Of course, all books are more descriptive. What I liked about the movie is that they actually showed the dream Pony boy had and they also showed Dally robbing the grocery store; something the book doesn't tell. Both the book and the movie are great, and you should watch it, but the book is better. In conclusion as you can tell there are many differences, but there are also many things that are alike between the book and the movie. I enjoyed both the book and the movie, but personally I think the book was better, because the movie left some of the things out that the book had in it.
Because of technology being so significant, we tend to use as much of it as possible in movies, or adding as many special effects and unique graphics. For instance, now in theatres, 3-D movies are the new trend, they keep the audience engaged with the movie. As for movies in the mid 1900’s, technology was not so varied, so the movies had no choice but to be basic. Currently, Movies in the 21st century are filled with adult (sexually explicit) content, profanity, and even blood and gore. Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds”, portray an unnoticed view of these elements.
If the movie had more detail it would be more interesting. The book gave me a better picture. When I saw the movie it confused me because it didn’t have all the parts. If I just saw the movie I wouldn’t understand why Greasers and Socs were separated and why they hated each other. I think Cherry did a really good job; she fit the description really well I think.
Furthermore, Daphne Du Maurier stresses important details so the suspense is evident. The film had difficulty portraying the thematic element of hyperbole because in a movie one can only shine so much light upon one subject without blurting out the obvious. There are several reasons it is so imperative that one has good use of hyperbole in media. One reason it is brilliant to use hyperbole and raw repetition is that the viewer can be of
Another reason why the book version of ‘A Patch of Blue’ is better than the film is because the element of surprise when we discover that Gordon is a black man is not there when we watch the film, because we know he is black from the first moment he is shown on screen. The theme of ‘A Patch of Blue’ was tolerance, and the book portrayed that theme more effectively than the film, because it showed how people can be so
It is literally a few yellow sponges cut into different sized balls and stuck on the top of her skull. If I were to make a list of things that I hate in the world, ugly hairstyles would be up there with Osama Bin Laden! The only reason for the crazy hair I could think of is that the actress has really bad hair but even then, I’m sure that the actress’s
Aspects of both movies are done well but overall, the 1993 Of Mice and Men was by far better at portraying the theme of the book, by using Lennie’s disability to help show the theme. The movie was more accurate to the book, and adding extra things to help convey the theme clearly to the
However, I was impressed overall with the directing of Smiths. He got the cast to really understand the underpinnings of Miller's great tirade against those who stifle free thought, and drew the key scenes to a good emotional climax. The lighting was adequate; the set design was simple but effective; the staging didn't add much to the play, but it didn't detract either. My main gripe about the production design centers on their programs (absolutely, terribly unprofessional) and the pixilated images used in place of backdrops (projected against a screen) In my opinion that was a great idea, but it was very poorly executed. Ultimately, a play succeeds because of the strength of its story not its stage dressing.
Wilde also uses short sentences to create impact with Basil’s death. An example of this is “Something began to trickle on the floor.” By not specifying what is trickling on the floor makes the reader think more and guess that it is Basil’s blood which automatically gets us to visualise the scene. This is another example of how Dorian is falling into moral decadence; just that tiny bit of influence from Harry can build up and cause such extreme behaviour. Harry influenced Dorian to live life for beauty and youth and he has now taken it to the extreme because he doesn’t feel the long term effects of what he does. He doesn’t show ‘lines of worry’ on his forehead or the guilt in his eyes, he looks innocent and pure.
I love Daniel Day-Lewis and his superb acting but I am not a big fan of Winona Ryder and they unfortunately cancel each other out to make a passable movie. As for representing the Salem Witch Trials, it seemed to stick with the story even though it had to dramatize and add love triangles to make sure the audience does not fall asleep. I learned much about the Salem Witch Trials, such as, that a man was hanged and not just women, and that another was pressed with stones until he died. I would consider it good history because it gives you the events and in order of which they happened. I would hope after seeing this film that the audience was intrigued with the lies, deceit, and hysteria that it showed and will go out and do their own research and not take any Hollywood historical film at face value.