Imagine how hard it can be to combine six different stories in a movie based on a book like David Mitchell’s famous novel, Cloud Atlas. For many filmmakers, creating an adaptation of the hardly comprehensible book of the English novelist seemed as impossible as catching a star. But the creators of the renowned Matrix, siblings Andy and Lana Wachowski, with the co-authorship of Tom Tykwer, managed to create a movie that brings the ideas of the book to life by adding a spark of their directive creativity and a touch of emotional strength. To begin with, David Mitchell’s novel is a book composed in a form of six disparate tales taking place in six different spans of time and written in six different genres. The book’s styles range from an adventurous memoir to …show more content…
If speaking concisely, Adam’s journey was streamlined, and Rafael, a boy who tragically died during the voyage, was cut off. Frobisher shoots Vyvyan and meets Sixsmith, which was not described in the book at all. Interesting detail is that in the movie Frobisher is in Scotland, not Belgium because the Wachowskis and Tykwer decided to use the same big building for the Aurora House and Vyvyan’s chateau that were both located in Scotland. The banquet at the Swannekke and many characters, such as Fay Li and Bill’s friends, are not present in the movie. In the “Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish,” Mrs. Latham was supposed to be Timothy’s secretary, and he was meant to have a stroke, which was all cut off as well. Sonmi’s narration was interpreted in a completely different way because most of the scenes about the abolitionist movement were abandoned. What I was personally most disappointed about was that Sonmi’s rebellion was not created purposefully as a stunt, which was in the book. In Zachry’s story, the ending of the book was less dramatic than the movie’s, and Meronym’s goal was to reach Hawaii, not the outer
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.
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
The author skillfully uses literary techniques to convey his purpose of giving life to a man on an extraordinary path that led to his eventual demise and truthfully telling the somber story of Christopher McCandless. Krakauer enhances the story by using irony to establish Chris’s unique personality. The author also uses Characterization the give details about Chris’s lifestyle and his choices that affect his journey. Another literary element Krakauer uses is theme. The many themes in the story attract a diverse audience. Krakauer’s telling is world famous for being the truest, and most heart-felt account of Christopher McCandless’s life. The use of literary techniques including irony, characterization and theme help convey the authors purpose and enhance Into The Wild.
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.
Overall, the movie and book have many differences and similarities, some more important than others. The story still is clear without many scenes from the book, but the movie would have more thought in it.
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.
The film may have edited out one of the drastic details that made the novel’s success, explaining the film’s failure.
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.
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.
...ptile Room and The Wide Window). Frankly, the movie was no as good as the books are, they dropped some details and changed some facts. However, it was amusing to see it on a wide screen so you can at least imagine to yourself all that complicated world.
Nonetheless, in order to condense the novel into a two-and-a-half-hour film, director Minghella abridged some of the plots in the novel, such as the part about Tom’s trips to Paris and Venice and the suspension of Dickie’s signatures that he fakes. Minghella also created some new characters to make the transition in the movie more reasonable and to intensify the conflicts in the film as well, including Silvana, Meredith and Peter. The most significant difference is that the movie takes advantage of the music, which is not even mentioned in the novel. The music in the film becomes a vital clue to drive the plot ahead and to decode the persona of Tom. Though there are changes from the novel, the film maintains the same settings, main characters, critical climax and the ending.
The Matrix is a film directed by the Wachowski Brothers depicting a future in which machines rule. The machines have created a complex computer program called “the matrix” which simulates a form of reality. The machines have enslaved humans by hooking them up to the matrix so that they can harvest them as an energy source. A number of people have been able to escape the matrix and they continue to fight the war against the machines in hopes of being able to free everyone still trapped within the matrix. Throughout the film the main characters Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity enter back into the matrix several times for various reasons. Because the film bounces back and forth between reality and the matrix, the film induces a strong theme of appearance versus reality. In this essay I will examine the numerous ways the film furthers this theme of appearance versus reality through its editing style and innovative use of special effects.
the differences between the book and the film, as well as some of my own thoughts on the
Exciting, emotional, enthralling, and vibrant are all words you could not use to describe The Kite Runner film. The film often leaped over critical events that happened in the book, the acting was at certain points dry and unemotional making it difficult to understand Amir’s emotions thought the film, and portraying key characters physical characteristics incorrectly made me dislike the film. Being an adaptation from the book it felt like a half assed job. One of the reasons why I felt this way is because at least a third of the books material was not covered in the movie. Compared to the book the movie missed several key features in the novel. First, in my opinion both Baba and Assef’s characters were portrayed incorrectly. Baba was supposed
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.