“A River Runs Through It” Runs Through My Brain A River Runs Through It is a short narrative told about the relationship between the Montana wilderness and two brothers. It is told in first person by the narrator/main character, Norman Maclean. Norman and his brother Paul live with their parents and are brought up with reverence towards nature and god. They are taught to fly fish by their father who is a reverend for the local church. Fly fishing is how the men of the family relate and connect to each other. Fly fishing also provided a kind of spiritual education for the young brothers. While I read, I had a breathtaking image in my head of the vast Montana landscape and how living so close to the world’s natural environment would be. I was …show more content…
drawn into the book as it progressed and Paul started gambling and getting into more trouble as I felt it would soon be his downfall. Both the book and movie had numerous themes that I myself was able to relate to. The biggest theme was a family unit’s relationship and responsibilities. Families almost always have some sort of drama and my family is no exception. I have family members that have struggled with addiction and my family and I have tried to intervene, just like how Paul is offered help on numerous occasions and is urged to stop gambling and drinking by his family. This novel makes the reader ask questions like “what is a person’s responsibility towards their family”? Paul’s family desperately tries to help him, but to no avail. Another theme that I appreciated was how humans and nature interact. Reverend Maclean provided a completely new perspective on nature when he related it to religion. After some thought, it appeared as if the whole book is one big metaphor between fly fishing and religion. Norman proved made this evident to me when he said “In our family, there was no clear line between religion and fly-fishing” (1). The Reverend taught his boys a deep respect for the outdoors and God together. It also appeared as if fly fishing itself was a sort of spiritual experience for the trio as well as a way to connect with themselves and nature. Maclean proved to be an honest narrator. Throughout the story, I trusted him because he did not have a problem admitting his own faults. I also found it interesting that instead of the book being based upon plot-development, it was focused rather on the development of the characters themselves. Most often books are focused on a plot development. I found that the film proved to be more entertaining than the book; however less raw emotion was captured in the film.
The book contained a first person source of emotion and attitude that cannot be duplicated. I also found it helpful that I could almost get the story from multiple points of view, as I was watching the events occur and not just hearing Normans account of the events. The reason the movie was a bit more interesting is because they director put more exciting scenes in and filled the film with great images. I really enjoyed the images; it made me want to go explore Montana and pick up fly fishing. A good example of added scenes in the movie is when the boy’s forest service crew takes a canoe down a treacherous river. This is what I would expect from Norman and his brother, since they were raised in the outdoors, but it is nowhere to be found in the book! The film had more than extra scenes, though. After watching the film I realized that it was evident that the family was prone to problems, you could see it from the start. He would bet on anything, even as a young boy. Despite the foreshadowing, I was surprised but in hindsight it should have been expected: Paul’s death was ironic; his hands were what made him an outstanding fisherman and they are also what got him killed in a drunken brawl. The ending was a bit extreme, but it was not too farfetched. It made me think about every possible outcome of a person’s life. The final minutes of the film reflect on some of the iconic scenes of the movie and were pretty sad. There’s good outcomes, and there’s bad ones. It also provoked thoughts about my own family and our relationships with each other as I found Norman’s situation somewhat
relatable. My grandpa is an excellent fisherman and at one time was in a local fishing club. He used to take me out fishing, however I never learned to fly fish. After reading A River Runs Through It, I decided it was time to learn the old but not outdated art of fly fishing. While fishing, I was able to relax and almost get into a rhythm, just as the Maclean boys did with their dad. I think they may have used extras for the fishing scenes in the movie, because fly fishing proved to be quite challenging. Fly fishing and watching the movie with my classmates was a very interesting experiential component and a good way to interpret the book. It’s almost as if I conducted a case study on A River Runs Through It and the Maclean boys. I pretended that I was fishing with Father Maclean and the boys while I was fly fishing in Kings Creek to get closer to the characters. It became apparent how the characters bonded over fishing. I am certain that I bonded with my grandpa while fishing as a young boy; but had not realized it until now. A River Runs Through It was a good film, but a slightly better read. And The activities helped me interpret the book in depth.
First of all in the book it gives much more detail than the movie. The book written by wilson rawls is much more heartwarming than the movie that was made in 1974. The book had a lot more detail than the movie, the movie has missing events that were in the book. For example in the book Billy had three sisters in the movie
The book The River Between Us by Richard Peck was interesting, it talks and describes the different events that happened to Tilley the main character. The movie Gone With the Wind was easier to understand because it showed the different characters. Just as the book, the movie Gone With the Wind also describes the different events that happened in the life of Scarlett, the main character. Even though the book and the movie are different because they describe the life of two different women, they are similar because their lives were effected by the Civil War.
“Like Water for Chocolate” by Laura Esquivel, is a beautiful romantic tale of an impossible passionate love during the revolution in Mexico. The romance is followed by the sweet aroma of kitchen secrets and cooking, with a lot of imagination and creativity. The story is that of Tita De La Garza, the youngest of all daughters in Mama Elena’s house. According to the family tradition she is to watch after her mother till the day she does, and therefore cannot marry any men. Tita finds her comfort in cooking, and soon the kitchen becomes her world, affecting every emotion she experiences to the people who taste her food. Esquivel tells Titas story as she grows to be a mature, blooming women who eventually rebels against her mother, finds her true identity and reunites with her long lost love Pedro. The book became a huge success and was made to a movie directed by Alfonso Arau. Although they both share many similarities, I also found many distinct differences. The movie lost an integral part of the book, the sensual aspect of the cooking and love.
I think that most of the event in the movie were not in the same order that Jeannette had wrote them. After reading the book I had a different picture in mind of how each character would look and it threw me off for the rest of the movie. I did like the fact that I could see what was happening and not just imagine things in my head that I thought was happening, as I was watching the movie I was seeing the same thing everyone else was and not just what I was picturing while reading the
"Eventually the watcher joined the river, and there was only one of us. I believe it was the river." The river that Norman Maclean speaks of in A River Runs Through It works as a connection, a tie, holding together the relationships between Norman and his acquaintances in this remote society. Though "It" is never outwardly defined in the novella there is definite evidence "It" is the personality of the people and that the river is running through each individual personality acting as the simple thread connecting this diverse group of people.
Everyone’s lives are affected by the decisions they have made and past experiences they have had. In the novel A River Runs Through It, author Norman Maclean uses the theme of experiences to portray the difficulties a person can face throughout life. Although Norman and Paul are brothers and bond through fly fishing, they are two different people who have different life paths. Norman chose to get a stable job and live a domestic life, whereas Paul chose to become a bachelor and a lower class reporter. The main character is Norman himself, and he also experiences the difficulties his troubled brother Paul is faced with. Unlike his brother, Paul has chosen a different route in life, and he has an addiction problem. As a result of Paul’s alcoholism, his life is destroyed by financial issues, family disconnects and gambling.
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
In the movie, they missed things or changed parts, but they also quoted the book quiet a lot and make the story more a like. Most of the most important parts were in the movie. They missed one of the camps that Corrie was sent to and the didn’t show much of the 100th year party of the watch shop besides a picture. I liked the book way more than the movie because the book had more detail and made you understand what that part of WWII was like more than the movie does. In the book Corrie is learning how to have more faith and trust in God more but in the movie, she had a lot of faith the whole time and she didn’t struggle with that as much. I enjoyed reading about that because it made me feel like I’m not the only one that struggles.
Religion and tradition are two ways that families come together. However in Norman Maclean’s novella, A River Runs Through It, the Maclean family’s devotion to their Presbyterian religion and their tradition of fly-fishing is what undeniably brought the family together. Under the father’s strict Presbyterian values, his sons, Norman and Paul used fly-fishing as the link that brought them closer together and helped them bond with their father on a different level. The family’s hobby of fly-fishing was started just for fun. It was a sport that was taken up every Sunday after church to take their minds off of the worries in life. After a while, going fly-fishing every Sunday turned into a tradition and soon a learning experience for the father and his two sons. The sport brought the men of the family together and it was an activity that gave them structure in their lives. It was used as a guideline as to how to handle different situations and how to let go of the worries of life for a day and just relax. It is clear to say that fishing has a big meaning to the member of the Maclean family, but fishing held a meaning to each person in that family.
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.
I have only included what I have to believe are largely important plot gaps and differences in the movie version in comparison to the book one, and so I apologize again if I have missed any other major ones. Forgive me, please.
Mystic River is a crime novel went straight to the bestseller lists on 2001 written by Dennis Lehane. The reproducing film Mystic River by Clint Eastwood also won countless Awards. As Lehane points out in his interview with Linda Richards: “ 50 percent of the reviews has said this is not simply a crime novel.” Which obviously pleased him. The psyches and nature of human are the most fascinating parts in his novel. In the story Dave Boyle was abducted as a child and being molested. He lives under struggle and shadow for his entire life. When his childhood friends Jimmy’s daughter being murdered, he became the prime suspect. But who really is the murderer? Dennis Lehane makes this cliffhang the cadenza in his story. Dave Boyle is no doubt the central character in Mystic River. Dennis Lehane gives Dave Boyle a really complex life story and an unpredictable personality, but Clint Eastwood simplifies this character, which also simplifies the plot, making the movie less complete.
Overall I thought that the movie was a very good interpretation of the novel. It is very rare to find a movie that follows the book so precisely. I think that even if I had not read the book I would have understood the movie well enough to follow along and understand Gaines’ message. I thought it was very moving, especially being able to see the characters of the book come to life in the movie.
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.
A River Runs Through It is a narrative explaining the relationship between Norman and his brother. The story runs through from their childhood until when Norman passes away. In his life, he describes how he was in a religious set up surrounded by water. Norman talks mostly about his brother in this story. According to him, they shared parents and grew up in the same environment.