Many classic plays and novels have been transformed into movies. Often times, audiences will complain that the movie did not capture what went on in the book and that it added unnecessary scenes while cutting vital ones out. However, sometimes a film will perfectly portray a book and will capture all of the novel’s important aspects. William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is an excellent play that is dramatic, comedic, and romantic. It perfectly exhibits the emotions someone would want to feel while reading a novel (in this case, a play).
Will he continue to be just another director in the production system or will he embrace his individuality and become an auteur? This theme was discussed indirectly but extensively in Hitchcock’s 1962 interview with Truffaut. When asked how/why he chose to present the story of Stage Fright Hitchcock answered, “There were a couple of book reviews who said this would make a good Hitchcock film. And I like an idiot believed it.” Here he hinted at the desire to produce his own style of film.
In an Interview with Jay Ward, who is the director of all of the Cars films. When asked what he thought about the Pixar theory the stated “ I think somebody had a lot of time on their hands. They may have some other recreational activities“ (Jason Torchinsky) When he was asked if he denied that there was a common thread he said “It's almost like the 9/11 conspiracy theories... it's like, really? No, the movies were sort of made in a different order by different directors in different times, in different places.
Considering this, since DW Griffith grew up in an era where the subjugation of others was far from abnormal, his perspective was molded to follow this, thus leading to why he, and many others, could not grasp what the issue of the film was. With that in mind, it is important to remember that celebration and exaltation are vastly different from an informative display. The connotation of showing the film in a theater differs from that of showing it in a classroom or museum exhibit. As an example, recently on campus various statues depicting confederate heroes were removed from display due to those statues “become[ing] symbols of modern white supremacy and neo-Nazism” (Fenves). However, they were relocated to a museum where they are no longer celebrated but studied as a piece of history.
He shows Scrooge what terrible conditions his employee, Cratchit, is living in, and how his family and he are struggling to make ends meet for the holiday season. He also shows him a homeless community that Scrooge didn't even know existed because he forgot that not everybody can be as wealthy as he is. This scene was cut from the play probably due to its lack of significance to the main plotline of the original story. The film depicts Future leading Scrooge to his grave, where men are digging up his never-shared fortunes for themselves, while the play only tells of the men digging the grave to bury him.
Many books will usually be adapted by film makers to turn into a movie. However, the book and movie are usually not the exact same. The award-winning book To Kill A Mockingbird written by Harper Lee was soon turned into a movie in 1962. This black and white production of the book consists of the same plot and same characters. However, the movie leaves out some events, such as Scout’s school play.
The changes from the book and the movie make a difference in your interpretation of the novel overall. It kind of makes you wonder what the book would 've been like if these changes had been opposite and the Hester in the movie was actually the Hester in the book and they just reversed roles. Throughout the novel and the book both versions change drastically and alter your perception of how she would act if it was real
Between the novel Treasure Island and the animated movie Treasure Planet there are multiple similarities and differences. The novel was written by Robert Louis Stevenson, and the movie was directed by Disney. The movie Treasure Planet was actually made based on the novel Treasure Island. Although they were both well done pieces, I would prefer the movie over the novel. In this essay, I’m now going to tell you the similarities and differences of the characters, plot, theme, and setting in the movie and also the novel.
Hictor Rodriguez, in his “Ideology and Film Culture”, compares one-sided ideologies and assertions such as “women are less rational than men” which are partly constituted by contexts of discrimination and social practices to the act of watching only a single scene from a given movie. Watching the ending, solely, would certainly enable one to follow the dialogue and perhaps what the characters are doing, but the movie would not make sense and the action would not be understood in the same manner it would have been when watching the entire movie. (264) For Rodriguez, ideologies main characteristic is often being transformed into truth-claims; this feature, however, does not make them truth-claims. In the same article, Rodriguez invokes the ideas of Noel Carroll and Ronald de Sosa concerning the political implications of the cinema and the way they employ “paradigm scenarios that are embodied in the stories people create, disseminate, and consume.” The power of these scenarios lies in the way they are linked to sets of emotions.
Despite the movie following the book very closely, there were several obvious and notable differences between the movie interpretation and the novel version of The Scarlet Letter. The most noticeable difference was the absence of the character, Mistress Hibbins. Mistress Hibbins appeared several times in the novel, acting as a temptation for Hester, and is often described as a witch or agent of the Devil. The second most major difference in the movie, was the lack of energy in Pearl. In the novel, Pearl Prynne was described as a "demon child" on several occasions.
In The Elegance of the Hedgehog, the film and the novel differ in several ways. One noticeable change in the film was not only the change of narration, but also the obsolete motivation of Renée hiding her intelligence. Not only is this change obvious, but it also affects the development of the film compared to the novel. One way it does this is that it removes the aspect of class differences in the film. The viewer still sees a few class differences such as clothing differences, and the treatment to other classes, but they’re not as noticeable.
The book Where The Fern Grows was written in 1961 and the movie first came out in 1974. The book was written by Wilson Rawls. The movie was directed by Norman Tokarr. If you've ever watched the movie you could tell that it was made a long time ago. If you haven't seen or read Where the Red Fern Grows you might not know that it is one of the saddest books/movies you might ever see.
In the book and the movie The Crucible there are a lot of differences and similarities of the two. Some of the similarities are the characters and story line. The differences are like the scene or part between the book and movie. The characters were the same but seeing them in the movie was a lot different then reading about them in the book. The movie was better because I like visual things better.