“Joe Gould’s Secret” is a nonfiction story written by Joseph Mitchell, and a movie based on this book is also called “Joe Gould’s Secret” directed by Stanley Tucci. In today’s times a lot of movies are based on a written literature. Many students watch the movie instead of reading the book maybe because it’s more enjoyable but for some they take it as an easy way out. It’s obvious that it’s easier to watch the movie then reading the book but the movie lacks the details that are present in the book. I think if a director of a movie is basing a movie on the book they should add a lot of the little details that lead up to the climax of the story that were present in the book.
It is a completely unconventional film, that was somewhat shocking to audiences when it first came out in theatres because of its extremely different storyline that most people had not seen in film before. However, it attracted a lot of people, however, because of its witty humor that pokes fun at the storyline. This film is an American independent film because it fits completely into Geoff King’s theory of independent films. This means that it’s production history is not what a typical Hollywood movie’s would be, it’s narrative is something that most film audiences have not seen, and it has a very strong alternative vision and voice that will make people think once the movie is over. This film has
Like most movies that are based on books, the movie does not follow the book very much at all. I believe that the short story and the movie of "The Birds" are extremely different. Although there are some similarities, the differences outweigh them. In this paper, I will discuss the similarities and differences in the works. The book was written by Daphne DuMorier, while the movie was
The events in the movie are both unlike and alike the events in the novel. They were mostly similar because the movie was based on the novel, in other words the movie pretty much was the reenactment of the novel. For example the book was based on the two groups the Greasers and Socs and how they did not get along well, this lead to deaths which were shown in both of the movie and novel. The movie tended to exclude some scenes that were included within the novel. For example in the movie they did not include the scene when PonyBoy gets jumped by the Socs.
Holes: Book vs. Movie By: Brady Flynn The movie Holes followed the book so closely that it was hard to find some differences. There are some scenes in the movie that are reenacted almost word for word from the book; it felt like I could have watched the movie while following along in my book. Even details like the camper’s clothing (everything from their white shoes to their hats with neck-protecting flaps) were kept the same as what was described in the book. Although the movie and the book were very similar; the one major difference I could find was with Stanley’s physical appearance. In the book, Stanley is described as overweight, and he is often mistaken for a bully because of how large and commanding he seems.
The Endless Argument As you are walking out of the movie theater you hear the endless debate between friends of whether the book or the movie was better. You might hear, "I thought the book was so much better." Or another person might say, "I didn't even know a book existed." Some may say a book is better because you can take your time reading and interpretating. Others might say a movie is better because the movie does the interpretating for them.
Not only would people not sit through a movie that long, some things don’t translate well from book to film. The screenwriter and the director have to decide what parts aren’t needed to tell the story and what parts can be moved around to make the film flow in a more fluid way. The director also has to find a way to take descriptions in the book and make images out of them. Without good editing and imagery you can still get a good film, it just won’t be a film that is true to the book. For Example, in the book Anne Frank, she was in love with Peter Vanpels a boy that was inside the annex with her.
Both the novel and movie were exceptional. However, a movie can never fully express the book, as it cannot show every single detail outlined by the novel. The movie did a great job at portraying the culture and people of Afghanistan, making the movie seem very vivid. However, the movie left out a bunch of details since the novel is long, and it do not have enough time to show them all. Sometimes this is also a good choice because some details are not that important, so they can be left out with no impact on the movie.
However, if changing information to help in the aide to produce a box office hit is necessary, its typically stated within the opening credits or ending credits of the movie. People in general, should not regard historical movies, or even documentaries, as complete factual interpretations of written past. But in fact educate themselves to more credible information and resources, which are not related to a medium of mass entertainment. Even though there is little to no information regarding this siege that took place within the class textbook, ultimately my choice of movie for this essay against historical content was the Last of the Mohicans. Due to the location of the battle that took place in the movie, which is close to my actual home town, and how the Director really tried to make as much historical factuality as he could from a complete work of fiction.
This year, unfortunately, Katniss's little sister is selected for the Hunger Games, so Katniss volunteers to take her place. While the Hunger Games movie broke records at the box office, but saying that the movie is better than the book is very wrong because the book describes more content that the movie did not include. While reading the book we inhabit Katniss’s mind, through first person narrative. While following her inner dialogue we know her fears, desires, and needs, in a much more intimate way then the film can deliver. However, on screen we are given some hints and clues into the complex feelings of Katniss given by the actor Jennifer Lawrence’s incredible acting and because the camera was allowed to linger long enough for her nonverbal expressions to come through.