This paper seeks to show the comparison and the scrutiny of “"The Mad Trapper"” as a novel and its adaptation as a film. Both as a book and as a film it provides a good fiction which attracts an affluent legacy of folks, fables and myths. Rudy Wiebe’s recent novel The Mad Trapper (1980), the legend, presents a basis for the frame. Further than any distress with chronological events, the writer categorically depicts legendary dimensions to intertwine his fiction into conflict. Weibe’s argument, nevertheless, is not merely involving thermo and Albert Johnson; his contention lies amid the impending desires of self independence and reliability and the problem of multifaceted and distant progress.
On the other hand, “The Mad trapper” is also a film that draws its plot from the novel. The film showcases staging or a dramatization of a search for a certain individual. The search takes place in Canada between the years 1931 and 1932. Albert Johnson was considered hermit, this means that he operated as an introvert. He made few associations; contact and even friends. In 1932 generated a demanding manhunt is considered an Arctic legend. In approximately one month and a half amid snowstorm and freezing winter, he cunningly escaped from a group of trappers, armed forces, Indians who in their first time were using a two-way radio and an aircraft. He is being sought for allegedly being implicated in shoot-outs, murdering one officer and austerely injuring two others.
One of the differences between the movie and the book lies in the settings or rather the surrounding in both the movie and the book. The book depicts an exemplary factual tale, one of mountain myths, situated in 1930's Northern parts of Canada. The book portrays an account of C...
... middle of paper ...
....
In the movie adaptation, Millen sympathizes and empathizes with Johnson something that is not well brought in the book. It is very easy to see from the movie that the two men are alike and perhaps as different from the other characters as they are alike. Millen is just as reluctant to go after Johnson as we are to see him go after Millen.
The plot of the book has been significantly reworked for dramatic effect. The most obvious of these changes is the role that constable Millen plays. ‘Wop’ May who is instrumental in tracking the ‘Mad Trapper’ is questionable.
The film is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book. The amateurish style of the book gives it some appeal as a more sleek and sophisticated style wouldn’t evoke a sense of angst’ desperation and confusion that the novel does.
Works Cited
Wiebe, R. (2003). The Mad Trapper. New York: Red Deer Press.
It is impossible to deny the similarities of characters, setting, cinematography and more, between The Return of the Secaucus Seven by John Sayles and The Big Chill by Lawrence Kasden. This paper will focus on the similarities and differences in the themes between the two movies. Specifically, focusing on relationships, aging, and death. The two films differ in many aspects but parallel in other ways. Impacts of these themes within the two movies are important to recognize because they are relevant to everyday life, relatable, and realistic.
“The elders know the most, they are the wisest.” Says Johnny Least Weasel as he was being made fun of by other kids. Which happens to be the theme of the book. How does the theme of the book affects what the main character, Johnny does, says, and the benefits, all in The Trap by John Smelcer.
The film was a very good adaptation of a great book. It is a wonderful
The book had a lot of thought put into it by the author and it appeals to many audiences of different ages. The book put me on the edge of my seat throughout the whole book, and it was one of those books that you never want to put down. The way the author wrote it had quite a suspenseful, eerie, dramatic feel to it and that is what made the book so great, on top of the plot. The plot of the book was also very well thought out and put together, and I enjoyed reading it. Although the movie was great, I don’t think that it did the book enough justice. There were so many great aspects of the book that they left out, that would’ve made the movie just that much better. They should have put in some of the missing scenes and still portrayed the characters the same as they were in the book. However, I think that it would be hard to create the same feel as Ray Bradbury did in writing the book. It was the way that he connected with his audience that made the book appealing. Both the book and the movie were fantastic ways of portraying the story. If they had kept all of the scenes and properties of characters as they did in the book, the movie would have appealed to me more. But, the movie version of the story could appeal to others more than the book
...rtrayed differently in the movie. Lennie is shown as being very mentally challenged, whereas in the book he is just a little slow and has a mind of a young child. Although some changes are made in the movie to make it flow better, it is still based on the same story as the book. The movie has the same plot line and characters, and some of the scenes are told in the exact same way as they are in the novel. As well, the movie and the book give out the same themes. This story is about how all the people in the Great Depression were trying to escape their unhappy, lonely lives, but weren’t capable of doing so. The movie stays very true to the book even though some things are removed or added. Everything that is added or changed still works very well and captures the film perfectly.
For all the differences the film had from the novel, it was basically the same story just told in a more cheerful way and was more about the Joad family. However, the differences did not take away from the film; they might have made the film even better. No matter how different the film was from the novel, they both have succeeded in their own respective fields and remain classics to this
Many movies based on books, have similarities and differences between them. The same goes for To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Although the movie ran smoothly there were many elements missing from it or that differentiated from the book. Of course there were similarities and the overall theme and message of the novel was reached in the movie. Although the book was more detailed, the movie had the same plot line for the most part. There were some high points and favorite characters in both t he movie and in the book and overall both of these works of creations were very enjoyable.
The novel is organized in an unusual manner that can make it seem unclear to the reader. Krakauer does not introduce the work as a whole, yet he pieces together the story through different chapters. McCandless’s journey is described out of chronological order, requiring the audience to pay careful attention in order to understand the events that unfold.
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
All in all, it was a pleasure reading the novel and watching the film. They were distinctive in the manner how they portrayed the story but they were unique since they managed to get the idea of the story across in two disparate ways. My feelings for the story have overgrown because it is such an attractive and innovative piece of writing, with a glowing sense of grief and helplessness and reality, which force the reader to involve with the hauntings of Arthur.
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
This is my view on the movie and book. I likes the movie better the book because the
Generally, the film follows the storyline of Atwood's book quite well other than a few exceptions. The changes the movie made probably do work better just because of the fact that it is a movie. Some things are better explained in books than they could ever be explained in a movie.
The proscription from any domain of memorable works may be due to a major problem both in the novel and film: the ambiguous point of view adopted. The novel is geared for a transposition to the screen. It is no coincidence that the film was scripted by Niccolò Ammaniti, who adapted ...
Adaptation of any kind has been a debate for many years. The debate on cinematic adaptations of literary works was for many years dominated by the questions of fidelity to the source and by the tendencies to prioritize the literary originals over their film versions (Whelehan, 2006). In the transference of a story from one form to another, there is the basic question of adherence to the source, of what can be lost (Stibetiu, 2001). There is also the question of what the filmmakers are being faithful to or is it the novel’s plot in every detail or the spirit of the original (Smith, 2016). These are only few query on the issue of fidelity in the film adaptation.