Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The graduate film analysis
The graduate film analysis
The graduate film analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Stephen King's Rita Haywort and the Shawshank Redemption
'Rita Haywort and the Shawshank Redemption' was first presented in 1982, by Stephen King and hooked the hearts of the world's readers. Literature reviews were immediately written about the book and quickly recognized as one of the years best. Rek Rehn, a book reviewer for Mouth Shut.com Wrote: 'This book is the jewel of the crown, a tender tale of hope, friendship and retribution.' Years later in 1994, Shawshank Redemption was again recognized by a wider audience. It was released as a major motion picture directed by Frank Darabont. The film presented very respectable actors, such as Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins. 'The Shawshank Redemption creates a warm hold on our feelings because it makes us a member of a family. Many movies offer us vicarious experiences and quick, superficial emotions. Shawshank slows down and looks,' said Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times. Although Shawshank Redemption is a excellent film, it is interesting to see that three obvious times the movie goes astray are when the director Mr. Darabont, chose to revise Kings book. It was not a good idea in all three cases. Steven king was the one with the better idea.
The first case is the beer scene. In the book, the guard gives beer to the inmates re-tarring the roof, as Andy had asked just like in the film, but the beer is warm in the book. Red even makes the point that it did not matter. ?That beer was piss-warm, but is was still the best ...
Have you ever felt like you didn’t belong somewhere and just wanted to get away? Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer is about a guy named Christopher who called himself Alex, and he just wanted to get away from his life and live how he wanted. Christopher McCandless stands out because he shows his emotions thoroughly and goes through with what he thinks. McCandless can be described as a thrill seeker, arrogant, and courageous.
In a certain sense that’s how Chris lived his entire life” (112). Chris was creative in everything he did, separating him from his classmates and most of society in general. He was also intensely spiritual from such a young age and viewed running an almost religious exercise. “Chris would use the spiritual aspect to try and motivate us,” recalls Eric Hathaway, another friend on the team. “He’d tell us to think about all the evil in the world, all the hatred, and imagine ourselves running against the forces of darkness, the evil wall that was keeping us from running our best. He believed doing well was all mental, a simple matter of harnessing whatever energy was available. As impressionable high school kids, we were blown away by that kind of talk” (112). McCandless was wise beyond his years to say the least. Testimony from Eric Hathaway’s experiences with Chris should be more than enough to prove how individual Chris was, even in high
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.
...not be seen as an admirable person for many reasons. Chris treated his family very poorly and practiced emotional avoidance. His mom took his disappearance the worst and he left no goodbye or apology letter to her or anyone else in his family. He hurt the people who loved him dearly. McCandless was also too impressionable by trying to be like the authors who wrote the books he read. If he had been more realistic and seen the outcomes of some of their lives, he might have not tried to copy them. He also failed to follow governmental rules and was rebellious. This showed how immature Chris was. These flaws McCandless possessed cannot be seen as admirable. Christopher McCandless died happy, but he did not have to die, therefore making him an un-admirable person.
Jon Krakauer, fascinated by a young man in April 1992 who hitchhiked to Alaska and lived alone in the wild for four months before his decomposed body was discovered, writes the story of Christopher McCandless, in his national bestseller: Into the Wild. McCandless was always a unique and intelligent boy who saw the world differently. Into the Wild explores all aspects of McCandless’s life in order to better understand the reason why a smart, social boy, from an upper class family would put himself in extraordinary peril by living off the land in the Alaskan Bush. McCandless represents the true tragic hero that Aristotle defined. Krakauer depicts McCandless as a tragic hero by detailing his unique and perhaps flawed views on society, his final demise in the Alaskan Bush, and his recognition of the truth, to reveal that pure happiness requires sharing it with others.
Stephen King published his novella “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption in 1982. In 1994 this novella was turned into a movie called The Shawshank Redemption. Frank Darabont wrote the screenplay. A good adaptation will capture the same overall essence of the written book or novella. Darabont did a wonderful job of adapting this novella into a movie. He captured the overall essence in a way that makes a heart rejoice in happiness and relief. The adaptation of The Shawshank Redemption is very well done.
In review McCandless was a man with boyish and romantic ambitions or maybe he was a boy with an intellectual mind stuck in the body of a man, because that theory would certainly exist as plausible in describing his foolish ways. Let us not forget that Chris did have a truly unique idea with good intention and maybe he did accomplish what he set out for, true inner peace with himself and the world around him maybe he did find himself in this whole ordeal. Yes McCandless was a bright soul but, in the end his foolishness or maybe even it was his bravery lead him to his demise, his lonely death in starvation. With all of this said was McCandless brave or was he foolish and stupid, well, for certain he never acted in any stupid way, but he did act in both foolishness and bravery because in many ways it takes quite some foolishness to be brave.
To Kill a Mockingbird is considered a classic novel around the world. To Kill a Mockingbird was released in 1960. The movie was released in 1962 pulling in over $15 million. The movie followed the same plot line as the book, but had many differences that may have changed the outcome.
Chris McCandless- a name immortalized due to his inexplicable desire to escape the civilized life for one in the wild. This desire inadvertently led to Chris McCandless’ death by starvation. Chris was an arrogant young man who believed he could do nearly anything. Little did he know that this excessive self-confidence would lead to his demise. Many readers still care about Chris McCandless and yearn for the answer to Chris’ death. Some adore Chris and try to emulate him. Others are adverse to these views and condemn Chris’ choices hoping others will not follow his self-destructive path.
While reading three articles about the play called "The Crucible" I noticed many interesting facts. Many questions as well came to mind. The main question was “What was the Arthur purpose for writing The Crucible”? Well let’s start of by saying Arthur Miller was a extremely American play writing. Miller born in 1915, but where was his childhood? He grew up in New York with a Jewish family. Arthur Millers’ play went on Broadway at the Martin Beck. This occurred in the year of 1953. The play was called The Crucible. Was The Crucible even one of his best places? Well it was yet one of his best second plays. What were the events of the play of Miller had done? The event of the play had to do with the events that took place in Salem. What happened in Salem was a witch craft trial. Most unfavorable people felt as though the play was a play about a terrible period in the American history.
Life in Salem, Massachusetts back in 1692 could prove very difficult for its residents. John Proctor, a married man living in this setting has to combat his society for what he believes is just and right, and in doing so sacrifices his life for it. In the play The Crucible, Arthur Miller illuminates the conflict between the individual and society by using John Proctor as his protagonist. Despite the fact that Proctor does die in the end, Arthur Miller believes that the individual does triumph over society in the end.
Many years ago, the culture and atmosphere was amazingly different. The expectations of people and communities are extremely high. During the Puritan times, many laws and regulations existed pertaining to government, religion, and witchcraft. In the play, The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, the one word that best describes the Puritan beliefs and the community structure is strict.
The crucible, written by Arthur Miller, is about the Salem witch trials and how people react to hysteria created from the fear of witches. In the play, after hysteria breaks out, the Salem government starts persecute and hang people it believes are witches. This prompts people to start to accusing people of witchcraft. Some people who accuse others of committing witchcraft are Abigail Williams and Thomas Putnam. They do not accuse people of witchcraft to stop witchcraft, but for personal gain or to hurt others. Thomas Putnam, one of the many characters who takes advantage of the witch trials, is able to use the fear of witches to bend the court to his will. Hysteria causes people to believe claims that are clearly false. This allows Putnam to persecute his enemies. He and many other are able to get away with this because hysteria driven persecutions are not run like regular courts and the fact that witchcraft is an invisible crime allows evidence to be made up. The theme of The Crucible is when any persecution is driven by fear and people can and will manipulate the system so they can gain and hurt another.
In the beginning, we learn that Chris McCandless is not like anyone else. Chris planned to “live off the land for a few months” (Krakauer 4). My initial thought was that Chris planned to die at his destination, after exploring the beauty of the area. I say this because Chris brought a minimum supply of food and gear for a great adventure. The author, Jon Kraukauer, ended the first chapter with Jim Gallien, a friend of Chris, saying, “I figured he'd be OK…I thought he'd probably get hungry pretty quick and just walk out to the highway. That's what any normal person would do" (Krakauer 7). By ending the chapter with this quote, Kraukauer gave me an ominous feeling because we know that Chris is not just any ordinary or normal person;
Chris McCandless always felt held back and restricted, either by parents or by an indifferent society in general. An abhorrence against the powers that be and against what he saw as an unfulfilled life led him to embark on a great adventure of solitude and self-discovery.