Representing America - American Literature AP - Blog

A Movie’s Advantages

There is a generally accepted belief that book versions of stories are better than the movie versions and that in general, movies cannot match up to the “rich, thoughtful experience” of reading a book. While I do understand that books have more opportunity to set the scene explicitly and to develop a character’s thoughts, movies have the unique ability to show actions and setting complexity often overlooked in a book.

Great examples one of the advantages of movies are often found in action movies. The action-packed tale would not be the same if you had to read through all the back handsprings and roundhouse kicks, getting lost in the speed of the fights. The dynamic experience is enhanced by the visual, never hindered. Visual representation also comes in handy in those flicks when they have to creatively get through the moving lasers. Those scenes in Ocean’s Eleven and Twelve as well as Get Smart would not be the same in text.

Another visual advantage is used perfectly in Avatar. The settings in books are often overlooked as unimportant and in the cases where it is described to do it justice, the reader is board and not appreciative. Movies are able to contain elaborate settings that don’t need to be explained, just appreciated. Descriptions of all the beautiful flora and fauna in that movie would have been long and likely boring instead of instead of the constant admiration received by the movie’s fans.

Finally, a movie can in fact be better than a book. When a book is badly written but has a good plot (of which there are many), or is too complex for its own good (of which there are fewer), a movie version, if well done, can tell the story so that its integrity remains but quality goes up. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a perfect example of a set of movies that raise the quality of the original story by simply being well-made movies.

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: Film vs Book

I didn't see the Swedish mini series of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" so I can't speak about that but I did find Fincher's movie closer to the book and I would think that it maybe includes more details. I also found the actress playing Salande plays it well as it includes the right mix of sharp edged nonsense and insecurity that a girl who'd been abused in so many ways from such an early age would be. I had read the books first and didn't think the American version could possibly be any good but I was really surprised. Even the guy who played Blomkvist, even though he brought that 007 aura with him, played the part better. I didn't find anything even really interesting about the book-version Blomkvist. Craig (although he's too hard body, Blomkvist was supposed to be way out of shape) played a guy who was confident in his skills but kind of goofy and definitely not used having his life threatened, which is how I pictured Blomkvist when I read the books. I could see how women might find that intriguing, how a confused young woman might find him a "safe" enough male to get involved with. And now I can't wait until the next installment of the series is released in theaters. I think the movie did a good job in portraying the book. If you guys haven't seen it yet, you should check it out!

Creating their Own World

I believe Richard Corliss is correct in his assertion that readers think the book is better because they have a perfect version in their mind.

I have read a lot of books about alternate worlds and these books contain a lot of imagery to create the new world.  Sometimes I feel like the books are meant to only be seen in the readers' heads.  They are alternate universes after all and are not meant to be based in our world.  In books with magic, time travel, etc I feel since these events cannot occur in today's world the movies make the scenes extremely cheesy.  This cheesiness creates laughter among the audience and readers knowing it is not meant to be a humor filled scene may get angry at the film adapters.  

Readers also may dislike how the film adapters created the world or cast the characters.  Every reader imagines the world the writer creates differently.  Readers may add images into the world in their head that the writer does not give or they may ignore imagery in the novel that they dislike.  This manipulation in the readers mind will then lead to a slight difference in everyone's mind on what the movie version should be.  So when the film adapter reads the book and pictures the movie one way some of the readers will disagree.   Some readers, after watching the movie, may not be able to imagine the world their head created and instead picture the movie version.  If this event occurs many readers will say the movie ruined the book for them and dislike when their other favorite books are made into to movies in the future.  Therefore readers will prefer the book trying to protect the world their mind created and ignore the movie's version as best they can.   

LOTR

if you were to ask if books or the movie version of a book was better? most people would answer book. which i think is completely legit. a lot of times movies leave out the best parts of the book, they don't stay true to the story, the characters don't develop. movies often Hollywood(ize) every book, adding fancy special effects where they don't need to be, and making every character drop dead gorgeous. 

but i also believe that movies, if done well, add something beautiful to  a story. take for example lord of the rings. its one of the best fantasy books ever written, some would argue the best. and yes the movie did leave out a lot of side plot, but they got most of it right. not only that but the movie added something to the story. the music and landscapes they filmed created the perfect touch to middle earth. they enhanced the story, made it better. 

so i agree that most of the time movies buthur the books they are trying to be, but when its done right, movies become beautiful representations of books.

Writing an Original Argument

For the next blog post, please write an original argument on one of the following topics below.  Whichever topic you choose, support your argument with appropriate evidence from your reading, observation or experience.  Your argument does not need to be multiple paragraphs, but you should have a clear structure, where you make claims, back them up with data, and provide a warrant for how the data supports a particular claim and your overall argument.  Feel free to establish exigence and make your thesis as complex as possible.

Topic #1: Richard Corliss writes in Time magazine:

Ask any reader who has seen the movie version of a favorite novel, and the answer will usually be, 'The book was better.' That's because readers of a novel have already made their own perfect movie version. They have visualized it, fleshed out the locations and set the pace as they either zipped through the book or scrupulously savored every word. Often they have even cast it.

Many lovers of books argue that films are a lesser art form.  Even if the film is a masterpiece, it will never provide the viewer with the same rich, thoughtful experience as a reader gets when reading a book.  Write an argument which defends, challenges or qualifies this assertion.

or

Topic #2

If you have not been following the Republican presidential campaign closely, watch the following statement from Republican candidate Newt Gingrich about food stamps and the African American community.  Also, for background you might read the following news article about Republican candidates using racially-tinged rhetoric in their campaigns.

Leonard Pitts, an African American newspaper columnist, writes:

I got my first job when I was 12. The deacons at my church paid me $2 a week to keep it swept and mopped.

So I do not need Newt Gingrich to lecture me about a good work ethic. In this, I suspect I speak for the vast majority of 39 million African-Americans.

There has been a lot of talk about whether Gingrich's recent language, including his performance at last week's South Carolina debate and his earlier declaration that Barack Obama has been America's best "food stamp president," amounts to a coded appeal to racist sensitivities. The answer is simple: Yes.

Gingrich joins a line of Republicans stretching back at least to Richard Nixon. From that president's trumpeting of "law and order" (i.e., "I will get these black demonstrators off the streets") to Ronald Reagan's denunciation of "welfare queens" (i.e., "I will stop these lazy black women from living high on your tax dollars") to George H.W. Bush's use of Willie Horton (i.e., "Elect me or this scary black man will get you") the GOP long ago mastered the craft of using nonracial language to say racial things.

So Gingrich is working from a well-thumbed playbook when he hectors blacks about their work ethic and says they should demand paychecks and not be "satisfied" with food stamps. As if most blacks had ever done anything else. As if a jobless rate that for some mysterious reason runs twice the national average does not make paychecks hard to come by. As if blacks were the only, or even the majority of, food stamp recipients.

Then write an argument in which you defend, challenge or qualify Pitts' assertion that Republican candidates are using racism -- stereotyping and insulting black people, in particular -- to win votes.