Schulz’s first major argument is the lack of emotion in the novel. This dispute is declared false with evidence such as Nick Carraway’s relationship with Jordan Baker. There is a lot of affection that is displayed between these characters, that help prove Schulz wrong. Also, Schulz claims the book to be too unrealistic regarding “human struggles.” What Schulz did not understand is that Fitzgerald purposely wrote the book to emphasize the “Great” in The Great Gatsby. The achievements and luxuries of the book are to be depicted, more than the strife of characters.
The only words he can say are “juicy fruit”, whilst in the book he speaks normally towards the end of the story. To sum up, the movie isn’t identical to the book, although they are quite similar. It can be shown through the protagonist, the plot and the characters. As a matter of fact, Ken Kesey, the author of the novel, refused to watch the movie after its release. Many think it’s probably because of the all the differences between the movie and the book.
For example, when Atticus got spit on by Bob Ewell in the movie he makes a big deal about it. In the book, he rubs it off to show that there are still good qualities in bad people. This scene shows the importance of Good vs. Evil in the book and how in the movie they didn’t show Atticus’s, kind heart. Atticus would be represented on the Good side of the theme, but in the movie, they
Sophia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette is a very unconventional story of the famous monarch. It is a movie that has ignored the conventional editing, dialogue, and tone of a film of its’ caliber. In a typical film we attempt to get some semblance of historical accuracy and the director does his/her work on attempting to work with the story that is given. While mostly true of the movie, it is a movie where the vision of the director is a priority. Instead of focusing on accuracy, Sophia attempts to use the film as a launching pad to portray the main character (played by Kirsten Dunst) as a coming of age figure that gets caught up in a world she did not choose, while dealing with home sickness and loneliness.
Secondly, this is not a long-term solution for Odysseus or anyone seeking long-term guidance from the story. It’s a good thing Odysseus charms the King and Queen later in the book, otherwise he might be thrown out. Nevertheless, perhaps it is how bards of the day protected themselves. Book 7 of The Odyssey portrays a naive, yet authentic perspective of the real-life issue of xenophobia, but gives some depth to the problems to which even a powerful hero is
Throughout the movies and novels evil was represented in many ways. The action of being evil was shown differently each time. Each character portrayed being evil stronger or weaker than others. For example, Stanley Kowalski was the most evil by his bluntness and way of not caring about others feelings. O’Brien was second evil by him being secretively.
The modified appendix does not work because it gives a different view of how Abigail comes onto John. Abigail is very dramatic and exaggerates her fear of “spirits.” It wasn’t as dramatic in the book version. In order to try and come onto Proctor, she is much more controlling. The tone is definitely different in the movie because it is much more forceful. The forcefulness is shown by Proctor yelling and his threats to Abigail to free his wife or he will confess to their
At first the doctor choose to turn into his alternate peronality willingly, using a potion that would both change his physical apperance, and his mental state. Now I'm not saying that that he was crazy when he morphed into Mr. Hyde but he was a very evil side of the doctor. Mr.Hyde was a shorter angrier version of Dr. Jekyll, while the doctor himself was a peaceful man who would never hurt a fly, and he was a doctor, so obviously he would save lives. In the begginig the doctor was able to control his angry side,
A similarity in each book is, both families come from money. Another similarity is in the story of Julius Caesar, the conspirators believed that Julius just wanted the power, and did not care about the good of Rome. Likewise, in The Taming of the Shrew Petruchio wanted power over Katherine, he wanted her to do what he wanted just as he wanted. Additionally, they each had big egos. In the story of Julius Caesar, although in the beginning he did not have a large ego, as Julius kept winning battles his ego became a problem.
Which causes their downfall, due to their desire for power which influenced them to make sinister decisions. Essentially, the witches have influenced Macbeth and Lady Macbeth negatively which have caused their characterization to adapt differently from Act 1. If power was offered to humans, do you think they would make sinister