Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Books vs movies compare contrast
Book vs movie comparison
Book vs movie comparison
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Books vs movies compare contrast
The first time I saw the film adaptation of a book I had read, I was appalled at the changes that had been made to the story. Both “Gone With the Wind”, the movie, and “Gone With the Wind”, the book, tell an epic story of life in Georgia at the time of the Civil War and Reconstruction Era and the effect of the war on the life of a spoiled Southern belle, Scarlett O’Hara. But there are significant differences in the characters, events and perspectives that made me realize that a screen adaptation will never be able to capture the details and background stories that are included in a novel.
Characters
. For those who have never read the book, the characters are defined by the actors who portrayed them and not necessarily by the way they were described by the author. One advantage of reading a book is the ability to use one’s imagination to envision the characters and scenes. The first sentence of the book begins, “Scarlett O’Hara was not beautiful”. However, the first scene of the movie shows the very beautiful Vivian Leigh portraying Scarlett. Scarlett was sixteen years old at the beginning of the book but portrayed to be older in the movie. In an effort to help the reader understand Scarlett’s personality and determination, the book gives a lot of background about her family, which is not included in the movie version.
In addition to a difference in the depiction of the characters, there were also characters that were completely excluded from the movie version. For example, in the book Scarlett had three children, but in the movie she only had one child. The children are significant in that they give the reader an insight into Scarlett’s terrible parenting skills and make her character even more unlikeable. In th...
... middle of paper ...
...n and in the movie it is a white man. In addition, there is no mention of the Ku Klux Klan in the movie, but in the book Scarlett’s second husband, Frank Kennedy, is a member of the Klan. Some of the sexual aspects of in the book such as Rhett’s relationship with the prostitute, Belle Whatling and the scene where a drunken Rhett takes Scarlett to the bedroom were not as explicit in the movie as they were in the book.
I enjoyed both the movie and the book. Obviously, there are aspects of the movie that could not be duplicated in the book. For example, the score, written by Max Steiner, adds an element of drama and emotion that a book cannot capture. It is difficult to visualize the enormity of war in a book and the movie did an excellent job of that. However, like most avid readers, I will probably always enjoy the book version of the story more than the mo
Many of the characters do not even exist in the book or movie. In the book, Hannah has a little brother named Aaron when Hannah is in the present. When Hannah gets transported to the past, she sees a man walking through a field and she turns around and sees an older woman in the house. Those people are Shmuel and Gertrude. They are her aunt and uncle and they care for Hannah since her parents died. In the movie, Hannah does not have a little brother, she is an only child. When she is in the past, Gertrude is not a character and Shmuel is not her uncle. Instead, Hannah meets Rivka in the house and Ricka is Hannah’s cousin. Hannah lives with Rivka and Rivka’s mother. Hannah is also called “Chaya” in the book when she is in 1942. Hannah is just called her regular name in the movie - not her Jewish name. In the book, Shmuel gets married to a stunning woman named Fayge. However, in the movie, Shmuel gets married to Leah, who does not pay any attention to Hannah, unlike Fayge loved Hannah in the book. Hannah meets four friends at the wedding. Their names are: Rachel, Esther, Shifre, and Yente. Then, at the camp, Hannah meets Rivka, who has lived in that camp for one year and she lost all her family members except her brother, who is Grandpa Will in the book. Grandpa Will is also not a character in the movie, so that means that Rivka’s brother is also not a character. The rabbi’s son’s name
This is my view on the movie and book. I likes the movie better the book because the
The beginning of the movie begins with the exact same scene between Anna and Caleb that appears in the book. However, the movie, Sarah Plain and Tall has a variety of differences from Patricia MacLachlan’s children’s novel Sarah Plain and Tall. Essentially the movie had to go to a deeper level in order to attract adults to the story. Every event that is in the book happens in the movie. However, the movie adds scenes and complicates the relationships between the characters.
Second there is more detail in the book than the movie. Well, I think that more detail is better because the more you know the better you understand the movie or
There are many differences in the movie that were not in the book. In the movie there is a new character in the movie that was not in the book. This character was David Isay.
While watching the movie, I could see that the main characters in the book, both their names and traits, were the same in both the movie and book. However, aside from that there were many different as...
In the movie segregation and racism is more emphasized. To emphasize segregation and racism the movie adds characters ( the cousins) and some scenes. In the book segregation is mentioned for about three times,
Stark contrasts exist between the description of the characters and emotional content between the book and the movie. This may be mainly due to the limited length of the movie. In the movie, Rat Kiley who is telling the story seems gentler. In the book they make it seem like everything Rat says is exaggerated, but the movie does not stress that fact. “Among the men in Alpha Company, Rat had a reputation for exaggeration and overstatement, a compulsion to rev up the facts, and for most of us it was normal procedure to discount sixty or seventy percent of anything he had to say” (O’Brien 89). Also, the movie emphasizes the fact that Rat Kiley fell in love with Mary Anne Bell. He himself says he loved her towards the end of the movie. A character that people may tend to have sympathy for is Mark Fossie. In the book, one may not feel for Fossie. The movie shows the character having more feeling especially after he couldn’t find Mary Anne. A third character that is portrayed differently in the movie than in the book is Mary Anne, who is the main female character of the chapter. The movie stressed the fact that Mary Anne wanted to learn more about the Vietnamese way of life. There was a scene in the movie where Mary Anne spent time with the Vietnamese soldiers learning their language and how to cook their food. They also show her going ...
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.
At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects of how the character speaks, looks like, and reacts. Whereas, in the movie, the reader has no choice but to follow the plot laid out in front of them. No longer can they picture the characters in their own way or come up with their different portrayals. The fate of the story, while still unpredictable, was highly influenced by the way the characters looked, spoke, and presented themselves on screen.
One of the biggest debates for book and movie lovers is “the book was better than the movie” or “the movie was better than the book.” I’m a movie and book lover and I often find myself having this debate.It’s a debate that can go either way and it often ends in a disagreement between the fans discussing the book or movie. The book is better than the movie and there are plenty of films from the past ten years that exhibit this.
Gullivers Travels Comparison Between Book and Movie It is common in today's media-driven society to reach into the past for inspiration and ideas. A trend has developed where original works are transformed into other mediums. For example: books are turned into movies and/or plays, movies are turned into weekly sitcoms, and cartoons will spawn empires (Disney). These things happen so often that an audience rarely stops to question the level of authenticity that remains after these conversions. Perhaps it is only when a project is not well received that people begin to think of the difficulties involved with changing a work's genre.
Many times in Hollywood, a movie that intends to portray a novel can leave out key scenes that alter the novel’s message. Leaving out scenes from the novel is mainly do to time limits, however doing so can distort the author’s true purpose of the story. In history, Movies were directed to intentionally leave out scenes that could alter the public’s opinion. This frequently let novel 's main points be swept under the rug. There were times of this at the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, where white Americans were the only ones making movies. Not many African Americans had the opportunity to be involved in the process of major productions. Because racism in To Kill a Mockingbird, written by Harper Lee, is underplayed in the film, it shows
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.
Gone With the Wind, written by Margaret Mitchell, inaccurately portrays time period during the American Civil War (1861-1865) and Reconstruction Era (1865-1877). Set in Clayton County, Georgia and Atlanta, Mitchell falsely depicts the rise of the feminism through Scarlett O’Hara, for it did not exist at the time. In addition, although she accurately maintains the historical background of the novel by providing details about the war and important figures, the portrayals of several key characters in comparison to those who lived in the actual time period are not realistic. Overall, especially because the novel is written in a biased point of view of