If I were to adapt a short story we studied in class in to a movie I would probably choose How I Met My Husband. I chose this story because I thought it was one of the better stories we read in class. The ending was overall pretty positive and I didn't fall asleep while reading it. Although I did enjoy the story as a whole, there were a few element I would tweak in the modified film version.
Plot
In regards to plot, there is not much that I would choose to change or edit in the story. Rather than altering what already exists, I would simply add on to the end of the story. The central conflict that exists in the story is Edie's final encounter with Chris Watters and ALice Kellings reaction to this. I would keep this conflict in the film because it adds drama. Movie goers are all about more drama. However, I do not feel the title or the end of the story really reflect the events of the story. There is much more emphasis on Edie's relationship with Chris Watters than that of her husband. Because I feel that movie critics would be upset with this ending, I feel that I would need to expand more on her relationship with her husband. I think that this would improve the overall message and theme of the work because it would unify the story and create a more positive feel. When I read the story I thought the theme was something along the lines of "convenient love". I mean, this girl marries a guy that she spends less than a page to describe whereas she spends the entire story describing a man she just met. ALso, Edie's husband was her first relationship. After reading the story I was satisfied that Edie was finally happy in the end, but I felt that she didn't really love her husband because it appeared that she had more feelings toward Chris. With my modifications, the storyline would still be the same, however, Edie would show much more concern and interest in her husband.
Point Of View
The point of view used in the short story How I Met My Husband was in first person. Edie, the central character, was the narrator for the story. This was very effective because It allowed the reader to channel into her thoughts and feelings. I would keep this element consistent in the movie because it really helps characterize Edie. In the film I would have a narrator speaking as a scene unfolded- sort of like a Morgan Freeman movie. This would assist in expressing the theme of love because it would help the audience understand Edie and how she feels during certain moments in the story.
Setting
This story took place somewhere out in the country. Mr. and Mrs. Peebles live in a nice home with plenty of empty land around it. Although I don't believe the narrator actually describes the surroundings, the fact that Mr. Watters is able to land his plane there implies that there is plenty of space and not much housing around. Also, Alice Kelling stays in a hotel in the city but is offered the opportunity to spend the night in the Peebles' home. The setting would have to remain constant between the two works in order for Chris Watters to leave his plane there. The story does not take place anywhere else besides in flashbacks by the narrator. The setting of the story as well as the movie would not really have a large impact on the message or theme of the work, however, they would greatly influence the plot if it was to change.
Characterization
There were several major characters in this story. In the film version of the story I would cast actors or actresses who exemplify the same qualities and characteristics as those in the story.
Edie- I'm not really sure exactly what actress I would attempt to cast for the role of Edie. I would look for an actress who is young and has a soft and meek voice. Innocence is obviously another key trait of Edie in this story- therefore that rules out most actresses today, sorry Lindsay.
Mrs. Peebles- Mrs. Peebles is like the typical mother figure. She is concerned and protective of Edie when Alice Kelling accuses Edie of being intimate with Chris Watters. Mrs. Peebles character should be a strong willed and older mom figure. Kathy Bates' character from The Waterboy seems like a good comparison to Mrs. Peebles.
Alice Kelling- Alice Kelling is more classy and sophisticated woman. She becomes very jealous of Edie and accuses her of having intimate relations with Chris. Rachel McAdams would be a good actress for this role.
Chris Watters- Chris Watters is a very laid back type of guy. He lives each day how he wants. He is very friendly and doesn't really care what people think. I would like to cast Johnny Depp for this role, mostly because I just like Johnny Depp.
Loretta Bird- Loretta Bird is a very gossipy type of woman. She helps move the story along because she is always present during a conflict. I'm not really sure who I would cast for this role, but it would have to be someone who is very uppity and talkative.
All of these specific characters are important to the plot of the story. Each character acts the way they do because of their personality traits. Edie is very shy and naive which is why she falls for Chris so easily. Chris is careless and doesn't really think anything of his actions. Loretta Bird likes to stir up trouble, which is why there is always a conflict when she is around. All of these characters are vital to the plot therefore in the film version I would not change any of them.
Theme
The theme of this short story was love. However, when I read the story I thought that the fact that Edie doesn't show a great deal of emotion or concern about her husband, Mr. Carmichael, takes away from the theme. I felt that the theme seemed more like "convenient love"- meaning that Edie only fell for the mailman because he liked her in return. In order to keep this perception from reaching movie viewers, I am going to include Edie's husband much more. Hopefully this will enhance the theme because it will make Edie's love for her husband seem like it is more tangible and evident. There are a few other smaller messages included in the story that I would also like to keep consistent within the film. For example, Edie is very naive and believes that Chris really loves her. However, she eventually discovers that he had just said that because he knew she would believe him. Chris took advantage of Edie by telling her she was beautiful and making her feel special. Obviously he did not even care enough about her to write a letter to her.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Monday, December 6, 2010
"I don't shut up, I grow up. And when I look at you I throw up."
Plot
The plot of the short story "The Body" and the film Stand By Me were relatively consistent. Both recounted the adventure of four friends in search of a young man's corpse. In fact, there were very few differences between thew two. The most noticeable difference between the film and the book would probably be the grocery scene. In the story, Gordie enters the grocery store to purchase some hamburger and buns for dinner. When he pays for the food the owner of the store tries to rip Gordie off by charging him extra. Because Gordie is very intelligent, he catches onto the scam and defends himself. In the film however, the owner of the grocery store is very kind to Gordie. Obviously this is not a huge difference. The only effect this tiny change in the story line has is that it hides a bit of Gordie's character.
Point Of View
Both the story "The Body", and the film Stand By Me were told from the point of view of Gordie LeChance. Obviously this impacted the story because it allowed the reader to get a feel for how Gordie was thinking. The film was narrated in the same way the story was. The voice of the older Gordie spoke throughout the movie; explaining things or revealing the characters' feelings. One difference between the film and the book, with regards to the point of view, is that some parts of the film were focused on Ace, Eyeball Chambers, and their crew. These guys were the older guys in the town who liked to cause trouble. Two of the members of the group were brothers to Chris and Vern. The film had a few scenes of these boys causing trouble- hitting mailboxes, drinking beers, and tattooing each other..?. These scenes were added in the film but not mentioned in the story because the film audience was not told much background information as the readers were. Therefore, in the film they actually showed how the older guys caused trouble rather than having Gordie explain it. I don't feel that this really impacted the film very much because although the way the audience gets information about the guys is different, the idea is still the same. The point of view in the short story as well as the film was from the point of view of Gordie LeChance- ultimately making the story seem more realistic.
Characterization
I felt that the characterization between the film and the story was the source of most of the differences. Both films contained the same main characters: Gordie, Chris, Vern, and Teddy. All of these characters seemed the same way they were described in the book, however, there were several things that were inconsistent that I felt affected the overall story. As previously mentioned, the grocery store scene was not consistent between the story and the film. I felt that this really affected the story because I felt that it inhibited Gordie from revealing his true intellect. In the story, I was really impressed with the way in which Gordie caught the store owner trying to rip him off. I was a little disappointed in the movie because Gordie did not need to defend himself. This, I felt, hid Gordie's "smarts" from the film audience. Another difference I noticed was in the character Chris. When I read the story The Body, the character I admired the most by the end of the story was Chris. The speaker (Gordie) talked very highly of Chris throughout the entire story always describing how he was the peacemaker. In the story I felt that the reader was provided with plenty of evidence of this, but I did not feel the same way after watching the film. I was not impacted as much by the character of Chris in the film as I was in the story. One example of this is when Chris tells Gordie about the time he stole the lunch money. In the story Chris never actually tells Gordie that Old Lady Simons really bought herself a new skirt with the milk money; he only implies it. However, in the film Chris cries hysterically and accuses the teacher of buying the new skirt. I believe that the story portrays Chris as a more noble and proud person than the film does.
Setting
The setting between the book and film hardly changes at all. In the book the boys live in Castle Rock, Maine whereas in the film they live in Castle Rock, Oregon. Besides the names of states, there are very few differences between the two. I felt that the town described in the story was not portrayed as well in the film because the audience was rarely ever introduced to characters other than the main four. In the story Gordie provides a brief biography of almost every character and their families. In the film we hardly see any of the characters parents or learn anything about them. I feel like this affected the setting slightly because it made the town in the movie seem bigger and more distanced than that of the close-knit, everyone-knows-everything type of town described in the book. I don't believe this affected the story or the film in any major way.
Theme
I think the theme of the story was probably the most consistent element throughout both the film and the short story. Theme is really the purpose and meaning behind a story. In this case, The theme of the story could not be altered or lost in the film or the story would have been completely different. The theme, I believe, was still that friendships may fade away, but the memories will last forever. In the film this idea was emphasized at the beginning and end of the movie. At the beginning of the movie Gordie is alone in his car reading about the sudden death of his old friend Chris Chambers. That is when he begins to reflect on his best friend from when they were twelve years old. In addition to the beginning, at the end of the story Gordie watches his son and his friend as they play together. Gordie thinks to himself- "I never had any friends later on, like the ones I had when I was twelve...Jesus....does anyone?"
The plot of the short story "The Body" and the film Stand By Me were relatively consistent. Both recounted the adventure of four friends in search of a young man's corpse. In fact, there were very few differences between thew two. The most noticeable difference between the film and the book would probably be the grocery scene. In the story, Gordie enters the grocery store to purchase some hamburger and buns for dinner. When he pays for the food the owner of the store tries to rip Gordie off by charging him extra. Because Gordie is very intelligent, he catches onto the scam and defends himself. In the film however, the owner of the grocery store is very kind to Gordie. Obviously this is not a huge difference. The only effect this tiny change in the story line has is that it hides a bit of Gordie's character.
Point Of View
Both the story "The Body", and the film Stand By Me were told from the point of view of Gordie LeChance. Obviously this impacted the story because it allowed the reader to get a feel for how Gordie was thinking. The film was narrated in the same way the story was. The voice of the older Gordie spoke throughout the movie; explaining things or revealing the characters' feelings. One difference between the film and the book, with regards to the point of view, is that some parts of the film were focused on Ace, Eyeball Chambers, and their crew. These guys were the older guys in the town who liked to cause trouble. Two of the members of the group were brothers to Chris and Vern. The film had a few scenes of these boys causing trouble- hitting mailboxes, drinking beers, and tattooing each other..?. These scenes were added in the film but not mentioned in the story because the film audience was not told much background information as the readers were. Therefore, in the film they actually showed how the older guys caused trouble rather than having Gordie explain it. I don't feel that this really impacted the film very much because although the way the audience gets information about the guys is different, the idea is still the same. The point of view in the short story as well as the film was from the point of view of Gordie LeChance- ultimately making the story seem more realistic.
Characterization
I felt that the characterization between the film and the story was the source of most of the differences. Both films contained the same main characters: Gordie, Chris, Vern, and Teddy. All of these characters seemed the same way they were described in the book, however, there were several things that were inconsistent that I felt affected the overall story. As previously mentioned, the grocery store scene was not consistent between the story and the film. I felt that this really affected the story because I felt that it inhibited Gordie from revealing his true intellect. In the story, I was really impressed with the way in which Gordie caught the store owner trying to rip him off. I was a little disappointed in the movie because Gordie did not need to defend himself. This, I felt, hid Gordie's "smarts" from the film audience. Another difference I noticed was in the character Chris. When I read the story The Body, the character I admired the most by the end of the story was Chris. The speaker (Gordie) talked very highly of Chris throughout the entire story always describing how he was the peacemaker. In the story I felt that the reader was provided with plenty of evidence of this, but I did not feel the same way after watching the film. I was not impacted as much by the character of Chris in the film as I was in the story. One example of this is when Chris tells Gordie about the time he stole the lunch money. In the story Chris never actually tells Gordie that Old Lady Simons really bought herself a new skirt with the milk money; he only implies it. However, in the film Chris cries hysterically and accuses the teacher of buying the new skirt. I believe that the story portrays Chris as a more noble and proud person than the film does.
Setting
The setting between the book and film hardly changes at all. In the book the boys live in Castle Rock, Maine whereas in the film they live in Castle Rock, Oregon. Besides the names of states, there are very few differences between the two. I felt that the town described in the story was not portrayed as well in the film because the audience was rarely ever introduced to characters other than the main four. In the story Gordie provides a brief biography of almost every character and their families. In the film we hardly see any of the characters parents or learn anything about them. I feel like this affected the setting slightly because it made the town in the movie seem bigger and more distanced than that of the close-knit, everyone-knows-everything type of town described in the book. I don't believe this affected the story or the film in any major way.
Theme
I think the theme of the story was probably the most consistent element throughout both the film and the short story. Theme is really the purpose and meaning behind a story. In this case, The theme of the story could not be altered or lost in the film or the story would have been completely different. The theme, I believe, was still that friendships may fade away, but the memories will last forever. In the film this idea was emphasized at the beginning and end of the movie. At the beginning of the movie Gordie is alone in his car reading about the sudden death of his old friend Chris Chambers. That is when he begins to reflect on his best friend from when they were twelve years old. In addition to the beginning, at the end of the story Gordie watches his son and his friend as they play together. Gordie thinks to himself- "I never had any friends later on, like the ones I had when I was twelve...Jesus....does anyone?"
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Popular Mechanics
I was really confused as to what happened at the end of the story. It sounds as if they ripped the baby apart or something..? I don't really know. What I do know is that someone clearly needs to call child protection services because that can't be legal. Alright, so not only did I dislike the end of this story, but I also disliked what I believe is the central theme or idea of the story. So this couple is going through a rough time (maybe a divorce?). Just like in many other similar instances, one of the spouses is left packing up his/her belongings planning to move out. Whenever people separate it seems like there is always that one item that they have to fight over- In my parents case it was the giant painting of my brother, sister and I. Neither one of my parents would give it up, they fought for months over who would get to keep the picture. The same idea happens in this story except instead of an inanimate object that is being fought over, it's a baby. And what really makes me mad is that it doesn't even seem like the parents care about the baby (from the way they are manhandling him). The two of them seem more concerned with the idea of beating the other parent. I mean really, have they never heard of joint custody?
You're Ugly Too
In class Mr. Costello asked us to consider whether or not we liked Zoe as a person. I thought back to initial read and I remember feeling somewhat sorry for her at first. One fear I think a lot of people have (at least I do) is that they won't get married. With that in mind, I had a lot of pity for Zoe because she had a lot of bad luck with men and her younger sister on the other hand seemed to be doing much better. Also, I felt pity for her in respect to how her students felt about her, "...her student evaluations had been slipping the past year and a half.." It really seemed like nothing was going her way. But then I kept reading and realized that just maybe it was her own fault. I'm not really surprised that she had trouble with dating. However, I found it somewhat surprising that the men she dated were the reason (as opposed to herself) why the relationship didn't last. This was surprising to me because honestly, how many men would find a woman attractive that responds to the question "what perfume are you wearing?" saying "room freshener." In addition to that, she has just an odd sense of humor. If someone were to pretend to push me off a ledge 20 stories high I don't think I would find that very funny. Zoe is just a weird person, and no matter how much pity I have on her for her lonely and cynical life, I just really don't like her. Her character is just a little too over the top for me.
The Drunkard
Obviously this short stories is in the section labeled "Humor and Irony" for a reason. I did find the story to be somewhat humorous- I mean as funny as some adults are drunk, I can only imagine what a child must be like. Irony also ties into the story in several different parts. The first hint of irony I noticed is when Crowley says, "He was well liked," about Mr. Dooley. This is ironic because Crowley did not actually know Mr. Dooley, he was just at the funeral in an attempt to get free drinks. Another ironic occurrence in the story is the fact that the child is drinking and the father is not. Obviously (especially considering the father's alcoholism) it should be the other way around. I also found it ironic that as the boy is on his way home he yells at a group of women and thinks to himself "I have never seen such ill-mannered people." I felt this was especially ironic because he is a drunken child who is singing and yelling at his father and he calls someone else ill-mannered. Pretty funny. Finally, at the end of the story the mother is rightfully angry at her husband for shaming their family by "allowing" their son to drink the beer. However, in the last few lines of the story the mother completely forgets about all of that when she realizes that her sons actions ultimately led to the father staying sober and going to work the next day. In turn, the mother thanks the son for his behavior. All of these ironic instances in the story help support the idea that it is an exaggeration. These ironies also make the story a little bit more humorous.
The Lottery
In this blog I am going to sort of combine questions #4 and 6. 4 asks about the significance of the fact that the original box and some of the earlier traditions being lost. 6 asks what the story reveals about human nature.
The fact that the original box has been lost along with many of the earlier traditions verifies the fact that this custom is fairly old. Not to mention the fact that you don't hear of stoning people as a homicide technique much anymore. These facts certainly leave the reader to believe that the village people may not be as serious or as dedicated to the ritual as they once were. The purpose of the ritual (which apparently has something to do with corn..?) may have even been lost as well. In fact, the only really concrete evidence that shows the townspeople really believe in the ritual comes from Old Man Warner. He criticizes the people of the neighboring towns stating that "there's always been a lottery." Though this may be true, it makes the reader wonder that just because there has always been one, does that mean there has always been a need for one? This relates the question #6 because the people are just continuing with the tradition- not really having any other reason to besides the fact that There has always been one. People are ignorant. They do things out of blind faith; not thinking for themselves. In fact, even though the people of the town know that someone is going to suffer from this lottery, they continue to practice it. It has been so long that people forget how the ceremony is even supposed to go, but they know that either way, it "needs" to happen. The only person in the whole story who seems to reject the idea of the lottery is Mrs. Hutchinson- but only after her family (eventually her) is chosen for the lottery that year.
The fact that the original box has been lost along with many of the earlier traditions verifies the fact that this custom is fairly old. Not to mention the fact that you don't hear of stoning people as a homicide technique much anymore. These facts certainly leave the reader to believe that the village people may not be as serious or as dedicated to the ritual as they once were. The purpose of the ritual (which apparently has something to do with corn..?) may have even been lost as well. In fact, the only really concrete evidence that shows the townspeople really believe in the ritual comes from Old Man Warner. He criticizes the people of the neighboring towns stating that "there's always been a lottery." Though this may be true, it makes the reader wonder that just because there has always been one, does that mean there has always been a need for one? This relates the question #6 because the people are just continuing with the tradition- not really having any other reason to besides the fact that There has always been one. People are ignorant. They do things out of blind faith; not thinking for themselves. In fact, even though the people of the town know that someone is going to suffer from this lottery, they continue to practice it. It has been so long that people forget how the ceremony is even supposed to go, but they know that either way, it "needs" to happen. The only person in the whole story who seems to reject the idea of the lottery is Mrs. Hutchinson- but only after her family (eventually her) is chosen for the lottery that year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)