A Wrinkle In Time Movie Vs Movie

1153 Words5 Pages
“Like and equal are not the same thing at all.” ― Madeleine L’Engle- A Wrinkle In Time. More specifically, A Wrinkle In Time is a book about a girl (Meg), and how her father disappeared. In the book, the government told them he was on a top secret mission, while in the movie, he disappeared after Charles Wallace was born. Meg, Calvin, and Charles work through Camazotz and Uriel to find Meg’s father. This happens in both the story and the movie. Mrs Which, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Whatsit also helped them on their mission along the way. The story was more powerful than the movie because of its dialogue, setting, and plot.

Following that, The story was better than the movie because of its dialogue. For example, “But Mrs Whatsit came to her and
…show more content…
For instance, “Below them the town was laid out in harsh angular patterns. The houses in the outskirts were all exactly alike, small square boxes painted gray. Each had a small, rectangular plot of lawn in front, with a straight line of dull-looking flowers edging the path to the door. Meg had a feeling that if she could count the flowers there would be exactly the same number for each house. In front of all the houses children were playing. Some were skipping rope, some were bouncing balls. Meg felt vaguely that something was wrong with their play.” (pg.54) Furthermore, In the movie, they had the setting on Camazotz as well. There were houses as well and children bouncing balls. For clarification, the movie had them bouncing balls but they did not explain that IT had hypnotized the kids. The setting on Camazotz shows that the story is better. The setting is powerful because it is showing that the kids are worried and that they need to find their father. They are worried that IT has possessed or hypnotized these kids that are playing and skipping balls in rhythm The children are worried that IT may have done something to their father from IT. The reader finds it powerful because it creates suspense and the children are desperate to find their father. The movie also did not provide any sensory details to explain the planet. The book went more in depth and explained the planet. In the movie, they were kids…show more content…
For reference, “He moved rapidly down the corridor and again held up his hand to make the wall transparent. They looked into another small room or cell. In the center of it was a large, round, transparent column, and inside this column was a man.” (pg.71) Additionally, in the movie, Meg walked up invisible steps to see her father inside a transparent column. In the movie, her father could see and did not have to use Meg’s glasses. This is still the climax in the movie. Specifically, This climax adds meaning to the story. This setting adds meaning to the story because it creates suspension on who the man might be. The three children have been on the planet searching for their father for a long time, and it is possible the man might be their father. The man was trapped inside of the transparent column, which could be their father because he stopped writing letters to the family. Therefore; it adds meaning by suspense.The corridor where they can see all of the people inside of the cells creates a feeling that each man might be Meg’s father, adding a huge meaning to the story. In the movie, since her father can see, it does not create as much suspense as the book did. The father did not know who Meg was until she got in the column but her father knew as soon as she was walking down the corridor. This does not create as much excitement and joy as the book did when Meg and her father reunited. In the book, it is
Open Document