Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: History
This paper seeks to show the comparison and the scrutiny of “"The Mad Trapper"” as a novel and its adaptation as a film. Both as a book and as a film it provides a good fiction which attracts an affluent legacy of folks, fables and myths. Rudy Wiebe’s recent novel The Mad Trapper (1980), the legend, presents a basis for the frame. Further than any distress with chronological events, the writer categorically depicts legendary dimensions to intertwine his fiction into conflict. Weibe’s argument, nevertheless, is not merely involving thermo and Albert Johnson; his contention lies amid the impending desires of self independence and reliability and the problem of multifaceted and distant progress. On the other hand, “The Mad trapper” is also a film that draws its plot from the novel. The film showcases staging or a dramatization of a search for a certain individual. The search takes place in Canada between the years 1931 and 1932. Albert Johnson was considered hermit, this means that he operated as an introvert. He made few associations; contact and even friends. In 1932 generated a demanding manhunt is considered an Arctic legend. In approximately one month and a half amid snowstorm and freezing winter, he cunningly escaped from a group of trappers, armed forces, Indians who in their first time were using a two-way radio and an aircraft. He is being sought for allegedly being implicated in shoot-outs, murdering one officer and austerely injuring two others. One of the differences between the movie and the book lies in the settings or rather the surrounding in both the movie and the book. The book depicts an exemplary factual tale, one of mountain myths, situated in 1930's Northern parts of Canada. The book portrays an account of C... ... middle of paper ... .... In the movie adaptation, Millen sympathizes and empathizes with Johnson something that is not well brought in the book. It is very easy to see from the movie that the two men are alike and perhaps as different from the other characters as they are alike. Millen is just as reluctant to go after Johnson as we are to see him go after Millen. The plot of the book has been significantly reworked for dramatic effect. The most obvious of these changes is the role that constable Millen plays. ‘Wop’ May who is instrumental in tracking the ‘Mad Trapper’ is questionable. The film is a fairly faithful adaptation of the book. The amateurish style of the book gives it some appeal as a more sleek and sophisticated style wouldn’t evoke a sense of angst’ desperation and confusion that the novel does. Works Cited Wiebe, R. (2003). The Mad Trapper. New York: Red Deer Press.
This is my view on the movie and book. I likes the movie better the book because the
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.
In the book “The Mad Among Us-A History of the Care of American’s Mentally Ill,” the author Gerald Grob, tells a very detailed accounting of how our mental health system in the United States has struggled to understand and treat the mentally ill population. It covers the many different approaches that leaders in the field of mental health at the time used but reading it was like trying to read a food label. It is regurgitated in a manner that while all of the facts are there, it lacks any sense humanity. While this may be more of a comment on the author or the style of the author, it also is telling of the method in which much of the policy and practice has come to be. It is hard to put together without some sense of a story to support the action.
“The Great Escape” came out on July 4th, 1963. It is based on a true story of a group of Allied prisoners who managed to escape from an allegedly impenetrable Nazi prisoner of war camp, Stalag Luft III, on March 24, 1944. Directed by John Sturges, it follows the true account of the escape very accurately. With a perfect balance between comedy and adventure, “The Great Escape” keeps you on the edge of your seat.
...rtrayed differently in the movie. Lennie is shown as being very mentally challenged, whereas in the book he is just a little slow and has a mind of a young child. Although some changes are made in the movie to make it flow better, it is still based on the same story as the book. The movie has the same plot line and characters, and some of the scenes are told in the exact same way as they are in the novel. As well, the movie and the book give out the same themes. This story is about how all the people in the Great Depression were trying to escape their unhappy, lonely lives, but weren’t capable of doing so. The movie stays very true to the book even though some things are removed or added. Everything that is added or changed still works very well and captures the film perfectly.
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.
The plot in the film is very similar to the book but in parts, especially towards the end, the plot is slightly different to the film. The plot is varied in the film to show
The novel is organized in an unusual manner that can make it seem unclear to the reader. Krakauer does not introduce the work as a whole, yet he pieces together the story through different chapters. McCandless’s journey is described out of chronological order, requiring the audience to pay careful attention in order to understand the events that unfold.
The movie is, most likely, done well enough to intrigue its intended audience. It captured the theme and story line of the book. It falls short, though, when compared to the beautiful, sensitive and contemplative prose of Natalie Babbitt. One could only hope that a viewing of the film will lead the watcher to try the book and be delighted all the more.
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.
It is quiet rare to watch a film that trumps its novel origins. Film version of movies are often less detailed, give poor representation of true characters, and are frequently just plain laughable in comparison to “the real deal.” However, the best selling memoir, “Wild: A Journey from Lost to Found” offers a framework that simply begs to be put into motion picture.
Being one of the world’s most popular art forms, it was inevitable that these archetypes would find their way into film as well. In this essay I will argue that the films Pulp Fiction, Taxi Driver, Watership Down, and Trainspotting are all versions of The Hero’s Journey, consequently demonstrating just how prevalent these archetypes have become in modern cinema. And that mythology and storytelling are important parts of each culture because they prevent the darkness in our hearts from spreading.
The first chapter of George Bluestone’s book Novels into Film starts to point out the basic differences that exist between the written word and the visual picture. It is in the chapter "Limits of the Novel and Limits of the Film," that Bluestone attempts to theorize on the things that shape the movie/film from a work of literature. Film and literature appear to share so much, but in the process of changing a work into film, he states important changes are unavoidable. It is the reasoning behind these changes that Bluestone directs his focus, which is the basis behind the change. He starts to look at the nature of film and literature, as a crucial part in the breakdown of this problem. It is only through a discussion into nature of each of these, that Bluestone can discover where film and literature seperate, and also develop a close to accurate theory on the laws that direct the course of change from novel to film.
Each chapter invents its own reality, a reality of the screen, of the movies, that is brought into closer contact by means of a literary text. The book as a whole, then, glorifies in the postmodern tradition multiple interpretations of reality. Movies themselves present alternative realities or interpretations of perceived realities, most often differing from our own individual constructions. Thus, by offering ...
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.