Into The Woods Book Vs Movie

With any comparison between a play and its movie counterpart there are bound to be major differences and key similarities between

The setting in the book was set strictly indoors at all times, while the film shows some scenes take place outdoors. Some of these outdoor scenes include John telling Abby he can no longer be with her in the woods, the girls running into the water after pulling off a grade A acting performance in the courthouse, and also the discussion of Johns’ confession between him and Goody Proctor. The setting is always one of the most important elements inside a movie as well as a book and the switch from indoors to outdoors I believe provided a “breath of fresh air” for the audience watching the film. If the movie were to be all indoor scenes as put in the play, I think that it would’ve produced boredom throughout the minds of the viewers.

The final three differences all have to do with Abigail. First of all, she is seen stealing money from her uncle where in the play we only hear of it second-hand. Second, in the movie, Abigail visits John Proctor in jail, which never occurred in the play. Lastly, Abigail accuses the Reverend John Hale 's wife of witchcraft, and is told by Judge Danforth that she is mistaken. This did not happen in the play, but helps in the movie to more clearly define Abigail as one of the "bad guys" in the movie.

I also had compared Act Two, Scene 3, in the play and the film. The setting in the play is on a Saturday, moving day, one week later. In the film, the setting is the same as the play, with lighting and costumes. The plot in the play is Linder tries to buy back the house from the Younger family. In the film, the plot is the same as the play. The dialogue in the film has some deletions from play; new dialogue is added in replacement of the deleted dialogue. Some film techniques used in this scene are: the film cuts back and forth to different characters, and the room is well lit with the sunshine coming in through the window. Perhaps the biggest

Into the Wild happens to be my favorite book, and also one of my favorite movies. Most people like one or the other, but I think the two complement each other because of the varied stances taken on the main character himself. In case you’re not familiar, Into the Wild is based on the true story of Chris McCandless who, after graduating with honors from Emory University in 1990, gave his entire savings of twenty-four thousand dollars to charity and set off following his dream of living off the land in the Alaskan wilderness. McCandless made it to Alaska, but died shortly after taking residence in an abandoned bus; he probably passed from eating the wrong deadly plant or possibly from starvation. The book was

“The dominant spirit, however, that haunts this enchanted region, and seems to be commander-in-chief of all the powers of the air, is the apparition of a figure on horseback without a head.” Although the movie Sleepy Hollow is based upon the book The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, there are also distinctions which allow each to tell their own tale. Washington Irving’s short story inspired Tim Burton’s film but did not limit it. The foundations of the two are much the same but their story lines unfold diversely. Some of the similarities include the setting, characters, and plot points. Two of the many contradicting ideas are the character of Ichabod Crane and the conclusions. The similarities and differences of both accounts can be stated plainly

Another difference is the presence of three judges in the movie, whereas in the play there were only two, both of whom where made out to be "bad guys." One additional judge is added in the movie possibly to show that it was not the entirety of the Church that was unjust, cruel, and nearly ignorant. I

Into the woods was an adventurous play that was perfect for the use of your imagination and spirit. Into the Woods had numerous different fairy tales involved which could make a small child feel like he/she was in heaven. The acting, music, concept, stage design, costumes, and even the language of the play all mixed to perfection. The crowd became involved right away with the irony of the play. I liked how Into the Woods was set up in the beginning because it made the play easier to follow. However, the play seemed to be a little lengthy and some of the characters became annoying. I do not believe the second part of the play altogether was necessary. Into the Woods did not fulfill my expectations to the max,

differences exist between the original play and the film. Apart from the specific techniques of lighting and

This scene in the movie poorly appropriates a very famous scene in the play and the movie continues thereafter to make clumsy and indiscreet representations of key events in the play; one has to wonder why he made a movie that hinges on so many poorly executed key scenes.

Book by James Lapine was a great story overall. I truly enjoyed watching the show especially when the Music and lyrics by Stephen Sondheim played perfectly during the show. Director Eve Himmelheber was able to put out a such an amazing show. I really enjoyed watching Into The Woods because it was colorful, every character was really great with their role, and so much more. I could not be more amazed of how beautiful the production came out. Musical Director Mitchell Hanlon was really great with every musical that played throughout the show. He was always in time of making the sound when a character would kick the floor or any action that was necessary during the play. Scenic Designer Mauri Anne Smith and Ashley Strain created such an amazing setting for the production. The scene looked very realistic, which is really great because it gave me a different feel of the show. Costume Designer Michelle Kincaid created such beautiful costumes for every single character. Whether the costumes were bought, hand made, or both it still came out pretty good. The costume definitely matched the theme of having several characters from different show. Lighting Designer Ben Hawkins made the interior and

I will say this I may not be great at understanding the (modern English?) dialect but I did realize that the movie cut out lines and parts of the actually play. He (Branagh the movie director) also left out offensive references that are in the actual play. I think in comparison that movies are focused on visuals, surroundings and the lead in to a scene. This takes more time where the play does not. If the movie had done every thing just like the play and still held true to their camera attractions think the movie would have been twice as long. Another thing I found to vary between the play and the movie is that the movie is great in having close ups and all of that, but because of this you don?t get to see the rest of the scene at the same time, like the background acting. Sometimes it is good to see everything that is going on in a room or courtyard, rather than just seeing 2 minutes of a person?s face. Also it degrades the actors full involvement such as body movement and mannerisms when you only see their face.

One of the most vital parts of putting on a play is a director who will provide an understandable, and watchable performance. This play was a much easier play to put on as it is based on a classic novel by Harper Lee. From the audiences point of view, the director clearly understood the novel. He gave a very well adapted stage version of the book, however he didn't rely on the audience having read the book, he also created a whole new story through different techniques and fresh ways of telling a story. As a person who has read the book and was a fan of it, and Harper Lee I personally thought that he did it justice and filled some large boots. The director employed very subtle and yet effective staging techniques during certain scenes that required a different atmosphere. Some examples of these techniques were during the scene between Scout and Atticus near the beginning of the play. Here the staging was very central, this provided a sense of a close relationship between the characters. Also, a small inclusion of a chair, or a light immediately makes the scene seem more like a home, and the audience immediately have a different expectation of the scene, for example if an armchair is introduced to the stage then the audience expect a scene at home, however if a desk and computer is introduced then the audience expects a scene at work or in a study and therefore the scene will have a completely different atmosphere.

Comparing a play to its movie adaptation is something that is hard to do since there is no tangible way a person can capture the original then change it to make the movie version of it up to par to the original. From the original play of A Midsummer’s Night Dream that was created by Shakespeare in the movie version of it created by Michael Hoffman, there are many similarities and differences that are in the movie some are very stark while others are very subtle differences.

In Summary, with these three examples it is shown that the play and the movie contrast quite a bit. Most of the story line and the dialogue were very similar to the original story in the movie but some things were changed, possibly to shorten the story to be able to make