Book to Film: Persepolis

Book to Film:

Persepolis

     Before I begin my analysis of the book and film adaptation of Marjane Satrapis graphic novel Persepolis, let it be known that going into the film, I did not realize that it covered both the original book and its sequel. This means that I can really only analyze the first part of the movie because I have not read the book that is attached to the second half. Having known this before starting the movie I would have done things differently, alas it is too late to go back.

            Persepolis is a French film based on an autobiographical graphic novel written by an Iranian woman named Marjane Satrapi. Persepolis (book one) tells the story of Marjane’s childhood during the Islamic revolution and what it’s like to be a child growing up in a place where your life is in almost constant peril. The movie tells the same story, only it also takes from the second book about her young adulthood in Europe and her return to Iran. Of course, I will only be talking about the first part of the movie, as I have not read the second book, as it says above.

    The Book

            Persepolis is a rare kind of book. It is both a comic and an autobiography. It uses images to tell its story but it also has a lot of very political dialogue. It is not something you see everyday. It’s an interesting concept and it just about works in its context. That being said the most interesting thing about Persepolis is its perspective. Instead of getting your usual American point of view on Iranian culture you see the story through the eyes of a woman who has lived it, and therefore it is more real and true. It is also a coming of age tale. It’s all about Marjane finding out who she is in a world of black and white ideals and conflicting views. The book is a great many things, but above all it is a great read.

   The Film

            The film version of Persepolis is a fairly accurate adaptation of the original text. This is not surprising as the author of the book directs the film, along with another person named Vincent Paronnaud. It only leaves out a few minor details, characters, and events that are unimportant in the scheme of things. The story, spirit, and art of the film translate very well onto the big screen, or at least the part I read. As far as animation goes this is top quality. This can also be applied to foreign film as well.

   The Verdict

            Persepolis the book and Persepolis the film are both very well done and very important. It’s hard to say which is better in this instance because of the similarity between the two. Although, if I had to choose one, I would go with the film version.

-       The Book: 8/10

-       The Film: 9/10

Book to Film: To Kill a Mockingbird

Book to Film

To Kill a Mockingbird

            To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee is one of the most renowned and critically acclaimed American books ever written. Robert Mulligan’s To Kill a Mockingbird is another critically acclaimed, Academy Award winning film. They are both great examples of American-made art and deserving of these high honors. They are about innocence, childhood, bias, and what is right and what is wrong. In this essay, as always, I will be analyzing the book and film, finding comparisons and contrasts between the two, and giving my opinion on both the literary and cinematic versions of the story.

   THE BOOK

            To Kill a Mockingbird is without a doubt one of the best books I’ve ever read. It is one of those that is hard to put down when you’ve started and you almost miss once you’ve finished. The story is about a young girl named Scout growing up in a small southern town and the challenges she faces in her world. It is also about her father’s own struggles with his adult world. The story is from Scouts perspective, but is able to give multiple points of view on topics, and we the readers learn about southern life in the 30s just as she learns. Over a few years we see Scout grow and learn more about the real world as opposed to her childhood one of innocence. As she begins to gain a conscience and understanding of things we begin to learn the same things from her. It’s a book with a lot to say and many messages to share.

            Like I said, while it does take Scouts perspective throughout the book it is also just as much about her father Atticus. Atticus is a lawyer defending a black man called Tom Robinson against charges of raping a white woman. This is the south in the 1930s. It is a case he knows he cannot win, but he still tries. Atticus has a lot of pressure put on him because of the severity of the case, and is threatened, spit on, and called fowl names. It becomes clear that Tom did not rape the woman, but he is still convicted because of the town’s racial bias against black people. Despite what the norm is at the time, Atticus stands up for his personal views of right and wrong. This rubs off on Scout and helps influence her own sense of morality.

   THE MOVIE

            The film adaptation is also incredibly strong and powerful. One thing it faults itself on is literal adaptation. The book covers so much and takes so much time that it is impossible to show all of it on screen. It is able to hit on everything that is necessary for the story to make sense, but leaves out a lot of important moments, so many in fact that it was a little shocking. Even entire characters like Aunt Alexandra are completely done away with. It is an extremely abridged version of Harper Lees original novel. One thing it does manage to do is capture the feel of the book. The scenes that aren’t excluded look and feel almost exactly how I imagined them in the book. It has the spirit and nostalgia of childhood. In soul it is probably the best adaptation so far. In a literal sense it is probably the worst.

            The thing that makes this a great film, direction, score, and cinematography aside, is easily the performances. Every single performance is believable, and some of them are actually astounding. I don’t think I’ve seen a group of more believable child actors in my life. They all play their parts perfectly and are identical to the characters in the book. That being said, Gregory Peck is easily the best thing about the movie. His performance as Atticus Finch won him best actor at the Oscars, beating out the likes of Peter O’Toole in the equally amazing Lawrence of Arabia (best picture winner that year). He plays Atticus exactly how he is in the novel, a man trying to do the right thing against all odds. What makes the book so great is also found in the film, even if it is missing a lot of plot.

   THE VERDICT

            These are both great forms of a great story, but it is still easy to decide which is better overall. The film is great but the book is simply a masterpiece. It is perfect in almost every way. From character to story to setting to style it is an unparalleled work of fiction that is at the very least matched to the best books I’ve read, possibly even claiming the top spot. The film is just ever so slightly flawed, but it is still a worthy adaptation of the novel. It is just incapable of reaching the novels heights. It comes as close as it can though.

   CONCLUSION

            Both are fantastic works of art. The book is still slightly better than the film, just because the book is a more in depth and frankly perfect version of a great tale.

- The Book: 10/10

- The Movie: 9.75/10

Book to Film: 12 Years a Slave

Book To Film:
12 Years a Slave

             

             The book and film adaptation of 12 Years a Slave contrast largely from time to time, but they are able to hold the same spirit in both forms. Both are impressive and immersive pieces of art, and both are pretty outstanding. In this essay, in a continuing series from last month, I will be examining both the original book written by Solomon Northup and the movie adaptation directed by Steve McQueen. In doing so I will give my opinion on both and talk about the differences between the two.

   The Book

            As far as autobiographies from the 1800s go (or at least those that I’ve actually read) this is a pretty great one. It’s a tragic book, and it’s often hard to read about Solomon’s harrowing experiences with slavery and at the same time is oddly compelling and fascinating to read. It is also a very important book because it depicts slavery first hand. The most surprising thing about Solomon’s writing is how he describes the lighter side of slavery as well as the dark. He talks about his first master William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch in the film) and Samuel Bass, the man who helped him regain his freedom (Brad Pitt in the film) with great respect and admiration. That being said, the prominent dark side of slavery is very vivid and brutal. This is personified by the likes of Theophilus Freeman (Paul Giamatti), John Tibeats (Paul Dano) and most notably Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender) as a brutal slave master. It is shocking that people this uncaring and violent ever existed, and I suppose still exist today. Not many books I’ve are as heartbreaking and true as this one. It is without a doubt an important book, and even more so a great one.

   The Film

            If the book is the definitive written work on slavery, then the adaptation is the definitive film about slavery. It may not be as fun as Tarantino’s Django Unchained, but is a more serious, more important, and an all around better movie, which is a major feet when comparing something to Tarantino. The book can be hard to read at times, but the film is a much harder thing to watch. The violence in the film is visceral and graphic, and definitely not for the week of heart or stomach. Going into the movie having read the book, I knew about the violence that was going to be shown. Even then it takes you by surprise. Amazingly it also manages to be a beautiful movie. It makes an interesting and effective contrast. The film is led by Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon, and he really is the backbone of the movie. He should probably win best actor at the Oscars this year. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this totally sweeps the awards ceremony. It is a pretty fantastic film

   The Transition

            The film is as good an adaptation as your ever going to get, but it’s not always the most faithful one. While the movie definitely captures the soul of the book, it sometimes jumbles its facts. There are more than a few minor changes, like lines of dialogue given to different characters, but there are also a few major changes. For example, there is a whole section where there is a second encounter with Tibeats after he nearly hangs him. In this scene Solomon and Tibeats fight again, with Tibeats nearly killing him with an axe. Solomon ends up running away through the swamps until he reaches William Fords plantation again for refuge. This is entirely absent from the movie. The characterization of Edwin Epps also contrasted with what I pictured in the book. This is by no means a complaint though as I thought Fassbender played his part to perfection, just not what I had imagined. In the end, when it comes down to the spirit of the book the film matches it perfectly.

   Conclusion

            For me, this is one of those times that the film exceeds the book. They were both great, but the film just reached levels that the book couldn’t in the end.

-       The Novel: 10/10 – Compellingly written and timelessly potent.

-       The Film: 10/10 – Beautiful and brutal with a great ensemble and perfect filmmaking.

Book to Film: Of Mice and Men

Book to Film

Of Mice and Men

Of Mice and Men is the 1937 novel by John Steinbeck, a masterpiece and considered by many to be his best. It tells the story of two ranch hands in depression era United States, and their struggles living a life of pain and hardship. In 1939 it was adapted into a film starring Burgess Meredith, and adapted again in 1992 starring Gary Sinise and John Malkovich. During this essay I will examine both the book and the two films and compare them, looking for differences between the adaptations and expressing my opinion of each of the versions of the story.

The Novel and the 1939 Film:
The 1939 film, adapted for the screen by Eugene Solow and directed by Lewis Milestone, is a respectable adaptation of Steinbeck’s story. In truth it is not actually an adaptation of the novel; it is actually from the play, which Steinbeck wrote based on his novel of the same name. Comparing it to the book, it is has few literal changes, and those changes barely affect the telling of the story. The most notable change comes at the beginning. The movie begins with the main characters, George and Lennie, escaping from the people at the old ranch they used to work at, and hiding in the marsh. The novel begins after this, as George and Lennie settle down by the lake. Other minor differences include certain conversations taking place in different places and small details like a bird in a scene in the movie where it was a mouse in the book.

When it comes to the overall feel of the film however, there is a large difference. While the book is beautiful yet dark, the film has a much lighter feel to it. There seems to be more comedy in the movie, even if mostly unintentional. The characters feel more like caricatures than the real people they felt like in the book. It is an admittedly accurate account of the book, but it fails to capture the essence. That being said there are some redeeming moments, like the scene with Candie’s dog, but mostly it just doesn’t feel quite right. This may just be the fault of the actors, who manage to ham everything up. You can really only blame the acting style of the times though. This is the type of story that needs a much more real feel to it, and Lon Chaney’s over the top more idiot boy than mental illness performance can’t really cut it, nor can Burgess Meredith’s oddly uncaring take on his character.




The Novel and the 1992 Film:
The 1992 film is also based on the play instead of the novel, and in that regard is more of a remake of the 1939 film than anything. In its more literal similarities, it’s a lot like the 1939 film with almost nothing being changed, except for the odd change in location for certain dialogue. An example would be the first conversation between George and Lennie about the dead mouse taking place by the river, just like in the book. Overall, like with these examples it is slightly more similar to the book than to the 1939 film.

The feel of this adaptation more closely resembles that of the original book. It captures more the darker tones of the book, without losing hopeful streaks. From the way its shot to the way the actors play the rolls it feels like a more faithful adaptation of John Steinbeck’s novel.  Unlike the 1939 film, the essence of what Steinbeck wrote is there. It’s still a shame about a lot of the performances though. John Malkovitch did a pretty good job as Lennie, playing a more believable mentally challenged person. Gary Sinise is just plain boring as George though.

The Best Form of the Story:
When it comes to choosing the best form to experience this story, it’s a pretty obvious and easy choice. There hasn’t been and probably never will be anything better than the original Steinbeck novel when it comes to Of Mice and Men. The story is so ripe with symbolism that really the best way to tell the story is through novel form. The novel has such a strong feel and sense of character that it’s just not likely to ever be topped.

If you could never read the book again, and still want Of Mice and Men in some form, I would go with the 1992 film. While it’s not perfect, brought down mostly because of poor acting, it is the best screen adaptation of the novel. The worst form of the story is 1939 film. While its not terrible, it slightly misses the mark on pretty much all fronts. It’s not necessarily a bad film; it’s just not a good adaptation of the story.

Conclusion: 
In conclusion, Of Mice and Men may be a tale best kept on page. Although the films aren’t bad, they simply are not good enough to stand up to Steinbeck’s classic.

- The Novel: 9/10 – Very well written story of The American dream being stamped out by the realities of life.
- The Films: 7/10/-5/10 - Both not bad, but both cant stand up to the book.

First Post

     This is my first post on my new blog. I will be using this to post essays or other thoughts on film, TV, or whatever I really feel like posting. Early stages, still working out what I'm going to do, but whatever that is, I plan to have fun with it. One thing I know I will be doing is a series based on books that were adapted into films. Most importantly though I want to improve my skills and have fun putting my work out for people to see.