Avery-Perks of Being A Wallflower

The film adaptation of Stephen Chbosky’s Perks of Being a Wallflower changes Charlie’s relationship with Sam from dependence into an actual romantic relationship. Although Charlie’s letters in the book mention a few stories about his life outside of Sam, the focus is obsessively on her, almost in a compulsive way.

Both the novel and the film portray Charlie to be subtly peculiar, but the film version does a better job at making viewers feel for Charlie and view his idiosyncrasies as endearing. This is because viewers were shown Charlie’s life through the 3^rd person omniscient perspective as things happen, instead of through Charlie’s first person reflective letters in the book. Viewers see more of Charlie’s outside life, which takes needed focus off of his fixation on Sam.

The visual aspect of the film allowed viewers to see these outside interactions, like Charlie fighting the football players in the cafeteria, in a way that empower Charlie’s character. Viewers see Charlie get more and more angry until the camera blacks out, just as Charlie mentally blacks out, and then resumes for viewers to see the immediate aftermath of the fight. This is when Charlie’s starts talking with Sam again, which is a defining moment, as Charlie proves himself to be not only loyal to the group, but as someone who can defend himself and his friends. More importantly, it proved that Charlie is good enough to be with Sam, even if it was just to himself. After the fight, Charlie has an understated confidence that he doesn’t have at this point in the book.

Charlie still loves Sam in the film, but he is less dependent on her emotionally and as a character. One particular scene change is the addition of Charlie tutoring Sam for the SATs. This adaptation reverses the roles of dependency and allows Charlie to be in control and contribute in some way to the relationship, which is sometimes rare. Sam also has her own moments, separate from Charlie, in the film that shows viewers her vulnerability, like the scene when Sam tells Charlie about her Dad’s friend when she was 11. The perspective of the movie allows viewers into this moment, and see Sam isn’t positioned as being more in control than Charlie.

All of these adaptations contributed to validating Charlie‘s position as Sam’s boyfriend at the end of the film. He is emotionally in-control and has proved that he can handle the relationship. The end of the book suggests that the two continue their lives as friends. This cemented Charlie’s position as Sam’s semi-secret admirer. 

The Perks of Being a Wallflower

Sam and Charlie’s relationship in the book vs. the movie version

The main difference in the novel and the film version is that in the whole plot is told by Charlie, and we get to read more of his perspectives and opinions in the book, but in the film’s story-line is told through different characters. So this make Sam’s and Charlie’s relationship story be different. 

In the book, it seemed like Charlie was this confused young freshman, who was crazy a girl and never stopped thinking about her, but with the movie we get to see Sam’s reaction as well through the facial expressions. So in this case it doesn't seem as if Charlie is too obsessed with Sam but the movie creates the makes it as if they both had feelings equally with one another and it wasn’t just Charlie who was obsessed with Sam. The book mostly focused on Charlie as the person who wasn’t honest to himself but some parts suggest that Sam wasn’t honest about her feeling as well, because in the film Charlie was funnier and seemed more comfortable in the movies than the book, especially in the party scenes.

The book puts a huge emphasis on the fact that Charlie was still young and naïve as he repeats twice in the movie that he will never think of Sam that way – meaning thinking of Sam naked and sexually attracted to her. So in the book, their relation they not that open about their relationship, they seem to be more apart while in the movie Charlie seemed to be closer to Sam and open about their relationship.

Overall, I think in the movie Charlie is a little bit more personal to Sam, than in the book and their relationship gets deeper even before Sam admits that she also loves Charlie. Sam tells Charlie about she doubts herself about being accepted to college because she has to get good SAT scores and Charlie offers to help her and spend more time with her to prepare for college. This also goes against the image of Charlie as being the younger  and confused high school kid as it is described in the book, but we the movie portrays Charlie as this boy that would do anything for their relationship and not scared and naïve anymore. 

Charlie & Sam's Relationship

What is interesting about the adaption of Stephen Chbosky's book Perks of Being a Wallflower is that he wrote the screenplay and directed the film, so any changes made to the plot or characters were choices he made. The changes in the relationship between Sam and Charlie were his decision, and he must have decided that the complicated novel version of their relationship would not translate well into film. Instead of Charlie being a young, inexperienced boy in love with a girl four years older and out of his league and Sam being an older mentor who occasionally indulged his crush, their relationship is continually established as romantic. The novel allowed their relationship to contain paradoxes. For example, Sam didn't think of Charlie in a romantic way but would kiss him out of protective love. Whereas the film suggested that Sam reciprocated Charlie's love. 

The Sam in the film is protective of Charlie, but she also views him as more of an equal. There are several moments where she confides in him, one of them is when she is worried about not performing well enough on the SAT's to get into Penn State. Charlie then offers to tutor her, and additional scenes happen in the diner where the changing background scenery suggests the passage of time. This helps to establish their relationship as something separate from Charlies relationship with the group. While Charlie is in love with Sam in the book, their time together is rarely spent alone and is often much friendlier than displayed in the film. 

Charlie is also not as aggressive with his feelings in the novel, as he is more concerned with Sam's happiness then them having a romantic relationship. He seems to understand the age difference and the fact that Sam will always be more of a friend than a girlfriend. Honestly, most of his crush seems to stem from the fact that this was the first girl (besides his aunt) who was nice to him. In the film he makes sarcastic comments to remind Sam of their relationship and the audience of the romantic undertones between them. When he finds out Sam's boyfriend won't be there for Christmas he sarcastically says "Oh so sorry he won't be joining us" while smirking, and when he's with Mary Elizabeth he says "I'll try not to make you too jealous". 

For me, the film mirrored Charlie and Sam's relationship with Charlie's sister and pony-tail Derrick. Charlie made Sam soppy mix-tapes and Sam indulged him, just as Charlie's sister did (although Sam may have appreciated hers). Her speech in her bedroom before she left for college is reminiscent of the one Charlie's sister gives Derrick before he slaps her: decide what you want, be a man. And then is also followed with kissing and at least an attempt at sex. Perhaps because Chbosky chose to downplay the importance of his sister's behavior in the film, he incorporated some of that into Charlie and Sam's relationship. I don't think so though, since it had a completely different effect. I think it was mostly to make the relationship more black and white. Sam wanted to be with Charlie, but she had to date some people who treat her badly first. Their kiss in the closing, additional scene suggests that they might even end up together. 

Perks of Being a Wallflower - Sam and Charlie

The movie adaptation of Stephen Chbosky’s Perks of Being a Wallflower alters the relationship between Sam and Charlie in certain ways that turned their relationship into something else entirely. The alterations allow Charlie to be on more of an equal grounds with Sam instead of Sam always seeming like the older more mature one. This alteration transforms their relationship so by the end it can be assumed that they are in a romantic relationship unlike in the books.

One major equalizer was how Sam would confide in Charlie about her troubles and fears in the film. In the novel, Charlie would usually be the one telling others about what was going on with him or just listening. Sam would not fully confide in Charlie because she was more of a mentor to him. She only truly confided in him with the secret about her adolescent molestation whereas in the film she also told him about her fears about getting into college. She told him she got a bad SAT score, which prompted another major alteration. Charlie tutored Sam for her SATs, which never happened in the novel. This alteration allows for Charlie to be the one helping Sam out and giving them more of a give and take relationship. This change helps Charlie to become Sam’s peer rather than always the freshman she mentors. Since in the book, Sam always seems to be trying to teach Charlie life lessons like how to go on dates with girls or helping him out by giving him his first real kiss. These things happen in the movie, but with the added effect of Charlie helping her, their relationship does not seem so much like a teacher and student.

In effect, Sam and Charlie end up presumably having sex before she leaves for college because of this equality and the negation of a alarming memory of Charlie’s molestation. Charlie has a faint hint of remembrance than tucks it away in the movie so that they can consummate their relationship instead of it just being platonic. The novel ended their relationship with friendship because the relationship would have obviously not been healthy for either of the character that had been through the same childhood trama and both needed to grow away from each other. On the other hand, th movie ended with a happy sense that Sam and Charlie are now in a more romantic relationship that Charlie and the reader were hoping for through the kiss before Sam leaves for college and the final kiss in the tunnel. The kiss in the tunnel allows the viewer to assume they are still together and in a long distance relationship.

These major changes drastically altered the relationship between Sam and Charlie. The changes shifted the relationship to a one-sided romantic love to a connected romantic love through the alterations in the plot.  

Casino Royale themes in the book and film

The book and the film themes focus on greed, corruption and control or power and these two themes goes hand- in-hand in the movie and the book. With greed we see how quickly you can lose the money that you gain over gambling, just as the saying “easy coming, easy go.” And we see a Le Chiffre winning the money at the beginning, then Bond wins it over and Vesper steals the money that Bond won from him and the Secret Service Company by being a spy for the Russians. Greed in this story also goes along with killing and corruption that characters like Bond and Le Chiffre commit in order to gain power and win in the money at stakes. The message from the plot is that the money that you gain fast it, you can also lose it easily and fast.  And you can only own that money for a short term because everyone else wants it; you also have fight for it constantly to protect yourself from your enemies. This easy money also comes with a short life as we see most of the people die a lot and early just because the people that are involved in the game are all fighting to win and paying revenge.

Casino Royale also focuses a little bit on betrayal which I think also is part of being greedy. For example in the plot we  see Vesper betraying both Bond and the Secret Service company she was working for by not transforming the money that Bond won in gambling to the company they work for. At the beginning of the movie, we also see Dimitrios being betrayed by his wife who revealed his travelling plans to Miami to Bond.

Overall, the book and the movie have the same themes even though the movie has added some scenes at the beginning. The changes that were made helped with developing some of the characters and their storylines. The changes in the book and the film are a result of the time differences and lifestyles of the different times when the book was written and the movie was created.

Avery Sherrer-Theme Casino Royale

Although I don’t think that Casino Royale is fueled by a powerful message, many themes arise in the novel as well as the film adaptation made in 2006. James Bond consistently risks his life in the pursuit of his form of ‘justice.’ Defining justice, loyalty and trust are major themes in Casino Royale.

Bond’s partner on his current mission, Vesper, is attractive but emotionally detached. Even though Vesper is cold when first meeting Bond, the two have a mutual understanding of loyalty to one another. In this case, loyalty implies the responsibility that each partner has to assist the other in each task and do everything possible to keep each other safe. I thought it was interesting that Bond and his partner are expected to be selflessly loyal to one another even though they have never met. This also points to the fact that Bond is so trusting of the Secret Service that he doesn’t even question this relationship. It is not until the end of the novel that Bond realizes that he has been sold out by his partner, which brings up the question if anyone can ever be fully trusted. Bond is praised when he expresses to his boss that he has realized that no one is to be trusted and that he must be skeptical about everyone’s motive and character for the sake of his own safety.

Another major theme of the novel is justice. Bond is glorified for his pursuit of justice and making things right, yet his morality is rarely called into question. Bond’s mission is to financial cripple international terrorists, which sounds morally just until you look at his actions. He is deceitful, manipulates the majority of those around him, and brutally shoots and strangles countless ‘minor players’ in the mission whose lives could have been spared, all with next to no emotion. This leads us to question if Bond is pursuing justice or making the world all the more violent and cold.

Casino Royale- Good and Evil

The movie, based on Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale, held a similar central message to the novel. The novel’s message seemed to be about the question of what the line is between good and evil. This line at first may seem black and white to some, but really appears grayer in real life. The book tackles this debate through the conversation between Bond and Mathis at the end of the book. They compare God to the Devil and how we represent good and evil through these two characters as the extremes of both sides (Fleming 136). Then he goes on to call God clear and the Devil undefined since there is no book of evil or even on how to be evil. So, no one character can truly judge another as purely good or evil because this is all relative creating more of a gray area.

The movie transfers this message and adds to it in order to make it clearer to the audience with M telling Bond to be careful with whom he trusts in the beginning. Then ending with saying he no longer trusts anyone and M replying that he has learned his lesson. Trust factors into this scale because Bond cannot only trust people that are purely good because no one is purely good; he must always be wary of others. So even at the end of the movie, Bond tells M that they should look further into Mathis and his background.

Bond, from the movie, even proves that no character is purely good because he does things often that could be seen as bad. Bond kills people, disobeys authority, sleeps with married women, and steals from others. But, when comparing Bond to the “bad” guys relatively he can be seen as good since he does not kill innocent people or help fund terrorism. 

The gray appears through characters like Vesper because she at first looks to be on Bond’s side, but really is a double agent for the communists. In both the novel and movie, she may appear to be good since she never kills anyone (excluding herself), helps Bond (the “good” guy), and works for M. Once her double agent status is revealed, Bond’s image of her is shattered since she works for the other side even though this makes her a gray character not completely evil. Bond neglects her prior actions and judges her on the soul fact that she works for the evil people. Working for the opposing forces automatically makes someone evil. This can be seen through Le Chiffre since throughout the beginning of the novel and film he never once kills anyone directly. Le Chiffre does not get his hands dirty, but instead has other people do his biddings. But since he works against Bond, he is automatically turned into the villain even while Le Chiffre at one point turns into the victim in the film while in his hotel room.

Casino Royale has two seemingly defined sides of opposing forces which makes the central message the difference between good and evil. It can be seen through the novel that these terms are relative, while in the film they mainly focus on the blur between the two and how these shades of gray can skew trust. 

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo- Lisbeth Salander

In The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo by Stieg Larsson, the character of Lisbeth Salander at first appeared as a completely mystery through the perspective of Dragan Armansky. The book used third person omniscient perspective to give others opinions on the appearance of Lisbeth. Lisbeth came off as an emotionless recluse because of the way she would handle emotional reports in such dry tones. These things were shown through Dragan’s thoughts on her. The movie, on the other hand, portrays the character of Lisbeth shortly through Dragan’s words to Frode, but also her appearance and attitude in the first scene. She looks different because of her bleached eyebrows, facial piercings, and black mohawk. She also sits at the table with Dragan and Frode sideways in her chair facing the door rather than her boss and client.

The book begins to show the inner workings of Lisbeth through following her and seeing inside her head after she is introduced in one way. Lisbeth is changed because narration shows her go to see her ill mother at the assisted living community then later the dealings with her former guardian and father figure. The movie was able to show these things with Lisbeth as well in short clips that showed Lisbeth outside her guardian’s hospital room on the floor and on the train after finding out that he may never be the same completely zoned out in sadness. This reveals a different side to Lisbeth that cannot be seen usually through other characters, but only herself because of her closed off manner.

One way the film really changed Lisbeth and showed a more emotionally raw character was how her tattoos were not shown throughout the beginning of the film. Her dragon tattoo is only revealed after Bjurman has assaulted her. The camera angle shows her sitting on the floor curled into a ball looking at something with the tattoo exposed then it pans over her head to her face that is bright red with rage. This scene represents how the dragon has been released from inside Lisbeth revealing an independent warrior rather than a weak little girl.

Lisbeth, in the book, shows even more depth when she leaves Mikael after his ultimatum that she can either stay to be his friend or leave. Then after leaving, Lisbeth turns around realizing how much Mikael does mean to her. She then tells Mikael that she likes his company which the novel says “those were words that had never before passed her lips” (Larsson 399). In the novel, this scene shows a dramatic change in her character that was not so present in the movie. The movie never had her leave, but instead she just said that she liked Mikael, which still seemed like a big deal for her character.

Both the book and the movie represented Lisbeth as a very round character. This was shown through her appearance and how she acted around others as aloof, different, and introverted. Then on the inside, she showed herself to have emotions and feelings pertaining to others. Mikael worked as the character to break Lisbeth’s hard-shell and become close to her like not many others had done.

The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo Characters: Novel vs. Movie

The movie focused on mostly the “violent and women abuse” theme that inspired the novel, while the book brought in a lot more factors, and I think that the directors chose this option to make the rape message more powerful and straight the point. The movie seemed to be more about Lisbeth more than Mikael and the main story about Harriet was changed a lot towards the end – the movie combined Anita’s and Herriet’s story lines from the novel to one character in the film.

Lisbeth is more powerful and a fighter in the movie, we do not see a lot of her soft side, but we see more of her aggressive side. For example her computer wasn’t just crashed by a car and in the book he didn’t do anything to the person who crashed her laptop. But in the movie it was stolen by a guy in a train station and he bit him up on the escalators and this scene show us the more violent side of Lisbeth. In the movie her motorbike was more sophisticated and large which helped with creating the fearless image of Lisbeth. In the movie she even rides the motorbike in harsh weather conditions while in the book it was only during the summer. Even though Lisbeth was this brave girl in both the novel and the film, I think in the film they left out most the compassionate part about her.  For example the scene where she visits her mother and discusses her sister is cut out and her group of friends is never mentioned in the movie. The scene where she attacks Bjurman is too rough in the movie; she kicks him several times and lives him with a cutter for the handcuffs instead of the keys like it happened in the book.

Mikael is not portrayed as the bad bod in the movie as he is in the book. He doesn’t ever go to jail for three months but he is just charged a large fine by the law. Secondly, he doesn’t sleep with a lot of women in the movie; he doesn’t fall in love with Cecelia Vanger.

Towards the end of the movie, we discover that Harriet plays both her part and Anita’s. Harriet Vanger is a not married and doesn’t have children. She also lives in London instead of Australia and we do not see the change of her hair color. And her character in pretty much flat and never fully developed.  

Avery- Girl With Dragon Tattoo Character

Lisbeth is fleshed out well in the movie and the storylines always come back to her as the character that the audience cares about most. The novel version was able to focus on Lisbeth and Blomkvist’s experiences as they intertwine, but the film played down some aspects of the story, like Blomkvist’s relationships with other women. Even the characters that served as Lisbeth’s social group outside of work (and mother) were cut so we could better focus on her.

I did think it was a good choice to cut Lisbeth’s social circle from the film, because her character really relied on being a social outsider, but I would have liked to see more of Blomkvist’s character. I understand that delivering the murder clues to viewers is more tricky in a film, but the whole investigation was watered down and simplified so we could just get the point and keep it moving, which isn’t as exciting as details coming to the surface slowly like in the book. Overall, the movie was a great adaptation and most of the changes that were made helped move the story forward and keep the viewers interested and invested in Lisbeth.

The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo Character Adaption

Like we've seen in previous movie adaptions, characters from the novels are often omitted, simplified or several characters become one in the film version. While many of the characters in the film version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo did suffer a simplified adaption, I think Lisbeth’s character was more fully developed in the film.

By removing the complications from Blomkivst’s character – the relationship with Cecilia and the importance of the Wennerstrom scandal – the focus of the film became Lisbeth. Even Blomkivst became a character defined by Lisbeth. His scenes by himself were always countered with a scene where Lisbeth dominates. Even his last scene with Erika is seen from Lisbeth’s perspective, and it is Lisbeth on her motorcycle who audiences follow when the film ends and not Blomkivst.  While many of these moments are true to the novel, the omitted scenes detract from the other characters importance and Lisbeth becomes more knowable, less mysterious than she is in the novel.

One of the biggest ways that Lisbeth’s character was developed was in her interactions with her new guardian. Although the first two interactions between them where he sexually abused her were hard to watch, her revenge and the additional scene between them made her seem much more badass. The scene in which she revenges her rape and tattoos him was pretty true to the novel, but being able to see it made it much more impactful – especially as her makeup was insane. Then there was the scene in the elevator where she came back to threaten him. Seeing her fearlessness juxtaposed with her super creepy guardians fear emphasized how intimidating she is. She completely changed his character; he became a cowering loser instead of a confident rapist.

The film version also revealed more about her. For one, Blomkivst learned that she was a ward of the state. In the novel, she is afraid of anyone finding that out which makes it a weakness. In the film, her treatment of her guardian and the revelation that she tried to kill her father at twelve (without revealing what her motivation is) makes her a strong character, if a little unhinged.  

To Kill a Mocking Bird Scene.

Scene: When Jem, Scout & Dill peeked to the Radley’s house.

So here we see Jem, trying to go the Radley’s house because he wants to prove that he is not scared of Boo Radley’s.

So in this scene, it was Dill’s last day in Maycomb for the summer holidays  Jem and Dill decided to brake Atticus rules and they decide to go over to sneak at the Radley’s house and peek in through a window. Scout went with the boys, even though she was scared and they crawled around the house, peeking in through various windows. Until they saw the shadow of a creepy man with a hat on and they ran away, and Mr. Radley shot something with is gun wen e heard the noise. Jem helped Dill and Scout to escape under the fence going back home, but when it was his term, Jem’s pants got caught on the fence, and he had to kick them off in order to escape.

They returned home, where there was a group their neighbors and Atticus, Miss Maudie, and Miss Stephanie Crawford, talking about what has just happed in the Radley’s house. In the book, Atticus then asked Jem about his pants and Dill exclaims that he won Jem’s pants in a game of strip poker, but in the film, Jem doesn’t see his father without his pants, because the in the film Jem just went to get his pants immediately after they escaped from the Radley’s house. It wasn’t late at night like the book explained that Jem sneaked out the house to the Radley’s Place to retrieves his pants.

Other Differences that we see in this scene: the book said that Mr. Radley came out to scare the kids with his shotgun, but in the film it was when Jem returned to get his pants from the fence. Also when Jem and Scout went back went to the group neighbors that were standing outside, there was someone who put a blanket over Scout and they didn’t notice who it was, but this part of the scene was left out in the film.  

To Kill a Mockingbird- Scene

            Tom Robinson’s trial scene is compressed to sum up the case from Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird in a shorter length of time for the movie. Specifically, Mayella’s stint on the witness stand seems shortened and broken down to be less complex. Mayella’s character changes in major ways as well as the way Atticus and Judge Taylor treat her. Along with this, the reveal of Tom Robinson’s nonfunctioning left arm is changed during Mayella’s time on the witness stand.

            Mayella’s scene begins the same in the novel and movie with Mayella being sworn in as a witness. The movie portrays Mayella as not just fragile like in the book, but instead when sworn in she has her hand hovering over the bible instead of actually touching it. This reveals Mayella as an untruthful character that cannot be trusted on the stand. She seems almost angry when she sits in the chair in the movie instead of fearful like in the novel. Mayella begins to cry in the novel when Mr. Gilmer questions her because of her anxieties towards Atticus questioning her soon. Judge Taylor, in the novel, has to calm Mayella down because she burst into tears multiple times such as when she believes Atticus is mocking her. Eventually, Judge Taylor must tell her to stop crying. In the novel, Mayella comes off as a controlling character that knows how to manipulate a situation to how she wants others to act around her. In the movie, Mayella does not use these antics, which really changes how her character is perceived. Mayella ends up seeming more like a character controlled by her father instead of the manipulative character from the book. Mayella must change so that her scene can be cut down from the fifteen pages he was allotted in the book.

            The movie also changes the situation with Tom Robinson’s arm because special effects 1962 probably could not create a true portrayal of his injury. His arm is not twelve inches too short with a deformed hand instead it is just paralyzed because of the cotton gin injury. Instead of Atticus just having Tom stand up like in the novel, Atticus asks Tom to stand with both seemingly functional arms and has him catch a cup, which he does with his right hand. Then Atticus has him catch with his left him, but Tom then explains that he cannot. They changed this to explain Tom’s injury without the needs of special effects. Both Mayella’s character and Tom’s reveal are adapted so they can work within the movie. 

Avery- To Kill A Mockingbird Scene

Aunt Alexandra was a minor character in the novel, but played a large part of the Finch family. She serves as a feminine role model to Scout and is one of the few examples of a socially acceptable southern woman. Aunt Alexandra is hyperaware of social and class statuses, which isn’t the case with Atticus or his children so it is beneficial to the storyline that she can provide these opinions and keep the family more ‘in touch’ with social expectations, from clothing and manners to gender roles. Scout resists many of her aunt’s lessons and the back-and-forth between the two of them shows many of Scout’s key character traits, like being an independent freethinker. The choice for Aunt Alexandra’s character to be cut from the storyline in the movie changed the dynamic of the Finch family.

It makes sense that the filmmakers wanted to cut and combine characters because of time constraints, but Aunt Alexandra had a unique view on race and class that were not represented elsewhere in the film. Mr. Ewell represented the quintessential racist, ignorant southerner of the time, as did other members of the community, which did counter Atticus’s empathic nature and search for justice, but there was not much in between. Aunt Alexandra held many of the same values as Mr. Ewell, but the difference is that she would make an effort to be ‘politely’ and ‘subtlety’ racist instead of obviously racist. Her inclusion in the film would have shown how attitudes don't have to be obviously expressed and embodied to be discriminatory. 

How to Kill a Mockingbird Scene Adaption

The theme for the Directors of the film version of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird seems to be "consolidate." They often removed characters, assigning their actions to the characters they chose to include, and one scene in the movie was often a combination of several scenes from the novel. This was probably done in an effort to cover the important parts of the books without becoming pedantic about every scene and also eliminating storylines which would distract from the main storyline. Film adaptions seem to assume that visual audiences need simpler storylines than readers. 

This was evidenced in the scene where Jem, Dill and Scout attempt to go up to Boo Radley's house. In the novel, the children are scared by a shadow, and during their terrified escape, Jem catches his pants on the fence and has to remove them. While the film also depicted those moments in the same way, the series of following events were altered. In the novel, the kids stumble upon the adults from the neighborhood standing in the road, alarmed because Mr. Radley has shot his gun at a supposed prowler. Jem has to explain his lack of pants with a made-up story about losing them to Dill in a game of strip poker. He returns to fetch them at 2am and finds that they have been stitched together by an inexperienced hand. This is an important moment because it demonstrated the developing relationship between Boo Radley and the children. The stitching of the pants suggested that he wasn't as fearful as the children imagined; instead, he might be caring. 

In the film, Jem returns for his pants immediately and Scout sits waiting for him while Atticus calls for them to come inside. It's only after Jem returns that the neighbors gather on the street because of the shot. While it doesn't seem like a major change, it comes after a series of small changes that affect the importance of the relationship between Boo Radley and the children. I think the directors decided to focus mostly on the trial of Tom Robinson, so most of the scenes built around that. In an effort to simplify, the amount of time spent on the kids discovering gifts in the trees was shortened. While they did demonstrate that it had been happening for a while when Jem shows Scout all the mementos he'd found in the tree (although Scout found them first in the novel) it didn't have the same effect as watching him find them over a period of time would have. I think the rescue scene suffered because of the decision though. The film audience wasn't as invested in the question of Boo, nor did we understand his kindness before the kids did (as we do in the novel) so the reveal wasn't as exciting.  

Great Gatsby Adaption

What I found most interesting about the film versus the book is how the directors portrayed Nick Carroway as the narrator. The decision to have him in a mental health facility recovering from events and then actually writing the story of Gatsby was interesting; the choice removed Fitzgerald as the author but made Nick's voice over narrations more understandable to the viewer. The change also affected the film adaption of the last scene. 

Gatsby's death in the film was similar to that of the novel, as he was in the pool and the shooter was Wilson. There were some stylistic changes, i.e. having the butler by the pool, the phone ringing at the moment Gatsby gets shot (giving him hope that it was Daisy) and Gatsby with his back to Wilson as opposed to floating on an inflatable mattress. But the biggest change were the events after the funeral. The directors chose to not include Nick's call to Mayor Wolfsheim, who refused to come to the funeral, or have Gatsby's father come. In the book, Gatsby's father makes the trip from Minnesota, expresses how proud he is of his son and fills Nick in on Gatsby's earlier life. The decision to not have anyone come to the funeral at all and to completely remove Gatsby's father from the storyline made the closing scenes more about Nick than they were about Gatsby.

In the novel, Nick also runs into Tom on the street and learns how Tom was the one to tell Wilson about Gatsby's car. Again, the directors did not include this scene in the film adaption. Instead, after the funeral, the closing scenes are of Nick in the mental hospital. The writing of the story seems to have helped to cure him. This adaption suggests that Nick is the main character. 

The Great Gatsby Adaptation.

Scene: Nick at the Party in New York with Tom, Myrtle & Sister and the McKees.

In the book:

Nick goes on a party with Tom and his mistress Myrtle in New York, where Nick gets drunk for the second time in his life and Nick was surprised and fascinated by the behavior of the other people there, especially Tom’s and Myrtle’s. Everyone was just loud and drinking so much, Tom buys his mistress a puppy and Myrtle starts to talk about Daisy. Tom warns her about talking about his wife, but she continues and says she can do whatever she wants. Myrtle’s arrogance caused the party to end up on a violent note, where Tom responds by breaking her nose. Then the book describes Nick leaving the party with Mr. McKee, though he was expected to hook up with Myrtle’s sister. When they step into the elevator, the operator asks Mr. McKee to stop touching the lever, and when McKee replies he didn’t know he was touching it, and this part leaves most readers speculating about whether Mr. McKee and Nick are gay or not. This moment is followed by ellipses that lead to Nick in the book, standing in his underwear next to McKee’s bed while McKee shows him his photographs. At the end, Nick ends up taking the 4 a.m. train back to Long Island.

In the film:

We kind of get the same story but this part shows us Nick making out  with Myrtle’s sister and waking up in his underwear on his own front porch, not in Mr. McKee’s bed standing next to him showing him his photos. But there is Gatsby looking at him and Nick was wondering how he got home from the party. And it seems as if the directors were trying to erase some of the gayness hints from the book. 

The Great Gatsby Scene

In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby”, the first time Daisy and Gatsby see each other in five years proves to be a very powerful scene through the nerves of Gatsby and clock symbolism. The recent movie adaptation really emphasized all of the key elements that made up this scene from the novel.

The picture of the scene by F. Scott Fitzgerald began with only one groundskeeper getting Nick’s yard ready for Daisy’s arrival, whereas in the movie over ten men were preparing the yard. Also they did not only cut the grass as in the novel, but they seemed to landscape the entire yard to mere perfection. This grandiose adaptation shows the importance of this first encounter between Daisy and Gatsby to Gatsby. Inside the cottage, the book explains that a “greenhouse arrived”, but the movie really brought life to this short description with enormous bouquets of white flowers. This highlighted the scene and also emphasized its importance.

The movie dramatized the scene in a very applicable way to convert the tone of the narration to the movie. The anxiety and tension created within the scene really showed up through the characters and setting of the room. In the novel, Gatsby’s nerves towards Daisy’s arrival were shown through him peering through the window and blankly reading a magazine. In the movie, those nerves appeared through the beads of sweat on Gatsby’s forehead and the ticking of the clock getting louder and louder. Instead of only giving visual aid to Gatsby’s nerves, the film could also add sounds that amplified the tension found within the room.

When Gatsby and Daisy first see each other, the camera was able to zoom in on each of their faces. The zoom showed the importance and intimateness of this awkward moment so the viewer can infer a connection. In the novel, this moment was not actually seen, but rather heard by Nick in the hallway listening from the door. He, at one point, notes a pause that makes him walk into the room. The scene in the movie was set perfectly because it showed the awkwardness from the perspective of Gatsby and Daisy when it would not have been so apparent from Nick’s point of view without narration.

Later the clock reappeared in both the novel and movie showing a symbol found in both. Gatsby leans into a mantelpiece clock and knocks it over then right after Daisy brings up how long it has been since they have seen each other. The clock represented the placing of time and the fact that it falls showed that the time waiting for each other is finally over. One difference was that in the movie Gatsby actually breaks the clock instead of rescuing it just in time. The clock actually noticeably stopped ticking at that point, to dramatize the time spent waiting as over for the viewers.

The scene’s adaptation into movie-form tended to change certain parts, but they all seemed to emphasize the scene or help the audience understand what was going on. Without these adaptations, the audience might have felt lost as to the importance of things like the yard work, the meeting of Daisy and Gatsby, and the clock. 

Avery Sherrer- Gasby Scene

I really liked the scene where Nick got drunk (for the second time in his life) with Tom, Myrtle and Myrtle's sister in the gaudy NYC apartment. The movie adaptation did a great job with the tacky wallpaper and chairs and Myrtle was appropriately obnoxious, in wardrobe and behavior. The movie version did downplay a lot of Myrtle's incessant, antagonistic remarks to Tom before he hits her and ultimately Tom is just written of as a drunk. This is a small deviation from the book, but preludes to Tom's questionable behavior near the end of the film in a positive way.

Tobey McGuire portrayed Nick's enchantment with the whole careless, party lifestyle really accurately. The only thing that was taken a bit far was the choice to blast a Kanye West song while Myrtle was  twirling and dancing in slow motion. I honestly couldn't think of much else that would jolt a viewer out of the 1920s setting any quicker. I understand that the production team wanted to create an atmosphere of overindulgence, but the very least they could've done would be just using the instrumental version (viewers would've gotten the point). A few lines of the book were repeated in the movie nearly verbatim, but many were modernized/simplified unnecessarily, which goes back to the film not staying 100% true to the time period.

The Shawshank Redemption Point of View (Book vs. Movie)

Directors always change some things when adapting a book to a film because of the information they need to fit in from hundreds of pages to a movie of 2 hours or so. I think the movie, “The Shawshank Redemption,” focused on fewer characters compared to the book, but the plot remained the same and the directors and producers decided to add a few details to the ending of the movie, which I think enhanced the theme of hope in the book.

In the movie we see a change of the guards that leads Andy, in the book they would appear and disappear every now and then and in the movie they led Andy in everything he did, and I think this helped the viewers to focus on Andy more, as one of the main characters and reminded us all the time that he was in prison. The other changes that I noticed was the change of wardens, the film has only one warden, Norton, instead of three as they were in the book, and again this helps with building the character in the movie, because with fewer characters the producers can add more story lines about the characters. This also helps the viewers to focus on a few characters and not memorizing a lot of information. The warden just resigns after Andy escaped the prison in the book, but in the movie, he just shot himself, and I think the producers decided to change this scene so that they wouldn't have to explain what happens to him after Andy has made his corruption known.

Minor changes in the movie include, Andy going through two hammers to break down the whole while in the movie, there is only one hammer that is used, and these changes help the producers focus on the main themes other than the little details. In the book, I do not remember Andy stealing the warden’s shoes and clothes, but this is a very creative way of showing the viewers that he has escaped instead of adding more ways and it also explains that he has gone to the outside world because that is the only place where he can wear those clothes. From this scene we learn a lot in a short space of time, we learn that Andy hasn't committed suicide from the rope he asked for. From exchanging the shoes, we learn that he has escaped to the real world. Even though he did not ask Heywood for the rope in the book, it helps the producers to add a lot of information to that scene, because from the time Heywood mentioned that Andy asked for the rope, the viewers start to thinking of different things that he could do with that rope, and this helped the producers with setting the scene of Andy escaping prison. 

The ending of the book was also changed, the book finishes the story with Red who going to the wall, then he goes to Mexico, we do not know whether he finds Andy or not. But the movie shows their re-union and the ending at the beautiful Pacific that they imagined while they were in prison. This alternate ending helps the producers with putting the emphasis of the theme of hope that is portrayed throughout the movie. 

Differences in Point of View - Shannon Butler

Although Red still narrated the film version of Stephen King's story, his perspective is no longer the only one audiences are privy to. Instead of relying on Red to tell the complete story, the film showed scenes as they happened. This changed some of the plot points as the director interpreted some of Red's opinions into actual scenes.

For example, Red opines at the end of Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption that Andy discovered the wall's weakness when he attempted to scratch his name into the wall; however, readers would never know if he did do that because we never get insight into what Andy does when he's alone. The film version allows us to see and understand Andy without Red's input, and we witness him carve his name. This serves as foreshadowing of his escape instead of having Red keep hinting at it. It is expected that the film will remain mysterious when it comes to the ending whereas the story relied on character development more than it did plot points. Ironically, the film required more resolution -- or revenge -- than the short story did. 

This is evident in the treatment Boggs received after the warden decided to protect Andy. While the short story suggests that Boggs was beaten, the film makes it clear that he will never walk again. The punishment is much more severe and it speaks to the film audiences need for a clear distinction between the bad and good characters. The bad characters need to have bad things happen to them while the good characters ultimately earn their freedom. Again, this is displayed in the warden's suicide and Red reuniting with Andy. 

When Red narrated, his script was almost a direction translation from the short story. In doing so, the film retained the same tone and theme of the short story. As it would no longer make sense for Red to relay scenes back to a visual audience, the scenes he described in the novel were acted or his role was changed so that he was closer to Andy. For example, he begins to work in the library and is therefore a witness to many of the events that happen to Andy.

The film is also much less subtle than the short story is. Although hope is mentioned repeatedly in the short story, the way it is used in the film (in the added scene where Andy plays the record) really hits audiences over the head with it's importance. Another change was that Andy, rather desperately, asks Red to promise to visit the field that his rock is hidden. In the short story, Red does so of his own accord. Less is left to the imagination of the viewer, which perhaps make sense because of the visual medium. 

Avery Sherrer- Shawshank POV

When seeing any novel’s film adaptation for the first time, the most obvious adjustment that has to be made by a viewer is getting used to new representations of characters that had strong, and sometime very different, physical characteristics in the mind of a reader. As for Stephen King’s Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, when I first saw Morgan Freeman as Red, I was not convinced that I’d be able to ignore the fact that this was Morgan Freeman, and instead see him as this character that I had imagined from the novel’s description. Other characters, like Andy for example, were depicted slightly differently from the novel’s description but it wasn’t, for me, as much of a throw-off. Pressing past character representations, Red was positioned very differently in the film versus the novel.

Red’s involvement with the action of the story, in the film, stemmed from serving as witness to many conflicts and conversations between other characters, from becoming Andy’s assistant when doing the guards’ taxes to seeing the warden and head guard repeatedly beat multiple inmates. In the novel, Red was the guy who could essentially ‘get anything’ whether it’s cigarettes or information, while in the movie he was the guy who just eavesdropped on all the action. This portrayal was too much of a change for me to look past. It may not affect Red’s credibility, as he was still present when the actions that he speaks about occurred, but his position as an ‘extra’ in many scenes made me not see Red as a man with a story of his own. At the very best, Red was told stories of actions he missed, like the warden approaching Andy for financial advice, at the lunch table simply as one of Andy’s friends.

Although Red, as a character, was overlooked in the film, he still functioned as narrator for many scenes. As narrator, Red made the audience know how to feel about particular scenes by placing his own values and views on each action. Because Red is familiar with the politics of prison life, he is trusted as a credible 1^st person perspective. But in my opinion, if the filmmakers are going to deviate from the way Red narrates from novel to movie, they may as well just cut out the middle man and make Andy narrate his own story, with Red just evaluating action from the perspective of a fellow inmate. Since Red’s 1^st person narration was so strong in the novel, his half narrator-half bystander position in the film was weak to me. Shawshank Redemption was a great movie as a stand alone, but some of the differences in point of view and narration really altered the way I not only viewed Red, but also how I evaluated the story being told.

Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption - Rachel G.

            In Stephen King’s Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, Red’s voice makes up the narration of the novel through a first person perspective whereas in the movie adaptation Red’s voice loosely narrates the scenes. Red still takes a major role in the film adaptation and also has more active roles throughout the movie. This change took place to account for how Red knew about certain situations whereas in the novel Red states many times that he heard certain things from multiple sources. Red still states his credibility in the film, but not as frequently. This happens because Red needs to be accounted for as a present main character since in the book he became the main character through his first person narrations of the situations.

            Red narrates most of the scenes that he is not present as the narrator of the film just like he is in the novel. In the scene with Andy and the sisters in the projector room, Red narrates the end of the scene right as the camera moves to an eagle-eye shot of the men. His voice over makes it seems like Red knows and can learn most anything that goes on in the prison. Red uses credible and multiple sources in the novel; Red, in the movie, only needs his voice over to be matched with the scene for the audience to believe the scene actually took place. Just seeing the scene makes it credible whereas hearing the scenes in the novel in first person credible sources must be given if the narrator says he wasn’t there. Another way they added credibility to Red’s narration was by placing him in the background of many scenes throughout the movie such as while Andy tutored Tommy or did taxes for the guard.

            Also Red said many wise things in the novel through his first person narration; so Red instead says these things to other characters in the film to turn him into that wise older figure from the book. For example, Red says “They give you life, and that’s what they take- all of it that counts, anyways” towards Kendricks’ release from prison in the novel, while in the movie he says almost the exact same phrase towards Brooks being given parole. Narrative phrases translated into verbal conversation help to create Red as a main character in the movie as he was in the film.

            Andy’s escape scene in the movie seems different in narration from the novel since Red never speculates about what happened. Everything seems like a definite as to how Andy escaped from the prison including Andy figuring out that the concrete was weak by carving his name into the wall. In the novel, Red only guessed that Andy tried to carve his name then started to dig, but the movie made this seems like this was a fact. Red could only guess about Andy’s escape because of his limited point of view through first person perspective. Since Red finds Andy in Mexico instead of just ending with the hopes of finding him, Red can be sure about Andy’s escape. In the movie, Andy could have told Red, the narrator, so everything in his escape scene could be concrete. Since the conclusion was changed the perspective of the scene changed as well and could seem less limited in its knowledge.

            The movie had many changes to account for Red as a main character and the limitations of his narration. Since Red needed to be as much of a driving force in the movie as he was in the book they had him narrate many of the scenes he was not present in, but did not overwhelm the movie with narration. To not overly narrate the movie, Red took on an even more present role as a wise figure through turning his narratives from the novel into conversations. Or Red is just present in certain scenes to create this credibility. Red’s character is adapted in the movie so he can still function as a main character with more presence instead of just being a narrator with fewer scenes.