Paper instructions:
For this assignment you will use THE SAME FILM YOU USED FOR YOUR IND. PROJ. I.
For this assignment you will use THE SAME FILM YOU USED FOR YOUR IND. PROJ. I.
This assignment is worth 20 pts.
You will again submit your Assignment by uploading it as a Word Document. If you are having trouble doing this, please contact CANVAS HELP.
A few things to keep in mind:
First, remember that the action and events of a film take place in present tense.
Second, be sure and proofread your work carefully.
Throughout this class we have been studying how films differ from other storytelling mediums (novels, plays, etc.) You have learned how films are constructed around a core story and why certain changes from the original text of a story are made when it is adapted to the screen.
For your Ind. Project II, you will be applying what you have learned to your chosen story. You will pull out three meaningful and film related changes that were made to the story when the original text was adapted to the screen.
The changes can deal with:
* characters added or deleted
* the amount of time a character is on screen
* the role a character plays changing
* changes in the plot of the story or the setting
* changes in dialogue or how a character reacts to a situation
* any other meaningful and film related changes
Just remember WHATEVER CHANGES YOU PULL OUT SHOULD BE MEANINGFUL AND RELATE TO HOW FILMS DIFFER FROM OTHER STORYTELLING MEDIUMS.
For example, don’t note a change in the color of a characters hair if it doesn’t have any significance to the story and has no bearing on how films differ from other storytelling mediums. Let’s think back to how this assignment relates to what we’ve done so far in class.
In Stand By Me , you explored how the showdown of the film was different than the novella. You also stated why you felt the change had been made and its affect on the story.
You did the same thing with The Shawshank Redemption , pulling out meaningful changes made from the novella version of the story in its adaptation to the screen.
What’s the difference between a meaningful change that relates to film’s unique storytelling technique and one that isn’t? Well, in the novella “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption”, Red is a white guy with red hair. In the film, Morgan Freeman plays the role. That is a big change — but did it affect the story in a meaningful way? It could be argued that it does. But was the change made because the story was adapted to film? No, other than Morgan Freeman is a great actor.
Now, the fact that all the wardens were combined into one warden does change the story in a number of ways — time being the most relevant. And the change, as I pointed out on-line, was related to the unique storytelling style of film.
So, here’s what you need to do.
1) For your chosen story, you need to look at the original text, then watch the film — note all the changes, and then pull out the changes that you feel meaningfully changed the story and were made to adhere to the unique storytelling style of film.
2) Following the basic format we’ve used all semester, you need to:
1. Relate the change — state the original version and then state the film version.
2. Relate what affect the change had on the story.
3. State why you believe the change was made — relate this to how film’s are constructed or some other unique quality of film.
4. State which version you preferred and why.
Again, just as throughout the semester, I’m not necessarily looking for the RIGHT ANSWER — though by now that would be nice. What I’m looking for and will base your grade upon is that you have thought about your answer and supported it with the information you’ve learned from this class.
If you have any questions regarding this assignment, don’t hesitate to e-mail me.
Here are a couple of Models of what I am looking for.
CHANGES IN APOCALYPSE NOW :
CHANGE 1 – The Setting and Main Character
THE NOVEL: In Conrad’s novella, Heart of Darkness, the main character is Marlow and he is a steamboat captain heading up the Thames River in Africa (The Congo) in the late 1800′s. He is a European colonist on his way to retrieve Kurtz, an ivory collector and fellow employee of a Belgian trade company, who is believed to have gone insane.
THE MOVIE: In Coppola’s Apocalypse Now, the main character is Captain Willard, and he is a US Army Captain heading up the Nung River in Vietnam in 1969 to assassinate Special Forces Colonel Kurtz, who has gone AWOL, and presumably insane.
WHY THE CHANGE WAS MADE: I believe this change was made to reflect what each artist wanted to convey in their work. Conrad, in an autobiographical sense (since he was a steamboat captain in Africa in the late 19 th century), writes about the ‘darkness’ he witnessed when European colonists were enslaving and abusing the native Africans to get them to work for the benefit of the Belgian trade company.
Coppola, rather than focusing on the ‘hearts of darkness’ belonging to the savage European colonists who exploited the natives of The Congo Free State, focuses on American intervention in the Vietnam War. At the time, this theme was much more relevant and certainly hit closer to home with his American audience. Through Colonel Kurtz, Coppola develops the theme of the psychological aspect of war and what it does to the human mind.
Conrad’s novella was published in 1902 and focused on a controversial theme at the time, the savage and inhumane behavior of the members of the Belgian trade company. Coppola’s film, released in 1979, also focused on a controversial theme at the time, American involvement in the Vietnam War. Coppola wanted his film to have a strong appeal to its audience, so he used the underlying theme of a well-known and respected novella-t he darkness of the human soul and duality of human nature, and changed the context to a more modern and relevant theme that his audience could have a stronger connection to.
WHICH LIKED: I like both versions, but I suppose I can relate more to the context in Coppola’s film, because of the relevance to American history, rather than European history. I think they are both excellent adaptations of real-life events that convey the darkness and evil that human minds are capable of.
CHANGE 2 – The Ending
THE NOVEL: In Conrad’s novella, Marlow’s mission is to retrieve Kurtz and bring him home safely, if possible. When he reaches Kurtz’ compound at the end of the Thames (Congo) River, he sees that Kurtz has assumed a god-like role, leading a small tribe of natives. Upon learning that Kurtz is in very poor health and near death, Marlow strives to bring him back alive, and takes him aboard the steamboat with the rest of his crew. On the journey back, Marlow approaches Kurtz with a candle one night and Kurtz utters his last words, “The horror, the horror” and then dies, seemingly of his sickness.
THE MOVIE: In Coppola’s film, Willard reaches Kurtz’ compound with the intention of carrying out his mission, which is to terminate his command “with extreme prejudice”. He is held captive for a few days, and it is clear that Willard is at the mercy of the Colonel the entire time. Eventually, after he is let out of his cage at the request of Kurtz, Willard approaches the Colonel’s room one night with a machete and kills him. His last words, “The horror, the horror” are uttered as he lay dying from the mortal wounds inflicted on him by Willard.
WHY THE CHANGE WAS MADE: I believe that this change has to do with the context of the artist’s work as well. In Coppola’s film, he is conveying the horrors and atrocities experienced in war. Willard is sent by the US Army to assassinate the Colonel, who has gone AWOL, and believed to be insane. Kurtz is ruling over a group of local natives, including another US soldier who had previously been sent to terminate the Colonel’s command. In Conrad’s novel, he is conveying the atrocious and brutal treatment of the natives of the Congo Free State by the European traders. Both Marlow and Kurtz work for the same trade company and Marlow is sent to bring Kurtz back to safety. Instead of dying at his outpost, Kurtz dies on the boat in the journey back home.
WHICH LIKED: I like both version here as well, although I think the circumstances change the meaning of Kurtz’ famous final words, “The horror, the horror”. In the movie, he is referring to the horrors he has experienced throughout his career as a US soldier and Special Forces Colonel in Vietnam, whereas in the novella, he is referring to the horrors he has witnessed along the Thames River in regards to the poor treatment of the African natives. In terms of the underlying theme of the evil that humans are capable of, I like the novella more, because it has a broader reference, not just war, but the overall cruelty exercised by humans against other humans. This reference, I believe, invokes a deeper sense of thought pertaining to the intolerance of other cultures and/or ethnicities.
CHANGE 3 -
THE NOVEL: In Conrad’s novella, Marlow’s journey up the Thames River does not include a show or entertainment of any sort.
THE MOVIE: In Coppola’s film, about halfway through the movie, there is a USO show conducted for the soldiers on the Nung River. The US Army flies in three Playboy models on a helicopter, and they have a stage setup for the models to dance around and provide entertainment for the troops. Not too long after the show starts, soldiers begin climbing up on the stage and getting too close to the models, at which point the guards have to push the soldiers back and the Playboy Bunnies make a hasty escape in the helicopter ( with soldiers hanging off the side rails).
WHY THE CHANGE WAS MADE: I think this change was made to provide more entertainment value in the film. It is the only point in the movie in which there are female actresses, and the Playboy Bunnies add to the excitement of the film. I also think Coppola uses this event to show the audience just how crazy and barbaric the soldiers can be after being at war in the jungle for so long.
WHICH LIKED: I like the film version because it adds something to the story that was not in the book. In Heart of Darkness, there is no event like this, so it was essentially a decision made by Coppola to add an extra component to the story, a new scene which adds to the excitement of the film. I think he found the perfect way to tie this scene in with the war theme, and spice up an otherwise fairly uneventful beginning to Willard’s journey up the Nung River.
Changes Made to The Reader :
Change 1- Michael tells Hanna his feelings on his birthday.
Change 1- Michael tells Hanna his feelings on his birthday.
The Novel: Michael leaves his friends at the pool even though they have planned something special for him. He goes to Hanna, who is in a bad mood. He is too afraid to tell her about his birthday, and eases the tension between them by giving in and accommodating her unpleasantness.
The Film: Michael leaves his friends at the pool even though they have planned something special for him. He goes to Hanna, who is colder than usual. He tells her that it is his birthday and yells, “It’s always what you want!” He also says, ” It’s always me who has to apologize!”
Why the Change was made: The change was made from the novel to the film version to demonstrate Michael’s “betrayal” to Hanna. In the novel, we see this episode as another example of Hanna abusing Michael and him being submissive to her. In the film, the change is made to show that Michael is beginning to realize the negative effect that she has over him. Both versions speak of what Michael thinks as his gradual betrayal towards Hanna. The novel shows this through his desire to be around kids his own age and the film does more directly in this scene at Hanna’s house. It is more obvious to the readers this way because it is the first time we see Michael lash out at Hanna.
Which version I preferred: I preferred the novel’s version of this scene. In the novel, we see that Michael consistently gives in to Hanna and often apologizes in times when he has done nothing wrong. He does this to please her and smooth over their relationship no matter the cost. Therefore, I believe that is easier to see the great impact that Hanna still has over Michael throughout his life. By standing up for himself, like he did in the film’s version, one might assume that he is ready to move on from the power that she has over him much earlier.
Change 2- Significance of the Concentration Camps
The Novel: During a break from the trial over Hanna’s innocence, Michael visits a concentration camp. He is disappointed that walking through the camp has little affect on him. He wants to have an emotionally important experience, but in fact feels almost nothing. Later, when speaking to the only living survivor of the camps, there is no mention of him visiting the camps.
The Film: During a break from the trial over Hanna’s innocence, Michael visits a concentration camp. It is clear that this has a big impact on him. We see distress on his face as we walks through the camp and realizes that Hanna has worked in a similar place, doing morally awful things. Later, when speaking to the only living survivor of the camps, she asks if he visits the camps looking for meaning. She then says, “Don’t go to the camps. Nothing comes out of the camps.”
Why the Change was made: I believe that the change was made to bring more of an emphasis to the holocaust than there was in the novel. Viewers can relate and sympathize with this as it has been a subject of many books and movies throughout modern history. To leave the subject as untouched as it is in the novel might seem almost as if we are supposed to sympathize and support Hanna and what she is accused of . This can be done easier in a novel than a film. Films are more mainstream and critiqued more harshly by pop culture.
Which version I preferred: I preferred the novel version of this scene. Michael is confused about his feelings in both versions. The main point, however, is how he can still feel so strongly for Hanna, even though she is accused of something so awful. He goes to the camps to feel bad for the victims, and angry at Hanna. He is surprised to see that he cannot really visualize the atrocities of the camps and the cruelty of Hanna’s own actions. I’m sure that this would be the same for many people in post Nazi Germany. Only time, with its acquired knowledge and testimonials of the events can reveal the truth in a way for people to really grasp. Instead, Michael is still consumed by his feelings towards Hanna herself and the impact of their past relationship. The novel better defines this through the lack of emphasis on the concentration camps.
Change 3- End of Story
The Novel: The very last scene of the novel is Michael going to visit Hanna’s grave. He speaks of how he writes the story of Hanna and his relationship. He is at the grave alone and reveals that it is “the first and only time I stood there.”< /span>
The Film: The very last scene of the film is Michael going to visit Hanna’s grave. He is accompanied by his daughter, Julia. She asks why they are there and he says that wants to tell her Hanna’s story.
Why the Change was made: In the novel, we learn that Michael has moved on from Hanna. Her death ended the hold that she had over him throughout his life. Also, writing the story allowed him to gain closure. The film version demonstrates this through his ability to open up to his daughter. His relationship with her is very important throughout the film. In the scene where he takes Julia to dinner, he says that he know that he has not been very open with her throughout her life. Therefore, by saying that he wishes to tell the story of his relationship with Hanna, it is clear that he is finally ready to open up to Julia. This is the most important secret and explanation of his character flaws, and it is his time to overcome it.
Which Version I preferred: I preferred the film version of this scene. By showing his ability to open up to people through the example of his daughter, I can see the changes he has made. He has finally achieved his outer goal of letting go of Hanna’s grasp on him by overcoming his inner flaw of being reserved towards his family. The novel version does the same thing by allowing us to see his ability to open up through writing about the experience, but I believe the film version is more effective. We can see direct human relationships.
No comments:
Post a Comment