Rumble Fish Movie And Book Comparison Essay

Translating a novel into a film can be quite a daunting task. Often times, some parts will be condensed or eliminated from the screen play altogether. Directs will see things differently and occasionally the movie will not emulate its book counterpart at all. Fortunately, Rumble Fish’s movie did not undergo drastic changes. The film adaptation of Rumble Fish does a satisfactory job of retelling S.E. Hinton’s work or literature and even adds on to it. This is evident through the changes made and creative liberties taken, the portrayal of the characters, and the alternate ending.
From the book to movie, there are bound to be alterations and creative liberties presented in the film adaptation. S.E. Hinton’s novel is intended for a younger audience,

as such, the vulgar language is not present. Nevertheless, the film adds this. This simple change makes the film more relatable to the audience and makes the situation seem more realistic. Who could imagine teens in a gang not using profanity, it just does not add up. Hinton does allude to the characters cursing, “she started off swearing at me again. I wondered where she’d learned to swear so good, then I remembered she’d been going out with me for five months” though it is just not the same (68). Therefore, the movie’s use of different diction innovates and makes the story exceptionally better. Another interesting liberty they take is the selective use of colours. Everything is in black in white, similar to how the motorcycle boy sees things; however, when the rumble fish are show they are vibrant colours. This artistic decision sets the setting and brings importance to the fish. They represent segregation and alienation in their tanks. By making them the only things in the entire movie with colour highlights their importance and shows some symbolism. This is something that the novel could not achieve in the same way the film does.
As for the actors in the film, there is a certain character that I could not imagine or even being to picture without a physical representation. The movie facilitated this. There are scenes in the novel with the Motor Cycle Boy that I could not visualize actually happening. Such as a person being so aloof, distance, and excelling at whatever they happen to be doing. Another thing would be portrayal of the Motor Cycle Boy’s violent behavior. In the book, he seems more docile compared to his movie counterpart. To illustrate, “The Motor Cycle Boy stepped out, grabbed Biff’s wrist, and snapped it backwards. You could hear it crack like a match stick” (28). Now braking someone’s bones does sound alarming; however, in the film he literally rams a motor cycle into Biff. Normally someone would most likely be dead from such an experience, but thanks to the magic of Hollywood Biff is miraculously alive. This drastic shift from breaking a boke to killing someone truly takes Rumble Fish to a never level and makes the Motor Cycle Boys actions more questionable. These are just a few reasons why the film does an outstanding job of depicting Rumble Fish.
When it comes to the ending of a novel being changed, one can only wonder if it truly emulates the book. In several cases authors, have had negative feelings towards a director changing their ending, such as Anthony Burgess and book A Clock Work Orange. In some cases, the different ending can take away from the novel and what it stands for, such as The Chocolate War’s film adaptation. What made the novel so acknowledgeable was the fact that the ‘protagonist’ does not always win and happy endings do not always occur; however, the movie transformed this into a classic happy ending with the antagonist loosing. In this circumstance, I believe that kind of change takes away from the novel, but with Rumble Fish, it is a different story.
The original ending in the novel is undesirable and negative.

To demonstrate, “So I was there when they turned him over, and he was smiling, and the little rumble fish were flipping and dying around him, still too far from the river” (131). On the other hand, the modified ending to the film adaptation is appropriate and almost feels required. The lead up to the ending with the Motor Cycle boy wanting to prove his theory is such a crucial learning experience for Rusty-James, and it is disheartening to not see his theory flourish. One could argue that this ending is similar to The Chocolate War, in its cynical nature and important to show that not everything is hunky-dory. Despite that, I would still argue that this ending needed to occur. Rusty-James and the audience have to see the rumble fish swim away in their own separate paths in the river or else there would be no moral of the story. There would be no meaning in the Motor Cycle boy’s death or his sacrifice to demonstrate this theory to his brother. The only messages that could be taken away from this piece of literature would be to not get involved with the wrong crowd or becoming your own person despite the desire to contend with others or to follow in their footsteps. Now the latter of these seems adequate, but the lesson about separation and need for people to get along with one another is superior. Indeed, this ending shifts from the initial conclusion, but it still matches up with the overall atmosphere of Rumble

Fish.
Many directors have taken it upon themselves to create motion pictures of people’s favourite novels. Although the task seems intimidating people still continue to do this, so with more agreeable adaptations than others. With Rumble Fish’s film adaptation, the director preformed well and created a film on par, in not better than the novel itself. The is possible through the director’s creative liberties with the selective use of colour and obscene language, the actors’ portal of characters and the alternate ending. The book is alright for young adult readers, but the movie broadens its audience and gears it towards more people. All in all it was an interesting film that measures up to the book it came from!