Shorts that I have done in Flickr over the past 3 years. (yes they are quite silly)
These four were all done as a film race. Basically we had a prop (the weird pointy thing) and we took about a minute of a film and then rewound the tape ten seconds. Then we passed it on to the next group. It turned out to be really fun and quite hilarious. I had pink in my hair at that point. Freshman year of college.
This one we ha 30 minutes to create a 3 minute film. Came out hilarious, but I messed up a lot hahahaha. I love this one. WE also had another prop which was the giant purple clothes pin.
This one is the best of all of them. I was key grip for this one. I had so much fun being on set.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Friday, August 27, 2010
Working On Experimental Film Project 1
So today I did a group shooting for my experimental class. I had so many great ideas for our project, and a lot of them were actually used. Our first project consists of first recording many different sounds. I figured that since I have a horse we could get some really great sounds over where he is. We did end up getting many different sounds at the barn which was really great. We got sounds of the horses neighing, and of random things around the tack room. We found lots of different unique sounds. My group got a long really great so it worked out really well. I think our soundscape will turn out really cool. I'm very excited for this project.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Films From My Intro To Production Class
Dude...Where's My Pie Man?: Combination of 2 different projects. I edited them both together. I think it turned out rather good for our first short film.
Touch: Our second film narrative. I love the way this one turned out as well. Though I didn't do much as the producer I tried to help.
Smoking Cash: I directed this one :D. I think it turned out really great. Took me forever to get everything together. I worked really hard on it.
Our other film I can't find on youtube so unfortunately that one won't be able to be displayed.
Kadosh: Women Held Hostage
Kadosh is a powerful movie directed by Amos Gitai. Normally associated with documentary films, Amos Gitai deviates from documentaries by creating this fictional film, yet still the film contains elements of documentaries by allowing us to get an inner look at the Jewish Orthodox religion. The movie follows the lives of two Jewish sisters who are oppressed by their society. Amos Gitai revives the style of the 60s, and 70s, by creating a very political and personal film (606). Amos Gitai condemns the Jewish Orthodox religion by showing scenes of women feeling inferior to men, women feeling unclean and impure, and of both sexes feeling trapped by their religion.
The movie opens with Mier, Rivka’s husband going through a lengthy morning ritual before he goes to study. Mier is illuminated, while Rivka remains in the shadows almost unable to be seen. Their beds are separated and the sun shines brightly on his bed. This scene is an extremely long take, and lasts for several minutes of the film. This gives us the sense that the movie will be about him. The scene seems also very documentary like because it shows a very realistic depiction of his morning ritual. He says a prayer thanking God for not making him a woman. Though at this point we are unsure why he is praying for that, it is clear that being a woman in their society is not preferred. In these first few minutes of the film we are already presented with the issue of women being considered inferior to men. His words, as well as the cinematography of the scene convey the idea that men do not consider women equals. Because Mier is illuminated, and Rivka is in the shadows it seems almost like he is superior. It attracts the viewers eyes to him and causes the viewer to think that he is more significant in the scene. These first few moments of the film already set up the ideas that men are superior. Amos Gitai criticizes the religion by showing how men are treated as superior.
Another scene allows us to see how the men belittle women. The priest tells Mier that “the only task of a daughter of Israel is to bring children into the world.” He explains that men are meant to study the Torah, and women are meant to serve the men, keep the home clean and cook meals. We learn many different things within this scene about the Jewish Orthodox beliefs, as well as see the belittling of women. The dialogue within this scene evokes anger among the viewers because it clearly shows the limitations of women’s roles. Amos Gitai shows us that women are clearly not equal to men in their society.
When Malka tries on her wedding dress it is clear how much the women are feeling inferior. This scene is one of the most important of the film because we learn even more about how women are treated in this society and how they feel about it. The scene is very simple keeping the two women in the center of the frame. There are no editing or camera movements, which helps us to focus on Malka’s words. This is another scene that has a very natural feel to it because of the long take of Malka putting on her wedding dress. We learn that women are not allowed to study the Talmud, which is a law book in Jewish religion. She feels like the men don’t want women to study the laws because men want to be able to do what they like with women. We feel anger because Malka says she feels like the men are hiding something so that they are able to control her. Malka explains how women are forbidden to touch the Torah. This is one of the extreme causes for the feelings that they are inferior to men. These scenes depict Gitai’s belief that women are inferior to men in this religion.
Not only are women made to feel inferior, but they are also made to feel unclean. Throughout the film are many scenes depicting a purification bath house where women go to be cleansed. One of the more important ritual bath scenes is when we first see Rivka going to be cleansed. She talks to the matron about her sterility and hopes to be cleansed and made pure. We see a closeup of her as she prays. She explains how she is going to purify her body and cleanse her soul. It is clear that she feels spiritually dirty, though she has done nothing wrong. The prayer is evidence of her desperation to become pure.
It is very clear throughout the film that Jewish Orthodox followers are trapped by their religion. In one scene we see Malka cutting her hair after the wedding. This is an extremely emotional scene, yet without dialogue. She is in a very dark room with only a small source of light. As she cuts her hair she fights back tears and forces herself to smile. The camera slowly zooms in on her face as we see her true emotions about the marriage coming through. Malka was forced to marry a man that she did not love because of her religion. Through the use of this zoom, Amos Gitai helps us focus on her emotional distress in the scene. It makes it clear that she feels imprisoned by her religion.
We also see how Rivka is trapped by her religion when she goes to the doctor to determine if she is fertile. It is clear throughout the film that women are believed to be at fault when a couple is unable to conceive. Even the doctor in the scene suggests that it could be Rivka’s fault for not being able to bear a child. After running some tests the doctor determines that Rivka is able to have a child, and her husband could cause the infertility. The religion forbids men from being tested for infertility, which places the blame solely on the women. This shows that the religion traps the couples in this situation because the men are unable to be tested.
The women aren’t the only ones who feel trapped; however. Amos Gitai gives us a sense that men are also trapped by their religion by showing Mier’s questioning of the marriage laws. He is told that he must take another wife, but Mier fights this by giving examples from the Torah of marriages to barren women. He tries to reason with the priest so that he may remain married to Rivka, whom he truly does love. This scene adds a new element that shows that the religion doesn’t only entrap women, but also men. Amos Gitai condemns the religion by depicting the characters as being entrapped in different ways by the religion.
Amos Gitai created a political statement about the treatment of women in the Jewish Orthodox religion. Through these different scenes we see how men are superior which causes the women to feel inferior, and unclean. We also see how the religion has trapped not only the women in the religion, but also the men. In the final scenes of the movie Gitai’s viewpoint is clear. He portrays the religion is a negative light so we understand that he is against these religious views. The film contains many gorgeous scenes, and uses long takes to really capture the realism of the situation. The film is an awakening to the horrifying treatment of these women. Sean Axmaker, a writer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer says, “Amos Gitai's "Kadosh" is a harsh portrait of a community that crushes the spirit of its citizens.” (‘Kadosh’s’) The film leaves the audience with a feeling of anger and great sadness for the women who live in the Jewish Orthodox communities
The movie opens with Mier, Rivka’s husband going through a lengthy morning ritual before he goes to study. Mier is illuminated, while Rivka remains in the shadows almost unable to be seen. Their beds are separated and the sun shines brightly on his bed. This scene is an extremely long take, and lasts for several minutes of the film. This gives us the sense that the movie will be about him. The scene seems also very documentary like because it shows a very realistic depiction of his morning ritual. He says a prayer thanking God for not making him a woman. Though at this point we are unsure why he is praying for that, it is clear that being a woman in their society is not preferred. In these first few minutes of the film we are already presented with the issue of women being considered inferior to men. His words, as well as the cinematography of the scene convey the idea that men do not consider women equals. Because Mier is illuminated, and Rivka is in the shadows it seems almost like he is superior. It attracts the viewers eyes to him and causes the viewer to think that he is more significant in the scene. These first few moments of the film already set up the ideas that men are superior. Amos Gitai criticizes the religion by showing how men are treated as superior.
Another scene allows us to see how the men belittle women. The priest tells Mier that “the only task of a daughter of Israel is to bring children into the world.” He explains that men are meant to study the Torah, and women are meant to serve the men, keep the home clean and cook meals. We learn many different things within this scene about the Jewish Orthodox beliefs, as well as see the belittling of women. The dialogue within this scene evokes anger among the viewers because it clearly shows the limitations of women’s roles. Amos Gitai shows us that women are clearly not equal to men in their society.
When Malka tries on her wedding dress it is clear how much the women are feeling inferior. This scene is one of the most important of the film because we learn even more about how women are treated in this society and how they feel about it. The scene is very simple keeping the two women in the center of the frame. There are no editing or camera movements, which helps us to focus on Malka’s words. This is another scene that has a very natural feel to it because of the long take of Malka putting on her wedding dress. We learn that women are not allowed to study the Talmud, which is a law book in Jewish religion. She feels like the men don’t want women to study the laws because men want to be able to do what they like with women. We feel anger because Malka says she feels like the men are hiding something so that they are able to control her. Malka explains how women are forbidden to touch the Torah. This is one of the extreme causes for the feelings that they are inferior to men. These scenes depict Gitai’s belief that women are inferior to men in this religion.
Not only are women made to feel inferior, but they are also made to feel unclean. Throughout the film are many scenes depicting a purification bath house where women go to be cleansed. One of the more important ritual bath scenes is when we first see Rivka going to be cleansed. She talks to the matron about her sterility and hopes to be cleansed and made pure. We see a closeup of her as she prays. She explains how she is going to purify her body and cleanse her soul. It is clear that she feels spiritually dirty, though she has done nothing wrong. The prayer is evidence of her desperation to become pure.
It is very clear throughout the film that Jewish Orthodox followers are trapped by their religion. In one scene we see Malka cutting her hair after the wedding. This is an extremely emotional scene, yet without dialogue. She is in a very dark room with only a small source of light. As she cuts her hair she fights back tears and forces herself to smile. The camera slowly zooms in on her face as we see her true emotions about the marriage coming through. Malka was forced to marry a man that she did not love because of her religion. Through the use of this zoom, Amos Gitai helps us focus on her emotional distress in the scene. It makes it clear that she feels imprisoned by her religion.
We also see how Rivka is trapped by her religion when she goes to the doctor to determine if she is fertile. It is clear throughout the film that women are believed to be at fault when a couple is unable to conceive. Even the doctor in the scene suggests that it could be Rivka’s fault for not being able to bear a child. After running some tests the doctor determines that Rivka is able to have a child, and her husband could cause the infertility. The religion forbids men from being tested for infertility, which places the blame solely on the women. This shows that the religion traps the couples in this situation because the men are unable to be tested.
The women aren’t the only ones who feel trapped; however. Amos Gitai gives us a sense that men are also trapped by their religion by showing Mier’s questioning of the marriage laws. He is told that he must take another wife, but Mier fights this by giving examples from the Torah of marriages to barren women. He tries to reason with the priest so that he may remain married to Rivka, whom he truly does love. This scene adds a new element that shows that the religion doesn’t only entrap women, but also men. Amos Gitai condemns the religion by depicting the characters as being entrapped in different ways by the religion.
Amos Gitai created a political statement about the treatment of women in the Jewish Orthodox religion. Through these different scenes we see how men are superior which causes the women to feel inferior, and unclean. We also see how the religion has trapped not only the women in the religion, but also the men. In the final scenes of the movie Gitai’s viewpoint is clear. He portrays the religion is a negative light so we understand that he is against these religious views. The film contains many gorgeous scenes, and uses long takes to really capture the realism of the situation. The film is an awakening to the horrifying treatment of these women. Sean Axmaker, a writer for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer says, “Amos Gitai's "Kadosh" is a harsh portrait of a community that crushes the spirit of its citizens.” (‘Kadosh’s’) The film leaves the audience with a feeling of anger and great sadness for the women who live in the Jewish Orthodox communities
Do The Right Thing: Spark The Fire
When smiley first sets fire to Sal’s shop the scene feels extremely chaotic with the sounds of people yelling. When Smiley first lights the match the rioters are already in a frenzied rage, and are screaming as they destroy Sal’s shop. Most of these screams are undistinguishable. Soon the screams turn into a chanting. It’s extremely difficult to make out the words of the chant before we hear the screams of Motha Sista, “Burn It Down!” Her voice is raised in anger. Then the rioters choose to turn their anger to the Asian shopkeeper across the street. He screams “I no white!” His voice is frantic as he tries to stop the group from doing any more damage. After the police and fire trucks arrive someone shouts “Power to the people,” which is heard off screen. This soon blends in with the other members of the group who are shouting “Sal’s Pizza.” Near the end of the scene Motha Sista is heard screaming “No.” It seems now like she is upset about the situation, where as before she was cheering on the destruction, this makes the scene very confusing to the audience. The screams come from both on screen and off at times, which can confuse the audience. The yells and chants seem almost constant through the scene, and give the sense of mass hysteria, and chaos. The continuous screams also blend together, and are often unable to be understood, which is very confusing to the audience.
Not only do the sounds within the scene give it a confusing feel, but also many of the storylines within the movie are brought together in this scene. Most of the characters in the movie are all a part of this mass disarray that the riot has caused. We see Sal’s shop being completely torn apart and destroyed which causes us to feel sympathy for Sal. As we watch the shop being destroyed we do get a glimpse of Sal and his sons. They watch the destruction blankly unable to stop it. We know that Sal cares a lot about his shop, so we feel bad when we see it being destroyed. We are also shown the conflict of the group of rioters with the Asian shopkeeper. We can clearly see how frightened the man is when the mob turns on him. This makes us feel sympathy for the shopkeeper. We also see the conflict between the rioters, police, and firemen. When the firemen turn their hoses on the rioters the spray from the hoses is extremely powerful, and we can clearly see that the pressure from the water is causing pain to some of the rioters. The brutal nature of the firemen and policemen give us the sense to feel bad for the rioters. All these seem to contradict each other, and cause great confusion for the audience. We can’t decide which side to be on because they all seem to have some negative qualities. This causes the audience to feel very confused.
This scene is not only chaos and confusion; however, it is also very unified. Music plays a huge role in bringing unity to the film. The first piece of music we hear is the jazz piece that we have heard previously in the movie when Smiley makes his first appearance. It is also heard again when the two quotes from Martin Luther King and Malcom X are shown before the credits. This music features a lone saxophone that plays an ascending scale, then continues into the familiar theme. This music brings a feel of separation from all the chaos that is happening. Along with the music we see a track in shot on Mookie and Jade. They stay extremely still while someone in front of them is resisting the police in slow motion. Some screams can still be heard, but they seem to be overpowered by the music. The music takes the audience away from the chaos and allows the audience to get a perspective on the events that had just happened, as well as linking it with other parts of the movie.
Another musical theme that is repeated in this scene is “Fight The Power.” This song has been a reoccurring theme within the entire movie, and also is linked to Radio Raheem. The music makes its comeback when we see images of various objects on the floor burning. The camera pans left to see Radio Raheem’s radio burning. “Fight The Power,” is a very strong piece that sounds angry. The music continues to play as Smiley walks in Sal’s shop to the Wall Of Fame, which is now partially burning, and only a few pictures remain hanging at angles. Smiley puts the picture of Malcom X and Martin Luther King on the wall. This song really is appropriate for this action because Smiley is “Fighting The Power,” that was Sal, who said that black people were not going on the wall. This song also brings back the idea of Radio Raheem and Buggin’ Out, as Smiley does what they wanted in the first place, to have black people on the wall of fame.
Many storylines may have been brought together within this scene, but the scene is not at all pure confusion. Many of these storylines are brought to a conclusion, and create an emotional impact on the audience. The conflict between the Asian shopkeeper and the group of rioters is brought to a climax, and resolved within this scene. The Asian man says, “We same,” trying to reason with the group of rioters, and explain that they are the same. This scene creates emotion because throughout the entire film race has been a key issue between all the different races, and in this moment there is a thought presented that they are all just people. Another storyline that is brought to a close is the relationship between Da Mayor and Motha Sista. Throughout the film Da Mayor tries to win the approval of Motha Sista by bringing flowers, and doing good deeds. When Da Mayor hears Motha Sista’s cries he moves to comfort her. She tries to push him away, but he refuses to let her go. This really brings out the emotion that the riot has caused because it shows that Motha Sista was too upset to fight Da Mayor. It shows that in these times of crisis people are brought closer together even if they weren’t close in the beginning.
The last storyline that is brought to a close within this scene is perhaps the most important. Throughout the film Buggin’ Out was intent on causing a boycott of Sal’s pizza because Sal wouldn’t put pictures of black people on the wall of fame. Buggin’ Out then enlisted Radio Raheem and Smiley in his efforts. After Radio Raheem died, and Buggin’ Out is carted away by the police, the riot really starts. Smiley sets fire to the shop. Closeup shots of the pictures on the wall of fame are shown as the fire begins to engulf them. Some of the pictures are cracked, and some have condensation from the fire on the glass. The condensation on the pictures makes them look almost as if they are crying. Then at the end of the scene Smiley appears again in the shop. He places a picture of Malcom X, and Martin Luther King on the wall of fame. Earlier in the film Buggin’ Out suggests that Sal put a picture of Malcom X on the wall, and when Smiley puts this picture on the wall it brings that storyline to a close. These images are extremely powerful, and give the film thematic unity by bringing storylines to a close. These scenes bring out the emotion of the riot, and really depict the social destruction between the different characters as well as depicting the physical destruction of Sal’s shop.
Not only do the sounds within the scene give it a confusing feel, but also many of the storylines within the movie are brought together in this scene. Most of the characters in the movie are all a part of this mass disarray that the riot has caused. We see Sal’s shop being completely torn apart and destroyed which causes us to feel sympathy for Sal. As we watch the shop being destroyed we do get a glimpse of Sal and his sons. They watch the destruction blankly unable to stop it. We know that Sal cares a lot about his shop, so we feel bad when we see it being destroyed. We are also shown the conflict of the group of rioters with the Asian shopkeeper. We can clearly see how frightened the man is when the mob turns on him. This makes us feel sympathy for the shopkeeper. We also see the conflict between the rioters, police, and firemen. When the firemen turn their hoses on the rioters the spray from the hoses is extremely powerful, and we can clearly see that the pressure from the water is causing pain to some of the rioters. The brutal nature of the firemen and policemen give us the sense to feel bad for the rioters. All these seem to contradict each other, and cause great confusion for the audience. We can’t decide which side to be on because they all seem to have some negative qualities. This causes the audience to feel very confused.
This scene is not only chaos and confusion; however, it is also very unified. Music plays a huge role in bringing unity to the film. The first piece of music we hear is the jazz piece that we have heard previously in the movie when Smiley makes his first appearance. It is also heard again when the two quotes from Martin Luther King and Malcom X are shown before the credits. This music features a lone saxophone that plays an ascending scale, then continues into the familiar theme. This music brings a feel of separation from all the chaos that is happening. Along with the music we see a track in shot on Mookie and Jade. They stay extremely still while someone in front of them is resisting the police in slow motion. Some screams can still be heard, but they seem to be overpowered by the music. The music takes the audience away from the chaos and allows the audience to get a perspective on the events that had just happened, as well as linking it with other parts of the movie.
Another musical theme that is repeated in this scene is “Fight The Power.” This song has been a reoccurring theme within the entire movie, and also is linked to Radio Raheem. The music makes its comeback when we see images of various objects on the floor burning. The camera pans left to see Radio Raheem’s radio burning. “Fight The Power,” is a very strong piece that sounds angry. The music continues to play as Smiley walks in Sal’s shop to the Wall Of Fame, which is now partially burning, and only a few pictures remain hanging at angles. Smiley puts the picture of Malcom X and Martin Luther King on the wall. This song really is appropriate for this action because Smiley is “Fighting The Power,” that was Sal, who said that black people were not going on the wall. This song also brings back the idea of Radio Raheem and Buggin’ Out, as Smiley does what they wanted in the first place, to have black people on the wall of fame.
Many storylines may have been brought together within this scene, but the scene is not at all pure confusion. Many of these storylines are brought to a conclusion, and create an emotional impact on the audience. The conflict between the Asian shopkeeper and the group of rioters is brought to a climax, and resolved within this scene. The Asian man says, “We same,” trying to reason with the group of rioters, and explain that they are the same. This scene creates emotion because throughout the entire film race has been a key issue between all the different races, and in this moment there is a thought presented that they are all just people. Another storyline that is brought to a close is the relationship between Da Mayor and Motha Sista. Throughout the film Da Mayor tries to win the approval of Motha Sista by bringing flowers, and doing good deeds. When Da Mayor hears Motha Sista’s cries he moves to comfort her. She tries to push him away, but he refuses to let her go. This really brings out the emotion that the riot has caused because it shows that Motha Sista was too upset to fight Da Mayor. It shows that in these times of crisis people are brought closer together even if they weren’t close in the beginning.
The last storyline that is brought to a close within this scene is perhaps the most important. Throughout the film Buggin’ Out was intent on causing a boycott of Sal’s pizza because Sal wouldn’t put pictures of black people on the wall of fame. Buggin’ Out then enlisted Radio Raheem and Smiley in his efforts. After Radio Raheem died, and Buggin’ Out is carted away by the police, the riot really starts. Smiley sets fire to the shop. Closeup shots of the pictures on the wall of fame are shown as the fire begins to engulf them. Some of the pictures are cracked, and some have condensation from the fire on the glass. The condensation on the pictures makes them look almost as if they are crying. Then at the end of the scene Smiley appears again in the shop. He places a picture of Malcom X, and Martin Luther King on the wall of fame. Earlier in the film Buggin’ Out suggests that Sal put a picture of Malcom X on the wall, and when Smiley puts this picture on the wall it brings that storyline to a close. These images are extremely powerful, and give the film thematic unity by bringing storylines to a close. These scenes bring out the emotion of the riot, and really depict the social destruction between the different characters as well as depicting the physical destruction of Sal’s shop.
Adaptations
Everyone has a book that they liked that was made into a movie. People are always saying, “The book was better than the movie.” Very often directors, and screenwriters will change something when adapting a book into a film. Sometimes they may even change the entire ending. Often this causes fans that read the books to become angry with the directors of the movies. People often argue about how faithful movie adaptations should be to the books they come from. Novels, and films are two different art forms so it is difficult to decide how fidelity works between the two. Some people feel that the film must be extremely faithful to the book to achieve the same effect, but others feel that film can change things and still leave an impact on the viewer.
Novels, and films are two totally separate mediums, but they are very closely tied together. They both tell a story, but are written in different ways. William Luhr says “Similar elements exist between film and novel, but their artistic configurations differ massively, so massively as to make ontological comparison aesthetically impossible.” (Griffith 29). The basic story from a novel can be adapted into film, but the visual content can not (Griffith 29). When turning a novel into a movie some thing will always have to be changed because we’re changing mediums. “That's the usual objection to literary adaptations--that they trivialize the original, water down its ideas, thin out its characters, savage its spirit,” says Steve Vinberg (Vinberg). In some cases this can be true. In a novel the author often writes from a certain character’s perspective. They allow us to go into a character’s mind, and really pick up on their point of view. Films are purely visual, and sound. In a film the audience, in most circumstances, will not be put into the character’s mind. This causes the directors, and writers to have to change something so that the readers will understand the film. This can cause readers get one feeling as they read the book, and then sometimes when they see the film, they get a different feeling. They feel that the director did not do a good enough job to evoke the same feeling as the original author intended.
Some people believe that the novel is a much deeper medium, and can express much more than a film can. Pauline Kael states that, “Movies are good at action; they’re not good at reflective thought or conceptual thinking.” (Naremore 59). Kael believes that cinema “lacks depth and dignity of literature.” (Naremore 59). Others believe quite the opposite. James Naramore states “The novel has a single material of expression, the written word, whereas the film has at least five tracks: moving photographic image, phonetic sound, music, noises, and written materials. In this sense, the cinema has not lesser, but rather greater resources for expression than the novel.” (59) Film makers can use these resources to their advantage to give the viewers a greater feeling than what they would have felt otherwise.
Screenwriters have the difficult task of changing a book into a film. One of the hardest issues they have to deal with is how faithful to be to the book. This can often cause varying opinions of the movie. For example Harry Potter And The Sorcerer’s Stone, having a huge fan base already as a book, was written extremely true to the book. Richard Krevolin, a screenwriter, found this movie to be a little too faithful to the book, but also realizes that had it not been faithful to the book, the movie would have flopped at the box office (52-53). If a book has a strong following, changing something in the screenplay could cause them to bad-mouth the movie, and the movie could be ruined. Brian McFarlane states “Fidelity criticism depends on a notion of the text as having and rendering up to the (intelligent) reader of a single, correct ‘meaning’ which the filmmaker has either adhered to or in some sense violated or tampered with.” (8) People sometimes get different meanings out of books, and when a film does not give them the same feeling they got when reading, they may criticize it.
Another problem Screenwriters face is deciding which parts of a book to keep, and which to take out. Most of the novels turned into film are longer than what the screenwriter can depict in the time span of a movie. So this requires the screenwriters to condense the book into a smaller amount. Krevolin suggests “Seek out scenes that can be removed without having a domino effect on the rest of the story.” (54). Some of the less important scenes may add to the novel, but only add more time to the film, which may be unnecessary (Krevolin 54). The screenwriter must be able to fully tell the important parts of the story, keep it short, and interesting enough so that the viewers will not get tired. Books can easily be picked up, and read over days, whereas movies can only be seen in a few hours.
The job of an adaptation is to give the audience the same feeling they had when they read the book. Quoting Martin C. Battestin believes that people who have read a novel will have already, in a way, created a movie of it in their minds. So if the film adaptation does not meet the readers’ expectations they may have a preference for the book. Battestin says “A preference to the book may actually be an allegiance to our own imaginative re-creation.” (Griffith 34). The issue the directors must face when adapting a book to film is taking a fictional character, and making them into a real person. Readers visualize the characters, and settings when they read the book, so the director must find a cast of people who look close to the descriptions of the people in the book. They also must find, or build locations that are similar to those described in the book. The reader will always compare what they visualize to what the film produces (McFarlane 14). If the director does not produce a similar image to what the reader imagined, then the film could be criticized. This could cause many problems because different readers could interpret the book in different ways, which could cause a clash of opinions on the movie.
Novels have the ease of having a narrative voice that tells a story. Some writers will delve deep into a character’s mind, and let the reader know what that character is thinking. Since film is solely visual, and audio, the audience is unable to see into a character’s mind. The only way to get into a character’s mind in film, is to use a voiceover, which some believe can take away from a film. Bernard Dick claims that voiceovers are only an easy solution for unimaginative filmmakers who can not think of another way to express the information (Tibbets XVI). Others believe that using a voiceover can convey the novelist’s voice in a film. Using a voiceover gives the film the ability to go into a character’s mind, but it can also give an unrealistic feel to the film.
Some adaptations have changed major parts of the original story, and sometimes, even change the meaning of the story. My Sister’s Keeper was a book recently adapted into a film. In the film the entire ending was changed. Even author of My Sister’s Keeper, Jodi Picoult was not too thrilled about the director’s decision to change the ending. "Having the ending changed would certainly not have been my choice. I wrote the ending very intentionally because I wanted to leave the reader with a certain message. And changing that ending changes that message. However, I am excited to see the movie and to judge it on its strengths,” she stated (Donahue). Nick Cassavetes, the director of My Sister’s Keeper, said that he decided to change the ending because he tried to think of it more realistically, and what would he do in this situation (Roberts). The movie was so entirely different than the book that many fans were outraged.
Sometimes though, the director, and screenwriters change the film, but the changes do not damage the story. Good adaptations from novels are translated and effectively transformed into a film (Tibbets XIX). A good example of a film that was changed, is The Wizard Of Oz. The movie kept the original message given by the novel, but formed it into a more focused narrative. The story was simplified, and made easier to understand. The film may have simplified the story, but it also added many complex factors. The film turned Dorothy’s adventure to Oz into a dream, whereas in the novel she really traveled to Oz. The film also depicts the reason for Dororthy’s wish to return home, but the book never makes that clear (Tibbets 467). The film is considered by many people to be a great film.
Novels, and films are two totally different mediums, but are closely linked to each other. Both must be written in different ways, but both tell a story. When novels are adapted to films, some changes will always be made. Sometimes these changes can be huge, or sometimes they can be minute. The director of a film sets out to give viewers a feeling from the story. Directors often want to leave viewers feeling what they felt at the end of the novel. Sometimes the film can make the feeling clearer to the audience than the book. Sometimes the film will evoke a totally different feeling. It all rests in the mind of the viewer; they decide if the movie is good, or if they’d rather read the book.
Novels, and films are two totally separate mediums, but they are very closely tied together. They both tell a story, but are written in different ways. William Luhr says “Similar elements exist between film and novel, but their artistic configurations differ massively, so massively as to make ontological comparison aesthetically impossible.” (Griffith 29). The basic story from a novel can be adapted into film, but the visual content can not (Griffith 29). When turning a novel into a movie some thing will always have to be changed because we’re changing mediums. “That's the usual objection to literary adaptations--that they trivialize the original, water down its ideas, thin out its characters, savage its spirit,” says Steve Vinberg (Vinberg). In some cases this can be true. In a novel the author often writes from a certain character’s perspective. They allow us to go into a character’s mind, and really pick up on their point of view. Films are purely visual, and sound. In a film the audience, in most circumstances, will not be put into the character’s mind. This causes the directors, and writers to have to change something so that the readers will understand the film. This can cause readers get one feeling as they read the book, and then sometimes when they see the film, they get a different feeling. They feel that the director did not do a good enough job to evoke the same feeling as the original author intended.
Some people believe that the novel is a much deeper medium, and can express much more than a film can. Pauline Kael states that, “Movies are good at action; they’re not good at reflective thought or conceptual thinking.” (Naremore 59). Kael believes that cinema “lacks depth and dignity of literature.” (Naremore 59). Others believe quite the opposite. James Naramore states “The novel has a single material of expression, the written word, whereas the film has at least five tracks: moving photographic image, phonetic sound, music, noises, and written materials. In this sense, the cinema has not lesser, but rather greater resources for expression than the novel.” (59) Film makers can use these resources to their advantage to give the viewers a greater feeling than what they would have felt otherwise.
Screenwriters have the difficult task of changing a book into a film. One of the hardest issues they have to deal with is how faithful to be to the book. This can often cause varying opinions of the movie. For example Harry Potter And The Sorcerer’s Stone, having a huge fan base already as a book, was written extremely true to the book. Richard Krevolin, a screenwriter, found this movie to be a little too faithful to the book, but also realizes that had it not been faithful to the book, the movie would have flopped at the box office (52-53). If a book has a strong following, changing something in the screenplay could cause them to bad-mouth the movie, and the movie could be ruined. Brian McFarlane states “Fidelity criticism depends on a notion of the text as having and rendering up to the (intelligent) reader of a single, correct ‘meaning’ which the filmmaker has either adhered to or in some sense violated or tampered with.” (8) People sometimes get different meanings out of books, and when a film does not give them the same feeling they got when reading, they may criticize it.
Another problem Screenwriters face is deciding which parts of a book to keep, and which to take out. Most of the novels turned into film are longer than what the screenwriter can depict in the time span of a movie. So this requires the screenwriters to condense the book into a smaller amount. Krevolin suggests “Seek out scenes that can be removed without having a domino effect on the rest of the story.” (54). Some of the less important scenes may add to the novel, but only add more time to the film, which may be unnecessary (Krevolin 54). The screenwriter must be able to fully tell the important parts of the story, keep it short, and interesting enough so that the viewers will not get tired. Books can easily be picked up, and read over days, whereas movies can only be seen in a few hours.
The job of an adaptation is to give the audience the same feeling they had when they read the book. Quoting Martin C. Battestin believes that people who have read a novel will have already, in a way, created a movie of it in their minds. So if the film adaptation does not meet the readers’ expectations they may have a preference for the book. Battestin says “A preference to the book may actually be an allegiance to our own imaginative re-creation.” (Griffith 34). The issue the directors must face when adapting a book to film is taking a fictional character, and making them into a real person. Readers visualize the characters, and settings when they read the book, so the director must find a cast of people who look close to the descriptions of the people in the book. They also must find, or build locations that are similar to those described in the book. The reader will always compare what they visualize to what the film produces (McFarlane 14). If the director does not produce a similar image to what the reader imagined, then the film could be criticized. This could cause many problems because different readers could interpret the book in different ways, which could cause a clash of opinions on the movie.
Novels have the ease of having a narrative voice that tells a story. Some writers will delve deep into a character’s mind, and let the reader know what that character is thinking. Since film is solely visual, and audio, the audience is unable to see into a character’s mind. The only way to get into a character’s mind in film, is to use a voiceover, which some believe can take away from a film. Bernard Dick claims that voiceovers are only an easy solution for unimaginative filmmakers who can not think of another way to express the information (Tibbets XVI). Others believe that using a voiceover can convey the novelist’s voice in a film. Using a voiceover gives the film the ability to go into a character’s mind, but it can also give an unrealistic feel to the film.
Some adaptations have changed major parts of the original story, and sometimes, even change the meaning of the story. My Sister’s Keeper was a book recently adapted into a film. In the film the entire ending was changed. Even author of My Sister’s Keeper, Jodi Picoult was not too thrilled about the director’s decision to change the ending. "Having the ending changed would certainly not have been my choice. I wrote the ending very intentionally because I wanted to leave the reader with a certain message. And changing that ending changes that message. However, I am excited to see the movie and to judge it on its strengths,” she stated (Donahue). Nick Cassavetes, the director of My Sister’s Keeper, said that he decided to change the ending because he tried to think of it more realistically, and what would he do in this situation (Roberts). The movie was so entirely different than the book that many fans were outraged.
Sometimes though, the director, and screenwriters change the film, but the changes do not damage the story. Good adaptations from novels are translated and effectively transformed into a film (Tibbets XIX). A good example of a film that was changed, is The Wizard Of Oz. The movie kept the original message given by the novel, but formed it into a more focused narrative. The story was simplified, and made easier to understand. The film may have simplified the story, but it also added many complex factors. The film turned Dorothy’s adventure to Oz into a dream, whereas in the novel she really traveled to Oz. The film also depicts the reason for Dororthy’s wish to return home, but the book never makes that clear (Tibbets 467). The film is considered by many people to be a great film.
Novels, and films are two totally different mediums, but are closely linked to each other. Both must be written in different ways, but both tell a story. When novels are adapted to films, some changes will always be made. Sometimes these changes can be huge, or sometimes they can be minute. The director of a film sets out to give viewers a feeling from the story. Directors often want to leave viewers feeling what they felt at the end of the novel. Sometimes the film can make the feeling clearer to the audience than the book. Sometimes the film will evoke a totally different feeling. It all rests in the mind of the viewer; they decide if the movie is good, or if they’d rather read the book.
Filmmakers Statement
(this was done for a class, and I do not like it, nor do I feel like writing a new one.)
Not only an I a filmmaker, but I’m a photographer, and a horse back rider. I ride horses for the equestrian team on campus. I also help photograph some of the events on campus. I love being able to capture the little moments in a photograph, or video.
I first really began to get into film in high school. I began taking small clips of my friends, and then edited them together to music. After that I really began thinking that I wanted to make movies. I loved the ability to take random clips and piece them together like a puzzle.
I’m hoping to learn a lot of the Film Studies program at Wilmington. I want to learn how to make great films that will make people feel things. I want to learn about the different jobs there are in film, and how all of them work together to create a masterpiece.
My favorite director is Tim Burton. His movies are all very unique and different. They are all very stylized and artistic. Each one is like a new piece of artwork. Everything in is movies are well thought out and done for a reason.
There are so many great films it’s hard to pick only a few to talk about. Some of my favorites are “The Illusionist,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “Seven Pounds,” and “Brothers.” I love “The Illusionist,” because it really twists the ending. I love the way it creates suspense, and then throws a surprise ending at you. “Seven Pounds,” is another movie that surprises you at the end. “A Beautiful Mind,” is an amazing film that I have come to really find interesting. They used highlights to show the genius of the main character, John Nash. I like the movies that really make you think, and make you want to talk about then in the end. “Brothers,” is a very recent favorite of mine. I felt really connected to the characters, and watching what they went through made me really feel how the characters would feel. I really think that the film successfully creates a connection between the characters and the audience.
I think my favorite kinds of films are definitely dramas, romances, and independent films. I love some of the mysteries in dramas. Many of the independent films are very different from most films. I like a film that stands out, and doesn’t have the typical cliché story. I love movies that are inspiring, and make me want to do something great.
I feel that I can write very well. I’ve been writing stories for a long time, and one of my greatest strengths in writing is writing dialogue. Being a photographer is very helpful in looking for composition. I am often looking for composition in just every day objects. I also love music. I love movie soundtracks, and the way they help to create feeling in movies. I love putting video clips to music, and figuring what actions fit with the music, or figuring out what music fits with the action. I have written some poetry in the past, but not anything I would want to publish. I know that these things will help me a lot in film making.
If I were to make a documentary, I would want to do one of movie soundtracks. I’d love to interview some of my favorite composers such as Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Danny Elfman, and James Horner. They have made some of the most riveting, and emotional music I have ever heard. If I were to make an experimental film I might try to do something with animation, or something that used poetry to tell a story.
One film that I wish I could have worked on would have to be “The Illusionist.” I would have loved to see all the little details the director went through to make that film so great. I would have loved to see my name in the credits of that film.
Not only an I a filmmaker, but I’m a photographer, and a horse back rider. I ride horses for the equestrian team on campus. I also help photograph some of the events on campus. I love being able to capture the little moments in a photograph, or video.
I first really began to get into film in high school. I began taking small clips of my friends, and then edited them together to music. After that I really began thinking that I wanted to make movies. I loved the ability to take random clips and piece them together like a puzzle.
I’m hoping to learn a lot of the Film Studies program at Wilmington. I want to learn how to make great films that will make people feel things. I want to learn about the different jobs there are in film, and how all of them work together to create a masterpiece.
My favorite director is Tim Burton. His movies are all very unique and different. They are all very stylized and artistic. Each one is like a new piece of artwork. Everything in is movies are well thought out and done for a reason.
There are so many great films it’s hard to pick only a few to talk about. Some of my favorites are “The Illusionist,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “Seven Pounds,” and “Brothers.” I love “The Illusionist,” because it really twists the ending. I love the way it creates suspense, and then throws a surprise ending at you. “Seven Pounds,” is another movie that surprises you at the end. “A Beautiful Mind,” is an amazing film that I have come to really find interesting. They used highlights to show the genius of the main character, John Nash. I like the movies that really make you think, and make you want to talk about then in the end. “Brothers,” is a very recent favorite of mine. I felt really connected to the characters, and watching what they went through made me really feel how the characters would feel. I really think that the film successfully creates a connection between the characters and the audience.
I think my favorite kinds of films are definitely dramas, romances, and independent films. I love some of the mysteries in dramas. Many of the independent films are very different from most films. I like a film that stands out, and doesn’t have the typical cliché story. I love movies that are inspiring, and make me want to do something great.
I feel that I can write very well. I’ve been writing stories for a long time, and one of my greatest strengths in writing is writing dialogue. Being a photographer is very helpful in looking for composition. I am often looking for composition in just every day objects. I also love music. I love movie soundtracks, and the way they help to create feeling in movies. I love putting video clips to music, and figuring what actions fit with the music, or figuring out what music fits with the action. I have written some poetry in the past, but not anything I would want to publish. I know that these things will help me a lot in film making.
If I were to make a documentary, I would want to do one of movie soundtracks. I’d love to interview some of my favorite composers such as Hans Zimmer, John Williams, Danny Elfman, and James Horner. They have made some of the most riveting, and emotional music I have ever heard. If I were to make an experimental film I might try to do something with animation, or something that used poetry to tell a story.
One film that I wish I could have worked on would have to be “The Illusionist.” I would have loved to see all the little details the director went through to make that film so great. I would have loved to see my name in the credits of that film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)