” can be spotted throughout the movie although in the books the orphans do not see this until, “The Austere Academy,” which is the fifth book of the series. The initials are first seen near the beginning of the movie while Klaus is searching through the burnt down home and tries to grab the hot spyglass in his father’s desk next to a green box of cigarettes labeled V.F.D. (A Series of Unfortunate Events). The initials can also be spotted while the Baudelaires are pulling the track switcher; Count Olaf is holding a magazine and on the back cover it reads, “Veritable French Diner,” clearly stating, V.F.D. (A Series of Unfortunate Events).
One of the strangest differences in this movie is the very beginning. The film features a false-start opening sequence called “The Littlest Elf” (A Series of Unfortunate Events). It is a very strange beginning, but Silberling, the director, fits it into the movie to give us the same pre-warning that the book gives us about how unpleasant and sorrowful this movie is. Silberling incorporates this tune periodically throughout the movie during terrible unfortunate events, creating an ironic humor to the film.
Another big difference between the book and the film is the ending of the movie. In the series, the wedding takes place in chapter thirteen of, “The Bad Beginning” (The Bad Beginning 145-162). Nevertheless, in the film, the wedding takes place at the end of the storyline of the third book. This was changed to give the film a better climactic ending (A Series of Unfortunate Events). However, in the book, the wedding was one of the main reasons for the children to be taken way from Count Olaf. Therefore, a scene had to be added in the movie to continue on with the original plot. In this scene, Olaf tries to kill the Baudelaires by stopping his car on the railroad and locking them inside and waited for the train to come. Mr. Poe, the orphan’s true guardian, arrived and took the children away from Olaf’s care due to bad parenting for letting Sunny drive the car (A Series of Unfortunate Events).
An additional difference between the story and the film is about the ending from, “The Reptile Room,” the second book of the series. In the book, the story goes on about how Sunny bites the Hook-Handed Man’s, one of Olaf’s crazed partners, fake, disguised hands in order to prove that “Stephano” is actually Count Olaf in disguise and that he is trying to frame the “Incredibly Deadly Viper” for killing Uncle Monty (The Reptile Room). In the movie, Sunny instead played with the “Incredibly Deadly Viper,” to prove that it was a harmless creature and that it did not, as a matter of fact, kill their great Uncle Monty, for it was far too innocent of a creature to do such harm (A Series of Unfortunate Events).
One more variation in the film and the story is when Olaf leaves Aunt Josephine alone to fend for herself on the sinking boat. The book’s ending, on the other hand, is far more disturbing: Count Olaf, “using both hands, pushe[s] her over the side of the boat,” into the lake full of Lachrymose Leeches just waiting to sink their teeth into her (The Wide Window 191). The Baudelaires then later discover the torn bits and pieces of her lifejacket floating along the shore, causing all of their feelings of hope that somehow Aunt Josephine made it out alive disappear.
Another change from the book is that Count Olaf is shown to be responsible for starting the fire at the Baudelaire mansion by pointing a giant, eye-shaped magnifying glass at the house. The only story that has any evidence for this was, “The Slippery Slope,” which is the tenth book in the series, when a few of the characters talk about how Olaf will probably burn down their houses, and Klaus claims to have the proof for it (The Slippery Slope). The orphans secretly believed him to be responsible for the cause of all their troubles, and when they accused him, Olaf only denied it, telling them that they knew absolutely nothing at all (The Slippery Slope).
The transformation of Lemony Snicket’s, “A Series of Unfortunate Events,” novels was remarkably reworked into a one of a kind movie. Although the plot was twisted around, many details were left out, and others new scenes were added in by Silberling, the storyline is seamless. Even though the original plot is great, some of the new warped elements made the movie more climatic, energetic and gripping. This movie, “A Series of Unfortunate Events,” does have its many differences from the stories; however, the movie was brilliantly worked into a visual masterpiece by Silberling with great climax points and fascinating camerawork.
Works Cited
“Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004).” Hollywood. <http://www.hollywood.com/movie/Lemony_Snickets_A_Series_of_Unfortunate_Events /420481>.
Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events. Dir. Brad Silberling. Perf. Jim Carrey, Liam Aiken, and Emily Browning. 2004. DVD. Paramount Pictures and Dreamworks.
“Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events.” IMDb. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0339291/>.
Picture 1 <http://us.movies1.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_ pix/paramount_pictures/lemony_snicket_s_a_series_of_unfortunate_events/_group_phot os/brad_silberling29.jpg>.
Picture 2 <http://lancemannion.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/bad_beginning.jpg>.
Picture 3 <http://www.freewebs.com/sugary_snicket/ASOUE.jpg>.
Snicket, Lemony. A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Bad Beginning. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999.
Snicket, Lemony. A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Reptile Room. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999.
Snicket, Lemony. A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Slippery Slope. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2003.
Snicket, Lemony. A Series of Unfortunate Events: The Wide Window. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2000.
A Hollywood Hero
In 850 C.E., an unknown author wrote a classic epic called Beowulf. This epic portrays a hero, by the name of Beowulf that courageously slays monsters saving the clans of the Danes and the Geats. This story for ages has been a classic that thousands of readers have enjoyed and studied. In 2007, director Robert Zemeckis skillfully created a CGI, or computer graphic illustration, film of the epic, Beowulf. This film adaptation entitled, Beowulf, portrayed a completely different hero and story than in the original epic by corrupting Beowulf’s character, adding sex appeal, and implementing romance throughout the plot. By comparing the plot and characters of the original epic to Zemeckis’ twisted version, it is clear that society’s definition of a hero has changed.
The original text of Beowulf is an epic tale capturing the adventures of the hero, Beowulf. The story begins with King Hrothgar and his clan, the Danes, being plagued with a horrible monster named Grendel. Grendel, damages Herot, the Danes’ mead hall, and kills many of Hrothgar’s men. Beowulf, hearing of their plight, comes to Denmark to kill the monster for glory and honor. The hero bravely confronts Grendel and kills the creature by tearing its arm off. On seeing this great feat accomplished, Hrothgar rewards Beowulf and puts on a great feast in his honor, but all is not well in the land, as the death of Grendel angers his mother. His mother, “grief-racked and ravenous, desperate for revenge” attacks Herot in the night, killing Hrothgar’s most trusted advisor (1278). Beowulf along with Hrothgar and his men follow the beast to its lair, but only Beowulf confronts the monster. Swimming up to her cave through fire and sea monsters, Beowulf bravely makes it to the entrance of her lair. Armed with a legendary sword named Hrunting, Beowulf attacks Grendel’s mother. The monster, like her son, cannot be killed by ordinary swords and therefore, Hrunting is rendered useless. Beowulf in desperation grabs the monster’s sword displayed on the wall of her cave and as stated in the epic, “…took a firm hold of the hilt and swung/ the blade in an arc, a resolute blow/ that bit deep into her neck-bone/ and severed it entirely, toppling the doomed/house of her flesh; she fell to the floor” (1564-1568). Beowulf is greatly rewarded for the monster’s death and brings back his immense wealth to his King and clan, the Geats. The story then goes forward many years to where Beowulf is an old man, now king of the Geats. The epic continues by telling of a Geat thief who ventures into a cave filled with treasure and takes a “gem-studded goblet” (2217). This goblet belongs to a horrible dragon, that in being awaken to find his treasure missing, begins to wreak havoc on the nearby villages. Beowulf, seeing the need for the dragon to be put to a stop, courageously embraces his mortality and faces the dragon. The great king, with help from one his soldiers, is able to defeat the fearsome dragon, but not before the creature inflicts a fatal wound upon the king. The epic concludes with the death and lament of the mighty Beowulf.
Zemeckis’ version of the old English epic is very different to make the movie more appealing to a broader audience, but through these differences, it reveals that society's definition of a hero has changed. Hollywood exposed this change in three ways. First, Hollywood transformed the original, larger-than-life hero and replaced it with a hero that a general audience could relate to. In stark contrast to the epic, Hollywood painted Beowulf to be a fallen and flawed hero that succumbs to temptation out of lust for power. For example, in the film, Beowulf sleeps with Grendel's mother, and then lies to his people, claiming to have killed the monster. In addition to this deceit, Beowulf falls in love with the Danish King's Queen, but when later married to her, he proves to be unfaithful (Avary and Gaiman). In the original epic, Beowulf was written to be a shining example of what hero and king should be like. As stated in the epic, people “extolled his heroic nature and exploits/ and gave thanks for his greatness” (3173). This made Beowulf almost supernatural as he was portrayed to be practically perfect, never making mistakes and having all the proper virtues. As declared as the end of the classic, "They said that of all the kings upon the earth/ he was the man most gracious and fair-minded, / kindest to his people and keenest to win fame" (3179-3182). Hollywood took Beowulf and gave him flaws that made him more human and relatable. Zemeckis shows throughout "Beowulf" that even heroes can fall and by doing so, portrays Beowulf to be an even greater hero when in the end he overcomes these flaws to do what is right and honorable. This change demonstrates a clear switch between heroes that were admired for their super human qualities to flawed heroes that could relate with their audience.
Hollywood also changed the plot of the story to add the element of sexuality with the intention of catching a broader audience. This change shows society’s shift into having the need for sexuality to be an element in heroism or the setting surrounding it. Zemeckis accomplished this task by selecting Angelina Jolie to play a seductive temptress version of Grendel’s mother. In the movie, Grendel’s mother seduces Beowulf to give her a son by promising to make him wealthy and king over the land. This take on the epic is in stark contrast to the actual story, but cleverly allows a seductive character to lure audiences deeper into the movie’s plot. Justin Wang, in his article entitled Beowulf, states her purpose best, “Our hero turns out to be no match for a viper played by Angelina Jolie in full-on seductress mode; this reptilian goddess makes a truly show-stopping entrance, her nude, gold-smeared body stalking into the frame on stiletto heels, accompanied by the insidiously suggestive strains of Alan Silvestri's score” (2-3). In contrast, the women in the original epic, shared roles of honor and grace, as stated in the epic about the queen, "So the Helming woman went on her rounds, /queenly and dignified, decked out in rings, / offering the goblet to all ranks, /treating the household and the assembled troop" (620-624). The original is void of sexuality for was no need for it. The initial epic portrayed a hero to be great and honorable, even without a beautiful woman by his side. Overall, it is clear that Zemeckis’ purpose in changing Grendel’s mother’s character was to attract viewers hoping to catch a glimpse of the seductive Angelia Jolie. As stated in “Myth Mixed in 3D Epic,” by Scott Holleran, “…she is there for one reason—sex appeal, and her screen shots are sure to attract attention—and as usual she delivers” (1).
Another change implemented by Hollywood is the added romance between Wealtheow and Beowulf. This difference in plot is significant as it shows society's belief that heroism and romance should go hand and hand. Romance has proven itself to be one of the most popular themes desired in films. As stated in the article, “Romance Films” by Filmsite, “Romantic films serve as great escapes and fantasies for viewers, especially if the two people finally overcome their difficulties, declare their love, and experience life "happily ever after" - implied by a reunion and final kiss.” Hollywood added a romance to Beowulf to enhance the plot of the epic in hope of attracting the more passionate and tender- hearted crowd. Zemeckis accomplishes this by showing how Beowulf, throughout the movie, is enraptured by the lady Wealtheow. Wealtheow in turn falls in love with Beowulf desiring to be rid of Hrothgar, who has become a failure in her eyes (Avary and Gaiman). This change is rather noteworthy from the original Wealtheow, who is described as "queenly...regal and arrayed with gold" (621,641). This romance continues through the film as Hrothgar dies and Beowulf eventually marries the Queen. Zemeckis adds conflict to the romance, as Beowulf does not remain faithful to her for a time, testing their love. In the end of the film Beowulf states, "You must know, I have always loved you, my lady" and dies saving her from a horrible dragon (Avary and Gaiman). This action again proves Zemeckis' version of Beowulf to be a great hero for overcoming his faults, but also captures the emotion of audience as Beowulf dies to save the woman he has always loved.
The original epic Beowulf is a piece of literature that has astounded and entertained readers for centuries with its great example of a hero. As stated in his article, “Literary analysis: Heroism as portrayed in Beowulf,” David A. White states that, “This poem perfectly captures the essence of what it means to be a true hero, and Beowulf serves as an example for hundreds of heroes to come in future generations.” Hollywood in stark contrast, believes that a noble and heroic warrior slaying monsters is not enough to draw crowds. Zemeckis cleverly changed the story and characters to fit Hollywood standards of a hero by corrupting Beowulf’s character, adding sexuality, and implementing a romance into the plot. Through these changes, Hollywood achieved a successful movie that drew in the crowds, but also proved that the original epic’s hero could no longer serve as a definition of heroism in today’s culture. With its flawed characters and dark plot, Beowulf topped the box office and then faded into memory, unlike its timeless original, which will certainly continue to be a classic for ages to come.
Works Cited
“Beowulf.” The Norton Anthology of World Literature 100 to 1500. Ed. Peter J.
Simon. New York: Mack, 2002. 1632-1702.
Beowulf. Dir. Robert Zemeckis. Writ. Roger Avary and Neil Gaiman. 2007. DVD.
Paramount, 2007.
Chang, Justin. “Beowulf.” VFilm. 2007. 25 March 2009
<http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117935372.html?categoryid=31&cs=1>.
Dirks, Tim. “Romance Films.” Filmsite. Ed. Tim Dirks. 2009. 25 March 2009. <
http://www.filmsite.org/romancefilms.html>.
Dwyer, James, Laurie A. Finke, Martin B. Shichtman, Mary K. Ramsey. “A Roundtable
Reviewing Robert Zemeckis’ Beowulf (2007).” The Once and Future Classroom 2007. 25 March 2009. <http://www.teamsmedieval.org/
ofc/SP08/beowulfreview.php>.
Holleran, Scott. “Myth Mixed in 3D Epic.” Box Office Mojo. 2007. 25 March 2009 <
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/reviews/?id=2419>.
Paramount. Advertisment. Beowulf. 26 July 2007 <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87yq372R4Ts>.
“Picture of Beowulf DVD cover.” 27 Apr. 2009 <http://www.soluzfilms.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/03/beowulf.jpg>.
“Picture of Grendel’s Mother.” 27 Apr. 2009 <http://bantaku.com/wp-
content/uploads/2008/08/beowulf4.jpg>.
“Picture of Beowulf with Sword.” 27 Apr. 2009 <
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/07_02/beowulf2SCPE2507_468x322.jpg>.
“Picture of Beowulf with Hrothgar.” 27 Apr. 2009 <
http://www.fpsmagazine.com/blog/uploaded_images/beowulf-733611.jpg>.
“Picture of Beowulf and Grendel’s Mother.” 27 Apr. 2009 <
http://gossip.elliottback.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/jolie-beowulf.jpg>.
“Picture of Wealtheow and Beowulf.” 27 Apr. 2009 <
http://www.filmeducation.org/beowulf/imgs/cup2.jpg>.
White, David A. “Literary analysis: Heroism as portrayed in Beowulf.” 2009. Helium.
25 March 2009. < http://www.helium.com/items/1227300-beowulf-is-a-hero>.
Zemeckis, Robert. Dir. Beowulf. 2007. Youtube.com 27 Apr. 2009 <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwm_cfRClmc>.
