Joshua Chamberlain had 120 mutineers(men who had attempted to leave the army before their contract ended) being sent to his camp. These men had lost all faith in themselves and in the army. Joshua Chamberlain, the that was given the job to convince these men to come back to the army, had to give a speech to convince these men to come back. During his speech, by the way he delivered his words the reader realizes what type of character Joshua Chamberlain has. Throughout Chamberlain's speech many character trait were revealed. One of these character traits was that he was generous. This is seen in the book “KIller Angels” on page 8 when it says, “ You go ahead and talk for a while.(Shaara)” Another character trait that Chamberlain shows is that …show more content…
The movie enhances emotions, facial expressions and the tone of the mutineers and Joshua in which we couldn’t see in the book. One example of the movie enhancing the tone of Joshua Chamberlain is when Joshua is delivering the speech. This is seen in the movie “Gettysburg” when Joshua says, “Sorry I…. uhhh….. Didn’t mean to preach….you uhhhh...you go ahead and….talk for a while.” Otherwise, in the book you don’t know how Joshua says his words, you can only guess how he is says the words. Another example of the movie enhancing the facial expressions of the mutineers is when Joshua calls the men in to talk, all of the mutineers look angry and tired. This is shown when Joshua brings the men in to talk to them the men look tired, angry and worn out. In the book you don’t get to see the facial expressions that the mutineers had on their faces. A final example of the movie enhancing the emotions is when Joshua is giving the speech to the men. At the end of his speech, Joshua starts crying after he says the words, “What we’re fighting for, in the end, we’re fighting for each other.(Gettysburg)” In the book after Joshua finishes his speech, there is nothing hinting the reader that Joshua is crying. All of these examples explains why the movie enhances the speech because the book just does give enough information to hint the reader of that emotion, facial expression or
Chamberlain showed what a good officer he was during the battle on Little Round Top. When he knew his troops were in trouble he had to order his own brother to help fill a spot, risking his life. Throughout the novel Shaara mentions how closely-knit the relationship between the two brothers was yet Chamberlain knew his duty to protect the Union armys flank and was willing to sacrifice both himself and his beloved brother Tom in order to fulfill it.
...e into explaining if COs were courageous or not. This also affects the usefulness making it incredibly useful as it explains why COs were courageous not cowards as they “were individuals who were confident that they must not employ violence or war”; this also meant that were put in “jeopardy” as the general public knew that they were COs. This meant that they were rejected from society” therefore, meant that their beliefs were so strong that they were courageous in the own way. This primary interpretation is that COs were courageous due to the fact they were treated badly in society yet they still stood up for what they believed in. Overall, this affects the reliability as it makes it very reliable as it has the benefit of hindsight. Overall, this affects the usefulness as it makes it very useful as it shows the side of COs that they weren’t cowards but, heroes.
There are many differences between the book; To Kill a Mockingbird and the movie. Some differences are easy to spot and some aren’t. Many things that are in the book aren’t in the movie. Many of these things you don’t need, but are crucial to the plot of the book. Movies and books have differences and similarities, but many things in books MUST be included in the movie.
From the start, the movie is adapted from the novel and therefore it could not cover everything, some actions or acts in the novel are too dense such that it is not of any importance to angle them in the movie. It is very realistic to everyone that the movie cannot cover every single paragraph in the novel even the memorable ones. Some materials are left out in the film, and others were changed.
In my opinion, the director is telling the story from both sides, meaning from the blacks and whites perception. Certain parts of the movie, I can see that the director is focusing on the living and training conditions of the black soldiers. This shows what the blacks were seeing. They are seeing the discrimination and the unfair treatment of their people in the union army. The part when union officers were leading a group of all black regiments to a raid at some house shows that the director is focusing on what the white soldiers think of blacks as soldiers. In that particular part of the movie, it shows blacks soldiers acting like little kids in a candy store. After watching the movie I think the director did a fined job, it was persuasive because from my reading and listening to people about how it was like for blacks during that period and how the director projects those images in your mind out and make it a movie is unbelievable.
While the men are in training, they find out that any black soldiers fighting for the Union will be killed. The Regiment are allowed to leave honorable. They continue to train extensively with Major Mulcahy. The
To begin with, there are many similarities between the book and movie To Kill A Mockingbird. For example, Tom Robinson died in an attempt to escape from prison in both the book and the movie. In my opinion Tom's death was crucial to the original story, and I believe the movie would have been seen as over-sentimental if the scriptwriters had let him live. Another important similarity between the book and movie, is the mutual fascination between Arthur Radley and the children. Arthur, or Boo as the children called him, left them gifts such as dolls, a watch, and chewing gum in the hollow of a tree in his yard. The children made expeditions to the Radley house to look in the window just so they could catch a glimpse of Boo Radley. I believe this captivation was important to the story line because it was the main foundation of the children's imagination. A big part of the story was imagining Boo to be some kind of freak that came out at night to eat cats and squirrels. An additional similarity between the book and movie is the respect showed to Atticus by the African American community of Maycomb. They respected him for his courage, which by his definition meant, "It's when you know you're licked before you begin, but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do."(112). I think the mutual respect between the African Americans and Atticus was important not only to Atticus, but also to his children. Their father and the sad story and memories of Tom Robinson taught them the wrongs of racism. I think if the movie producers had taken out the good relationship between Atticus and the African Americans, it would be taking away one of the most important themes of the story. There are many other significant similarities between the book and the movie.
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.
In Night, he informs his reader of many examples on how a myriad of good people turn into brutes. They see horrific actions, therefore, they cannot help by becoming a brute. They experience their innocent family members being burned alive, innocent people dieing from starvation due to a minuscule proportion of food, and innocent people going to take a shower and not coming out because truly, it is a gas chamber and all f...
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
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 ...
Some of the events that were in the book were not shown or did not happen in the movie. These were events like the bank note forgeries and some of the things that Squealer said to them like how he convinced them to let the pigs use the apples and milk in their mash. They did not even mention this event in the story. Other things that they did not even mention in the movie were the Sunday meetings and something they didn’t mention in the book was Napoleon’s addiction to whiskey. One of the main events in the book that was not shown in the movie was the battle where Boxer split his hoof. The only two battles that happened were the Rebellion and the Battle of Cowshed. One event that happened in the movie that did not happen in the book was when Squealer took Mr. Jones’s camera equipment and used it to speak to the animals.
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 done 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 lets the 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.
Another example is when Chance watches television. In the book, the narrator explains that when Chance changes the channel, he feels like he is changing himself. As he changes the channel, he gets caught up in all the different images he sees. In the movie, all you see is a man watching television, which doesn't explain too much. In the movie, the only time we find out what Chance thinks of television is when he is talking to someone else.
...nd embarrassed with their true desires not to fight. There is no freewill at this point because they feel obligated to be the patriotic men. They are confused not knowing the reason for this war but that it is “to stop the Communists, plain and simple” (O’Brien 45). Unfortunately is it not plain and simple, even a million words would not be able to express the experiences that these young men endure. Unlike the Lone Ranger, the soldiers would rather flee due to the natural human instincts toward a dangerous situation. Yet, they suppress their true feelings and fight with all they have. As we can see, the ones that fight to help people that they hardly know are indeed the regular, normal, and everyday human beings. With this in mind, we cannot count on the Lone Ranger to come to the rescue; rather, the heroes are right before our eyes. They are an “everyman.”