Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close Trailer

Uh-oh, guys, the trailer is here for Jonathan Safran Foer's Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close.



Honestly, I'm not sure what to think. I definitely think it's time for me to reread this book.

Part of me doesn't get it. This book is so deep in Oskar's head and so much of the story depends on the words. On the unseen. Not on things you can really translate into film. I think it will be interesting to see how the filmmakers try to get across that same sense of wonderment and sadness at the world and life and death. Sometimes, words just do it better.

I'd like to see how they are going to translate the emotion these passages carry to film:

“I felt, that night, on that stage, under that skull, incredibly close to everything in the universe, but also extremely alone. I wondered, for the first time in my life, if life was worth all the work it took to live. What exactly made it worth it? What's so horrible about being dead forever, and not feeling anything, and not even dreaming? What's so great about feeling and dreaming?”

“Feathers filled the small room. Our laughter kept the feathers in the air. I thought about birds. Could they fly is there wasn't someone, somewhere, laughing?”

“I tried the key in all the doors, even though he said he didn't recognize it. It's not that I didn't trust him, becuase I did. It's that at the end of my search I wanted to be able to say: I don't know how I could have tried harder.”

One thing I hope this film does that I think was a great move for Everything is Illuminated is completely taking out the storyline between his grandparents. I know some people loved it, but I found myself wanting those parts to be over so I could get back to Oskar. It just seemed like he was trying so hard to be meaningful and obscure. That's how I felt with the storyline of Trachimbrod in Everything is Illuminated, too, though it was definitely more enjoyable than the grandparents. My preference for Safran Foer's storylines:

Oskar's quest in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
Alex's letters/story in Everything Is Illuminated
The History of Trachimbrod written by Jonathan in Everything Is Illuminated
Grandparents' love story in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close


But enough about me. What do you think of the trailer? Have you read the book? Will you now?

Book/Movie Comparison: The Princess Bride

Let me just take a moment and say how much I LOVE this movie and this book. They are so clever and enjoyable.

The book was written by William Goldman and published in 1973. Goldman presents this book as "the 'good parts' version of S. Morgenstern's Classic Tale of True Love and High Adventure." In a European country called Florin, Buttercup and Westley fight for their true love in the face of murdering pirates and violent princes.

The novel was adapted to screen by Goldman, who had previous work with screenwriting. It was directed by Rob Reiner, and Cary Elwes and Robin Wright star as Westley and Buttercup. In the movie, a man reads the book to his sick grandson, similar to how William Goldman's father supposedly read it to him.

For my few posts, this is the first where the author has adapted the screenplay. (As a writer, I'll just say that would be hard! I'd actually like to try it sometime, just for fun.) Before The Princess Bride movie, Goldman wrote screenplays for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Stepford Wives, and others. Since he was the author of the novel, though, the essence of the book transferred onto film nearly flawlessly, even while he hacked away the book's story to include only the essentials. You have a lot of the same lines and everything.

Like other posts, I'll look at Setting, Characters, Theme, What Was Gained by Film Adaptation, and What Was Lost by Film Adaptation.

Setting

I'm glad they still kept the idea that The Princess Bride was a book outside of our own world. It keeps that fantasy feel, and we got to see the sick grandson's responses to different parts of the story, like we saw Goldman's reactions in the novel. Of course, Goldman reacted to many things, including Morgenstern's choice not to include the reunion scene (I'm glad they did in the movie!) and the original author's 86-page tangents on politics. There were some asides from Goldman that simply wouldn't transfer to film well.

As for Florin, I'm amazed at the simplicity of the sets and yet how real it seemed. The setting probably wasn't give the same painstaking detail of a fantasy movie like Lord of the Rings, but it's the simplicity of the movie that really makes the setting. It feels like it could be any country in Western Europe (or the idea of Western Europe that we have in our heads).

The Zoo of Death would have been cool on film, but I understand why they took it out. Can you imagine all those crazy animals, though?

Characters

There was a lot in the hefty book that missed the film adaptation: Inigo and Fezzik's pasts, the humorous descriptions of Buttercup's beauty, her later nightmares, the expansion on the prince's character. I feel like the movie is high school algebra and the book is college algebra. You go into so much more depth! You have that issue with every book and movie adaptation, though. If only every book could be adapted into a TV series like Game of Thrones. (Sidenotes: but seriously, how awesome would a Harry Potter miniseries have been?? Seven seasons, one for each year?? Although the first three years would have been pretty sparse. . .)

Overall, the characters were so close to their original book counterparts. Fezzik is big, bumbling, and kind. Inigo is determined, even though he loses focus after Vizzini dies. Westley has the same courage and cunning. The prince is just as violent and cowardly. Buttercup was a more ditzy in the book, but I can see why they'd want to make her more likable and smart in the movie.

Theme

Wuv - twoo wuv! The most prevalent theme in the movie is true love, and this is certainly a theme in the book. Buttercup and Westley fall in love in the first chapter, and they fight through the entire book to stay together. Inigo's quest for revenge drove much of the movie, too.

I think there was a lot that missed the movie, though, mainly because the screenplay didn't have room for so many different storylines. I also think that the movie was more optimistic than the book. The book was dark at parts: the Zoo of Death and the absolute fear it drives into Inigo and Fezzik; Inigo's and Fezzik's slightly desolate pasts. The book actually doesn't have a happy ending; it has a very ambiguous ending which alludes to death and misfortune, and Goldman uses it to drive a point home: life isn't fair.

To be honest, I think this was a smart move for the movie. For some reason, books can get away with unhappy endings and bitter themes better than movies. I would have felt pretty gypped if Buttercup and Westley didn't have the number one kiss at the end and the grandpa didn't leave after saying, 'As you wish.'

What Was Gained

Really, the movie is the 'great parts version' of the 'good parts version.' It takes the essence of the story and puts it into film: the basic story of Buttercup and Westley, the fight for their love. It's stripped of the the dark humor, the strange pasts of the minor characters, the violence of Prince Humperdink and his Zoo of Death, and gives you a hopeful story with some hilarious lines. Like I said, movies really get away with more than books when it comes to optimism. If this movie were a book - and not the original book, but just what the movie was comprised of - it would be boring. There wouldn't be enough conflict; it would be too simple. But as a movie, it's awesome.

What Was Lost

I'm town what to write here. Like I said, a lot of the narrative was left-out. But I don't think the film adaptation suffered because of it. It was probably better because of it, even though the book was great with it. Say it with me: mini-series!

The Princess Bride on Goodreads
TPB on BetterWorldBooks
TPB in IMDb

The Hunger Games and Books into Movies

I've been following The Hunger Games movie news pretty religiously. I loved the trilogy and I'm really excited to see it on screen. It's been really interesting watching fan reactions to the casting news, especially Katniss.

I am a huge fan of Harry Potter and I was disappointed by the movies over and over again. By the fifth movie, I was not expecting anything good. (I absolutely loved Deathly Hallows Part 1, so the series did redeem itself.) Because of the Harry Potter movie franchise, I feel more prepared for The Hunger Games. I'm not going into this expecting to see a perfect representation of the books on screen. I don't care what the characters look like, as long as they capture the essence of the character. (We could get into the controversial whitewashing, but I'd rather not.) The movie is nearly a year away, and I'm already hearing (reading, actually) fans say, 'They're going to ruin it.' 'They don't know what they're doing.' You can find general outrage anywhere - on the Facebook fan page, on youtube videos, livejournal communities, etc.

This has got me thinking about what these books must mean to the fans. Yes, they get upset over little things (does Peeta being blonde really matter in the grand scheme of things?), but I think it's because they've really fallen in love with these characters. The world of Panem has become so real to them that to think of it in somebody else's hands, eventually on screen, is tough. When people read books, they create the world in their heads based on the words given them. When people make movies, it's a collective effort to turn words into a visual experience. As readers and viewers, we have to realize that they are two separate art forms. Although the skeleton of the story may be the same, the flesh and blood of the two are going to be very different.

What's important to me when it comes to The Hunger Games movies is the messages it has about war, violence, classism, and entertainment. Katniss' brokenness is going to stick with me a lot longer than the clothes she wears. The horrific nature of war is going to mean more to me than whether Cinna is young. That's what, for me, made these books so moving.

I cannot wait to write a book/movie comparison post for this movie when it comes out. In the meantime, I'll write one for The Princess Bride soon!

Book/Movie Comparison: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1)

This is long, just so you know. Deathly Hallows is my second favorite book in the series, and it is currently my favorite movie of the series. I had to cut a lot of gushing out and remind myself what this post is actually about - analyzing how well the film version carried out the story of the book. I'll look at: Setting, Characters, Theme, What was Gained from Film Adaptation, and What was Lost from Film Adaptation.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is the seventh and last book in the Harry Potter series. Published in 2007, it follows Harry, Ron and Hermione’s quest to find the four remaining Horcruxes, which are magical artifacts which hold pieces of Voldemort’s soul. It also chronicles the final battle between Voldemort and Harry.

The movie came out in 2010, and it is the first of two parts, the second coming out in July (oh, happy day!). Adapted to screen by Steve Kloves and directed by David Yates, it stars Daniel Radcliffe as Harry, Rupert Grint as Ron, and Emma Watson as Hermione.

Obviously, the first movie only covers the first part of the book: their search for the locket and its subsequent destruction, the falling out between Ron and Harry, the beginning of the discovery of the Deathly Hallows and Dumbledore’s involvement with them, and the confrontation with the Snatchers, who take them to Malfoy Manor when they realize they might have Harry Potter.

(Many, many spoilers ahead, for both the movie and book!)

Setting
In the book, the trio returns to 15 Grimmauld Place and they also infiltrate the Ministry under Polyjuice Potion. They visit Godric’s Hollow for the first time, but much of the rest of the book is set during their camping trips as they try to stay under the radar and search for Horcruxes.

I thought the semi-apocalyptic setting was great for the story. The destroyed motor homes, the snowy forest after Godric’s Hollow, the stretching fields. Malfoy Manor was so intimidating, and I can’t wait to see more of Shell Cottage.

It’s too bad we couldn’t see the trio shacking it up in Grimmauld Place with Kreacher waiting on them. I just think that would have been so cool to see Kreacher making them dinner and stuff. Definitely not necessary, though, so I’m glad they took that out instead of something else.

Great way to tell the Deathly Hallows legend. I was wondering how they were going to do that - just have her read it? Summarize it? Beautiful imagery!

I think it was a good idea to focus solely on the trio instead of trying to also squeeze in everything that was happening at Hogwarts. Rowling can juggle multiple story lines flawlessly (well, mostly) in her writing, but that’s a book. A movie needs to be a little more focused, and it was a good decision to stick with the trio and their problems. I think we’ll hear more later about what happened at Hogwarts. Maybe leading up to the battle.

Characters
I needed more Kreacher and more Regulus. They both really redeemed themselves in this book, but we get two sentences about Regulus. Kreacher was pretty cool, though, retrieving Mundungus Fletcher.

It’s also weird how the movies try to squeeze stuff in, but it comes off kind of half-assed. Like Bill’s scars, or Tonks about to make the announcement that they were going to get married and/or they were pregnant. It’s like they do it just to throw the readers a bone, but people who haven’t read the books probably have no idea what’s going on. Same thing happened with Fenrir Greyback in the sixth movie. I don’t know what to think, like part of me is “All or nothing!” and part of me is like, “Well, at least they referenced it!”

As for the more major characters, I LOVE RON. I feel like they are finally getting him right. I hated, hated, hated when they gave Hermione Ron’s line in Prisoner of Azkaban - “You’re going to have to kill us first.” But I wasn’t really mad when Ron was the one who noticed RAB haha, I think I’m biased. But seriously Rupert Grint is amazing, and I think he played Ron brilliantly in this film. Talking Harry out of leaving, getting angry, seeing his insecurities, and then fighting for Hermione at Malfoy Manor. I did want to see some screaming and bellowing in the cellar when Hermione was being tortured.

Speaking of which, that torture scene was amazing! I really feel like the three of them are growing as actors. The other movies I can’t even take seriously because Emma and Dan botch up the serious lines (and Rupert hardly ever had serious lines, he just pouts). But they have really improved, and I think the torture scene was proof of that. I cried all three times I saw it! I love Harry and Hermione’s friendship, and I think the screenwriters and directors are finally not trying to shove them on us (even with the Horcrux kissing scene). The dancing scene was awkward at first, but now it’s one of my favorite scenes in the movie.

Emma Watson was great as Hermione: her romance with Ron, her cleverness, etc. And Daniel Radcliffe. . .oh, my goodness, he’s really becoming how I picture Harry. Like sometimes when I read the books, I still have my own pictures of Hermione and Ron, but I almost always picture Dan when reading about Harry. Plus his acting was brilliant in the scene with seven Harrys. He was playing eight different characters in that one scene! Loved it.

The Ron and Hermione romance is great, but the Ginny and Harry stuff - not so much. That kiss in the kitchen was so stiff, but George dropping in makes me laugh every time.

What I’m really looking forward to, though, is Harry finding out more about Dumbledore. His family, his involvement with Grindelwald, his quest for the Deathly Hallows. That was a big plot point in DH, and I want to see more of it. I want to see Harry doubting Dumbledore and I want to see him considering the Hallows instead of the Horcruxes.

And of course, it will be interesting to see how they reveal Snape’s true allegiance. The Pensieve scene in the fifth movie was underwhelming, so I’m hoping they do a good job with that.

Theme
The movies usually do a great job with the themes of Harry Potter: love, friendship, courage, good versus evil. At the same time, I think since this is the first part, they didn’t have a chance to have a big “lesson” like the last movies. It’s just building up the story; it’s getting us ready for the finale. We still saw a lot of love (Ron and Hermione!) and good (the wedding, Neville sticking up to the Death Eaters) and evil (Voldemort killing Charity Burbage), but I think the second part will be way more intense.

What was Gained from Adaptation
I love seeing these scenes visually. Some people complained that the seventh book dragged, that the camping parts were too long, and this film condenses it. I hear some people complaining that the movie dragged, too, but I thought it balanced a fast pace and the hopeless feeling that the trio felt while realizing they don’t know where to find the Horcuxes.

What was Lost
I really wanted to see the sign at Godric’s Hollow. I know it’s such a small thing, but it really encouraged Harry when he needed it. You know that Remus had to have been the one to put it up, and the one to bury James and Lily. (Remus! I don’t want more people to die!)

Summary
I’m going to be a complete wreck the next movie. I’m going to bring a box of tissues and I won’t even be ashamed of sobbing when all my favorite characters die. Oh, JK Rowling, what you do to me. . .

Links

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 on IMDb

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on Goodreads

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows on Better World Books

JK Rowling's Website

Book/Movie Comparison: Never Let Me Go

Same drill: After a brief summary, I'll look at Setting, Characters, Theme, What Was Gained by Film Adaptation, and What Was Lost by Film Adaptation.

Never Let Me Go is a literary novel with a science fiction twist written by Kazuo Ishiguro in 2005. You can read my review of it here. It takes place in an alternate history where humans are cloned with the sole purpose of eventually giving up their vital organs to save lives. Instead of focusing on the implications of this, the novel focuses on a trio of friends Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy. The book is from Kathy's POV, and she has a very nostalgic, reflective voice during the book. The narrative spends time on their years at Hailsham Boarding School, the cottages after school, and their time as donors and carers. The book itself won a lot of awards and was received well.

The movie came out in 2010. It was directed by Mark Romanek and adapted to screenplay by Alex Garland. Carey Mulligans plays Kathy, Andrew Garfield plays Tommy, and Keria Knightley plays Ruth. It was nominated for and won a variety of awards at different film festivals.

Some spoilers - ye be warned!

Setting
I thought the cinematography and the world this movie was set in fit the book's tone. The movie was full of subdued colors and everything was very old. I thought the book had a melancholy sort of feel to it, especially because of the subject matter. I liked how even though there were a lot of advances to science, the film wasn't set in a technologically advanced world, it was set in the 70s and 80s in our own world. Everything was familiar, even though the situations weren't.

Hailsham was great, how the children were so obedient and the viewers could tell something was a little off. In the end, though, they were just kids, they looked and acted just like normal kids, but they had a much different destiny. I liked the change from the different stages of their lives. Hailsham and the cottages were similar, but then we're plunged into the clinical settings of the recovery centers and hospitals. It showed the bleakness of their situations.

The mood of the movie was a tad too depressing; it kind of left my husband and I sad. I guess in a way that's the point.

Characters
I think the acting was amazing. I adored all three of these actors. They did a wonderful job with the subject matter they were given. There was a lot of subtext, and I think they did great with that.

I wasn't too keen on how Ruth was portrayed. In the movie, she just seems like a spiteful, mean girl. Her apology at the end was cool, but she really didn't look happy when Kathy told her they were going to go ask for a deferral. In the book, Ruth is Kath's best friend for a reason. She does have veer towards manipulative and condescending behavior, but I felt like I didn't see their friendship at all in the movie. I was actually wondering why Kath put up with her at all.

Carey Mulligan was very talented at Kath; she really had a lot to accomplish, and she was great. The writing was odd, though. At times during conversation, Kath just wouldn't say anything, and there would be these weird, awkward pauses. I understand that these characters don't always say what they're thinking, but sometimes, the dialogue just seemed stilted.

Andrew Garfield as Tommy - wow. I don't think anyone who sees this movie will forget his scream at the end. He portrayed Tommy so wonderfully, capturing that childlike innocence as well as his growth to the end.

In general, I really liked what the movie did with Kath and Tommy, but I think they could have made Ruth more likable.

Theme
I think a lot of the same themes were present in the movie. The theme of memory wasn't as strong, of course - while in the book, we jump around from the past to the present in Kath's mind, the movie is more linear except for a few minutes in the beginning when we see Kath as an adult. But the movie focused a lot on Kath and Tommy's relationship, which keeps you yearning for things to work out between them.

That sense of mortality and finality is definitely presence in the movie. Kath and the other clones have no choice. Their lives are set out for them, and they just have to make the best of them that they can, like all of us.

What Was Gained
The film producers made a good choice when the decided to make everything linear, unlike the book. While our minds may jump from past to future to present in a matter of minutes, and a reader can follow that in a book, it wouldn't have been good for a movie. We saw their growth chronologically.

What Was Lost
Like I said earlier, some of the dialogue seemed stilted. Things were awkward, and the movie was pretty slow. I wished there could have been more scenes of them at Hailsham or maybe of Ruth not seeming like a horrible person.


All in all, I loved this movie. I think the way they worked out the cinematography, acting, and everything else really had a way of settling in your bones and making you feel kind of hopeless. And yet, there was distinct moments of beauty in their lives. The sale at Hailsham, Kath and Tommy's love, Tommy's drawings, their hope at a deferral, the boat. I think those times made it so much harder in the end, and I think it's harder for a movie to do that than a book.

Links:
Never Let Me Go on Goodreads
Never Let Me Go on IMDb
NPR Interview with Kazuo Ishiguro
Never Let Me Go on BetterWorldBooks

Book/Movie Comparison: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

A long time coming! After a brief summary, I'll look at Characters, Setting, Theme, What Was Gained by Film Adaptation, and What Was Lost by Film Adaptation.

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader was written by CS Lewis in 1952. It was released as the third book of The Chronicles of Narnia, but now is regarded as the fifth because of chronological events of the series. Edmund and Lucy Pevensie return to Narnia with their obnoxious, spoiled cousin, Eustace Scrubb. They're taken aboard the Dawn Treader, where King Caspian is searching for seven lost Lords that his uncle banished from the land. The story follows their journey as they search for these men, coming across dragons, one-footed Duffers, merpeople, and Aslan's country. This was my favorite book in the series, so I was excited for the film adaptation.

The movie came out in 2010, and I just saw it about a month ago. It stars Georgie Henley as Lucy, Skander Keynes as Edmund, Ben Barnes as Caspian, Will Pouter as Eustace, and Liam Neeson as the voice of Aslan. Produced by Walden Media, it's the third in the film franchise.

Characters:

I LOVED Will Pouter as Eustace. He was so perfect, and the writing did him justice. They really captured his arrogance and also his transformation later with the dragon incident.

I feel like in the Narnia movies they try to give every character a little journey, even if it's not very convincing. For example, in this movie, Edmund was still struggling with being less than Peter. To me, Lucy's 'struggle' with wanting to be Susan was a little more believable, but it still fell a little flat to me. It was like the writers just put it in there to feel like there was character growth.

As for the other characters, I adored Reepicheep, as usual. I wanted to see more of the Duffers because they're so amusing. A ten minute scene hardly did them justice.

Setting:

As with the other Narnia movies, I really enjoyed the setting. The vast landscapes, the various creatures, the magical feel to it all. I think the film did a good job in capturing that childlike wonder of the books.

That's one of the reasons this book is my favorite; we see so many new things beyond Narnia. Aslan's Country was pretty sweet.

(spoilers from here on out!)

Theme:

I think the book was more focused on adventure and discovery. They had the whole world ahead of them and they weren't really sure where they were going. The writers saw there wasn't one coherent conflict holding it all together, and so they added 'the darkness.' This mist appears in the beginning, taking human sacrifices.

I don't know how to feel about this. I realize that if it strictly followed the book, viewers may have been like, 'Where is this story going?' But the mist/darkness seemed so generic. Oh, if we don't do something, all Narnia will be taken! All three swords have to be together on the table! Here's a giant sea serpent! I think they could have been more imaginative. I did like how Eustace was the one who put the three swords together; he's so awesome. (side note: I want them to do The Silver Chair, but The Magician's Nephew is next. Oh, well, I like that one too.)

What Was Gained by Film Adaptation:

Like I said, the film had one conflict holding everything together. There was a mission, there was something big at stake. Other than that. . .I can't think of anything.

What Was Lost by Film Adaptation:

I already mentioned how much I missed the Duffers. I wouldn't have minded a movie without an underlying mission; I liked the sense of discovery, but I realize it wouldn't have made a great movie plot.

To be honest, this wasn't my favorite of the Narnia films so far. The darkness made it quite cheesy towards the end, but since it was my favorite book, it was a thrill to see scenes and characters made real.

Links:

IMDb of Voyage of the Dawn Treader

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader on BetterWorldBooks

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader on Goodreads

The Green Mile: Book/Movie Comparison

Similar format to Everything Is Illuminated: After a brief summary, I'll look at Characters, Setting, Theme, What Was Gained by Film Adaptation, and What Was Lost by Film Adaptation.

The Green Mile was written by Stephen King first as a serial novel in 1996. It's the written account of Paul Edgecombe, an elderly man in Georgia Pines retirement home, writing about the year of 1932 on the E Block ("Death Row") of Cold Mountain Penitentiary. He was the head guard, and tells the story of John Coffey, a large black man who is sentenced to death for the rape and murder of two girls, but is much more than he seems. He tells about Percy Whetmore, an arrogant guard; Eduard Delacroix, an inmate, and his pet mouse, Mr. Jingles; and John Coffey's moving story.

The movie came out in 1999. It was adapted to screen and directed by Frank Darabont. Tom Hanks plays Paul Edgecombe, Michael Clarke Duncan plays John Coffey, and the rest of the cast is great, too.

Setting:

I thought the setting in the movie was great. Set in the deep South during the Depression, the film really captured the accents, the scenery, the dress. I envisioned the prison a bit differently, of course, but there were some great details. Even the sweat on their brows, you could tell it was the summer. It really captured the feel of the South.

Characters:

What a great cast! Michael Duncan as John Coffey was amazing. David Morse as Brutus "Brutal" Howell - I really liked his performance. And Dough Hutchison as Percy Whetmore - he plays a great weasel. He captured Percy's cowardice, arrogance, and violence perfectly. Seriously, I could go on and on about the cast. Sam Rockwell was a little older than how I imagined Wild Bill, but he was just as crazy.

About the script, though, and how the characters were portrayed, I think it was very accurate. In the book, I had a hard time telling Harry and Dean apart, so I'm glad in the movie, Dean was considerably older than Harry. They gave a few of Brutal's best lines to Paul ("What am I going to tell God at the judgment seat when he asks why I killed one of his miracles? That it was my job? My job?" paraphrased, of course) - but I understand that he was the main character and needed to have the position of the leader.

There were other, small details that I saw differently in the book (I imagined Hal Moores overweight, his wife much older, and Delcroix more haggard), but those are going to happen with any movie. When reading the book, the characters come to life in your head and you get used to them that way. All in all, the basic essence of these characters were kept intact in the film.

Theme:

The book has many moral conundrums. It's hard to even put them into words. For one, racism is rampant in the South. One man (a reporter in the book, Coffey's defense in the movie) compares Negroes to dogs. I honestly think they toned it down in the movie, the n-word is used plenty of times in the book (not by the guards), and it's made clear that even if the guards could prove Coffey's innocence, people wouldn't want to hear it because he's black.

(Warning: spoilers from here on out!)

A major issue towards the end of the book is killing an innocent man. Coffey has the power of healing, and the guards feel like they're killing one of God's gifts to men. They have their jobs to think about, in the middle of the Depression, but this pales in comparison to his abilities. Hal Moores, even after his wife is healed by Coffey, signs Coffey's death warrant. The story makes you think about the justice system, how far you're willing to go for a job, the injustice of society (and the whole world), and helplessness.

Coffey's abilities go beyond just healing. He is super sensitive to the feelings of the people around him. One powerful scene in the book that I wished had been in the movie was when Coffey stood in the room with "Old Sparky" and said something along the lines of, "Pieces of them are still in here. I can hear them screaming." But they added in a scene where Coffey felt Delacroix's pain, which I think strengthened his empathic abilities.

What was heartbreaking to me was the line, "He killed them with they love. It's like that all over the world." I think this encompasses a major theme, how people are ugly and cruel to each other, and justice is only sometimes given. Percy and Wild Bill probably got what they deserved, but at the same time, John Coffey was killed even though he was innocent, and Delacroix had to endure a horrible death. Like I said, it's hard to even put into words what the story says about mankind. It's full of good and evil.

Lost:

There was a short story about Paul in Georgia Pines with a cruel employee that reminded him of Percy. Adding this to the movie would have made it too long (it was already three hours), but it definitely gave his old age another dimension. We also didn't see Jan's death, but I think the realization that the gift Coffey gave him was, in a way, a curse was made clear in the last few minutes of the film.

Gained:

I think the repeated visual of the light bulbs bursting during Coffey's bursts of power added to the story since we couldn't get inside of Paul's head. I also thought Coffey showing Paul what he saw as opposed to Paul going to investigate was a good move for the film - it shortened it, and made Wild Bill's crime more real and moving to the viewers.

I really enjoyed this movie. I can understand why it was nominated for a Best Picture at the Academy Awards. An amazing story. Sad, for sure, but a lot of great stories are.

Links:
Stephen King's Website
The Green Mile on BWB
The Green Mile on Goodreads
IMDb for The Green Mile

Book/Movie Comparison: Everything Is Illuminated

My first book/movie analysis. For this post, after a brief summary, I'll look at Characters, Setting, Theme, What Was Gained by Film Adaptation, and What Was Lost by Film Adaptation. If this works, I'll just keep this format for the rest, too.

Everything Is Illuminated was written by Jonathan Safran Foer in 2002. The book is divided into two sections.

The first is the story of a young American Jew, Jonathan, traveling to Ukraine to find the woman who saved his grandfather's life, Augustine. He is led around the country, searching for the shtetl Trachimbrod, by a Ukrainian named Alex and his grandfather. This part is written by Alex and mailed to Jonathan after the journey has ended.

The second section is Jonathan's writings mailed to Alex. It is his fictional account of the history of Trachimbrod. It's very literary and has bits of magical realism.

The movie was released in 2005. It was directed and written by Liev Schreiber. Elijah Wood plays the role of Jonathan, Eugene Hutz Alex, and Boris Leskin Grandfather.

The script only focuses on the story in Ukraine, following their travels around the country in search of Augustine and Trachimbrod.

Setting:

I really enjoyed the setting in the movie. The beautiful countryside, the ornate buildings, the dingy hotel. During Alex's writing in the book, you don't read too much about the landscape or their surroundings. (I'm definitely not complaining - Alex spends a lot of time on their conversations, making humorous Ukrainian-to-English translation mistakes, thinking about American pop culture, and reflecting on what they learned on their journey.)

Because Jonathan's novel sections are taken out, the movie doesn't explore the fantastical Trachimbrod. That might have been really neat in film, but I'm glad they didn't include this section, the movie would have been quite odd and stilted. So, from here on out, I'll just talk about Alex's section and how it was adapted.

Characters:

In any film adaptation, you lost a lot of depth. Film is a like an act of spying into the lives of these characters; books look into their minds.

The Jonathan in the book is a writer. In the movie, he's a collector. He spends a lot of time gathering things and putting them in ziploc bags, and in the beginning of the movie, there's a wonderful scene of his room, where the camera spans all the things he's collected connected to his family: movie tickets, handkerchiefs, jewelry. The "writer" role of the book is a way of showing Jonathan's character to us, and the "collector" role of the movie does this same thing. If Jonathan had solely been a writer, the viewers of the film wouldn't have been able to read his words.

Eugene Hutz was great as Alex. He was a funny, endearing character. The only thing I think the movie is missing is Alex's growth as a character.

(Warning: spoilers from here on out!)

At the end of the book, Alex tells his abusive, drunken father to leave and takes the role of the head man in the house. He also learns things about his grandfather and contemplates what it means to be a bad or good person. The journey to Trachimbrod changes him. He even confesses in the end that he doesn't go to nightclubs or become "carnal" with other women, but it was mostly an act. I didn't feel unfulfilled after watching the movie Alex, but I still felt like he wasn't as deep as the book Alex.

Here's a quote from the book that really signifies Alex's growth, from Alex's POV: "The bruises go away, and so does how you hate, and so does the feeling that everything you receive from life is something you have earned."

The grandfather is given a much different backstory in the movie. In the book, the grandfather gives his Jewish best friend over to the Nazis while they are ransacking his village Kolki. In the movie, the grandfather is a Jewish man who escaped the Nazis and stayed in Ukraine by pretending he wasn't Jewish. I think it was an interesting choice. The story in the book broke my heart; I cried the first time I read, and I was even crying in the library as I read it again yesterday. The story in the movie was moving, but I almost felt like it was too simple. The book version was complex, and you knew the grandfather was a good person, but it made you think about the horrors of war and what people will do to save their lives and the lives of their family. I suppose I like the book version a bit more, but again, just because it gives much more depth and growth to the grandfather.

Theme

The book had many themes. I think the theme about history and its meaning was definitely the stronger in the movie. Jonathan came all the way from America to search for Augustine. When they do find her, she explains the history of Trachimbrod, and we find out the grandfather's history.

Alex says at the end of the movie in a letter to Jonathan, "I have reflected many times upon our rigid search. It has shown me that everything is illuminated in the light of the past. It is always along the side of us, on the inside, looking out. Like you say, inside out. Jonathan, in this way, I will always be along the side of your life. And you will always be along the side of mine."

This echoes Alex's sentiments in the book: "Everything is the way it is because everything was the way it was. Sometimes I feel ensnared in this, as if no matter what I do, what will come has already been fixed."

Lost:

So much can be lost in film adaptation. Obviously, there was no way to translate the power of the written word to the film. In Alex's letters, it even becomes a point of contention between the two of them. Alex wonders why Jonathan continues to write sad, loveless histories for his relatives when "with writing, we have second chances." That was a powerful part of the book for me, but, of course, it's part of the book.

I regret the growth of Alex and his passionate response to his grandfather's suicide.

Gained:

The film adaptation was simpler than the book. At times, the book (especially Jonathan's account of Trachimbrod) can be overwhelming or too "out there." The movie took the relationships and basic journey to find Augustine and put it into a beautiful landscape with talented actors. You still have the melancholiness, the love, the humor, the significance in the past.

The movie is definitely in my top 20 movies, and the book is amazing, too. I recommend both in a heartbeat!

What do you think? About the book? The film? The switch from book to movie?

Some links:

Who is Augustine?
An Interview with Jonathan Safran Foer
IMDb for Everything Is Illuminated
Everything Is Illuminated on BWB
Everything Is Illuminated on Goodreads

Visit My Squid Lens on this topic

Book/Movie Comparison: Introduction & List

It's kind of funny I'm doing posts like this, but I kind of get annoyed when people complain about movie adaptations of novels. But these posts aren't going to be about "OMG, I can't believe they left this scene out." The novel and the feature-length film are two very different forms of art. These posts are less comparisons and more analyses. I'm going to talk about how well the movie did in conveying the theme of the book, the growth of the characters, the main conflict, etc. Sometimes, the movies do it better. I'll try to learn lessons from each adaptation, too.

So, here are a few reference lists for myself (not exactly exhaustive). I'll come back, add to the lists, and eventually take some of them to make posts!

Book Read and Movie Seen:
1. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by JK Rowling
2. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by JK Rowling
3. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by JK Rowling
4. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire by JK Rowling
5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix by JK Rowling
6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince by JK Rowling
7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by JK Rowling Part 1
8. The Lovely Bones by Alice Sebold
9. My Sister's Keeper by Jodi Picoult
10. The Princess Bride by William Goldman
11. The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan
12. Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton
13. The Prestige by Christopher Priest
14. Shutter Island by Dennis Lehane
15. LOTR: Fellowship of the Ring by JRR Tolkien
16. LOTR: The Two Towers by JRR Tolkien
17. LOTR: Return of the King by JRR Tolkien
18. The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe by CS Lewis
19. Prince Caspian by CS Lewis
20. Percy Jackson: The Lightning Thief by Rich Riordan
21. Children of Men by PJ James
22. A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engle
23. Where The Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak
24. Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer
25. Holes by Louis Sachar
26. 1-3 of A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket
27. Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden
28. The Secret Life of Bees by Sue Monk Kidd
29. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (various film adaptations)
30. Romeo & Juliet by William Shakespeare (various film adaptations)
31. Everything Is Illuminated by Jonathan Safran Foer
32. The Green Mile by Stephen King

34. The Voyage of the Dawn Treader by CS Lewis

35. Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro

Books I've read that have movie adaptations I haven't yet seen or aren't released:
The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
Tomorrow, When the War Began by John Marsden
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell

Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller

Movies I've seen adapted from books that I want to read:
1. Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert
2. Les Miserables by Victor Hugo
3. The Boy In Striped Pajamas by John Boyne

Books I'd like to read that have movie adaptations I'd like to see:
1. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

Books that should never be adapted for film (in my humble opinion):
And this isn't because they are bad books - on the contrary, these are my favorites - but so much that is beautiful about these books can't be translated to film. Their language and literary style is really what makes these books amazing. If the story went to film without the language, it wouldn't be nearly as powerful.
1. The Book Thief by Markus Zusak
2. The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien