Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Characterization in essays and short stories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
White Oleander: Book vs. Movie
Like with most books that are made into movies, this was definitely a disappointment. I have always found that books can tell much better stories than what you see on screen, this was no different.
The movie easily cut out very important parts of the story. The beginning of the book is so important because you really get the feel for the weird mother-daughter relationship between Astrid and her Mother. In the movie you only get to see a small portion of how Astrid’s Mother treats her. Also, in the movie they do not tell the whole story about Astrid’s Mother and the man that she murdered. I could go on and on listing the many things that we left out that are so important to the story.
The actors in the movie were incredibly in sync with the characters portray ed in the book. They made the perfect matches of the innocent Astrid who has to grow up so quickly. Her Mother who is so beautiful, strong willed, and has such a whimsical, unreal sense to her. When I think of the characters in the book I can definitely picture the actors in the movie.
The hardships that Astrid came upon were in to way reflected as they should have been in the movie. There are so many events and people that influenced Astrid to do the things and make the decisions that she did and they were completely left out of the movie. It is kind of hard to understand why Astrid resents her Mother they way she does if you do not know the whole story of the hardships that her Mother put her through by being selfish and not thinking of what would happen to Astrid if she got caught the way she did.
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
While watching the movie, I could see that the main characters in the book, both their names and traits, were the same in both the movie and book. However, aside from that there were many different as...
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
There were many differences in the characters' relationships with each other. For instance, Heather and Melinda’s connection were very different from book to film.
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 movie, they missed things or changed parts, but they also quoted the book quiet a lot and make the story more a like. Most of the most important parts were in the movie. They missed one of the camps that Corrie was sent to and the didn’t show much of the 100th year party of the watch shop besides a picture. I liked the book way more than the movie because the book had more detail and made you understand what that part of WWII was like more than the movie does. In the book Corrie is learning how to have more faith and trust in God more but in the movie, she had a lot of faith the whole time and she didn’t struggle with that as much. I enjoyed reading about that because it made me feel like I’m not the only one that struggles.
Usually movies try to take the story to a different level or by adding parts or just try to change it to a completely different story. Some of the differences between the movie as to the book are some little and large differences. They might also try taking little parts away that will change how the readers see the story characters. An example of that would be Walter not smoking in the movie (Pg 115). Walter usually smokes because he is stressed or just as a way to relax. Walter also does not get punched by Mam...
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.
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 decision of the screenwriter and director to cut out what I felt were several story arcs and scenes from the novel was very disappointing. For example, in the movie there is no mention of Beth's shyness, or of her overcoming that shyness to become friends with Mr. Lawrence. The scene in the novel where she gathers her courage to walk over to his house and thank him for giving her his piano is one of the most defining moments for Beth. Overall I found Beth and Mr. Lawrence to both be sadly underdeveloped in the movie. Mr. Lawrence appears in only three scenes, while many of Beth's key moments also vanished. Jo's wonderful tomboyish nature is also severely tone-down for this version. She does not say "Christopher Columbus"; nor any of her other slang words. We never see the scene where she longs to go be a soldier fighting in the war and wishes she were a man. They transformed the character of Meg from someone who longs for finer things and tends to be snobbish into the wise older sister who does not care about such things. Lacking is the wonderful moment when she realizes that she does not care about Mr. Brook's poverty as she staunchly defends her love of him against Aunt March. While Amy's quest for a perfect nose is mentioned twice, there is never a scene showing some of her efforts such as her wearing the clothespin on it at night to make is straight, nor do we get enjoy watching her artistic endeavors such as her attempts to make a plaster cast of her foot.
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.
but I expected it in the movie because the movie showed him as a bad person from the beginning. Another detail that the movie missed was when all the animals could talk. In the movie not all the animals could talk. This eliminated many important things.
No one could have played Rex better than Woody Harrelson. The director did a respectable job of casting people who would have looked like the author described them in the book. Overall, the movie did a fantastic job of portraying the major events and showing the overall theme of the book. Watching the movie, you notice a few differences. For example, Lori has glasses on and in the book, she did not get glasses until later in the story.
...neration to understand and brought utter disrespect to James Thurber because it had hardly any similarities to his book. The short story ended with Walter picking up his wife and completing the tasks that she had asked and still being him and no more. The movie ended with Walter fulfilling the last picture which was found in the Wallet that Sean O’Connell sent to him in the lab and then he gave it to his boss and told him to print it and he never looked at the picture to it was printed. One thing that should’ve gotten done differently is making the movie portray to the book. By portraying to the book, what should’ve gotten done are the prolong of the driving experience and the prolong of his in city experiences. The movie should’ve stayed in somewhat coordinate of the book so that people are able to actual compare the book and movie more than just a couple of ways.
	Books, more often than not, are better than the movies that are made from them. This is due to the immense power of our imaginations. Readers use their imaginations to fill the space that exists between him/herself and the book with such things as dreams, past experiences, and hopes. For this reason, there is much more depth and symbolic depictions in the novella, The Awakening, by Kate Chopin, compared with the movie version, Grand Isle. Due to this, the effect on the reader is much more potent than the effect on the viewer.