Review Of ' A Reader 's Fury '

The PBS article on film adaptation discusses the challenges of adopting a novel into a film and the changes film makers must make. Most of these novels that are being read in schools are being made into movies. In these movies though, the narrator disappears in the movies which is a main factor of a book because they would show many characteristics about a character. The great thing about movies is that instead of a narrator, everybody can see the emotions on the characters faces and explains what the character goes through. For example, in the film “The Pedestrian” instead of having a narrator the creator of the film added another character in to show their feeling and emotions and others(Bollinger). Film is limited in many aspects as in

Children today have access to many forms of literature, some of which are books made into movies. As the children become older, comments such as “the book was way better” or “the movie didn’t even come close to matching the book” or “the movie and book are the exact same, so save time and just watch the movie” are heard once children begin to make connections between the book and the film. It is important to me, as a future teacher, to be able to address such comments from my students and, in turn, help them understand why and how movies can either help or hinder the book’s original value and message. To help me prepare, I will compare a children’s film to the literary work that came from it.

Movies have the ability to transport people to different times and places and distract them from ordinary everyday reality. They allow for a range of emotions to be experienced. At their core, movies examine the human condition. There are plenty of deeper truths woven into screenplays and plenty of lessons to be learned, even when an individual is solely seeking entertainment.

Although the best reasons for “going to the movies” are to be entertained and eat popcorn, understanding a film is actually quite complex. Movies are not only a reflection of life, they also have the capability of shaping our norms, values, attitudes, and perception of life. Through the media of film, one can find stories of practically anything imaginable and some things unimaginable. Movie-makers use their art to entertain, to promote political agendas, to educate, and to present life as it is, was, or could be. They can present truth, truth as they interpret it, or simply ignore truth altogether. A movie can be a work of fiction, non-fiction, or anything in-between. A film is an artist’s interpretation. What one takes away from a film depends upon how one interprets what has been seen and heard. Understanding film is indeed difficult.

Whenever books are adapted for film, changes inevitably have to be made. The medium of film offers several advantages and disadvantages over the book: it is not as adept at exploring the inner workings of people - it cannot explore their minds so easily; however, the added visual and audio capabilities of film open whole new areas of the imagination which, in the hands of a competent writer-director, can more than compensate.

William Ivy Hair's Carnival of Fury elaborates on the life of Robert Charles and the events leading New Orleans to the race riot of 1900. Hair quoted newspaper articles printed during Charles' life to include society's reaction and provide a white-Southern perspective of African Americans. Hair's original objective was to uncover what Charles experienced during his youth, and discover what prompted him to shoot innocent people from the second floor of 1208 Saratoga St. on July 27, 1900. Although the South vilified Charles and deemed him the catalyst for the race riot, Hair sought to clarify

This outburst is fueled by the kind of rage that bell hooks describes in Killing Rage. hooks asserts that for white people, black rage “must always remain repressed, contained, trapped in the realm of the unspeakable” (Killing Rage 12). She critiques black psychiatrists William Grier and Price Cobbs, who wrote the book Black Rage and described such as a sign of powerlessness. hooks argues: “they did not urge the larger culture to see black rage as something other than sickness, to see it as a potentially healthy, potentially healing response to oppression and exploitation” (Killing Rage 12). Because black rage was seen as something that could get black bodies murdered, it was supposed to be contained and hidden. hooks’ view of rage as something vital for the well-being of black individuals is important in the context of Assata’s autobiography. At one point, Assata states that white people could never understand someone becoming a Black revolutionary because “they had so little to revolt against” (119). Later on, in thinking back to having grown up in a segregated south, she remarks: “If i sit and add up all the ‘colored’ toilets and drinking fountains in my life and all of the back-of-the-buses or the Jim Crow railway cars or the places i couldn’t go, it adds up to a one great ball of anger” (138). Writing, then, serves as a form of exorcism, a way to cleanse out the anger from the spirit by channeling it into a creative outlet. The book itself encompasses black rage from

Whether it be novels, comic books, plays, or even poetry, each has its own way of affecting a person. Reading books create and build upon valuable skills, such as critical thinking and imagination. Reading stories can paint pictures in your mind perfectly in every way you’d like, although it isn’t truly in front of your eyes. Creating movies from books allows people the opportunity to physically see what events act out and can trigger emotions that were not found while merely reading the text. Likewise, movies can alter what truly happens in a story, which could lead to a plot change. The dramatic spanish film, La Novia, is the perfect medium between sticking to the plot and adventuring deeper into the unknown.

In our world of advanced technology, we love to watch movies more than we love to read. Sitting in front of a flat-screen TV while eating popcorn and drinking soda would sound much more appealing than reading a book by the fire at night while drinking a frappucino from Starbucks. Now, producers and directors would take successful and famous stories and adapt it into a movie. Sometimes, they would succeed, with examples being the Harry Potter series, which received mainly positive reviews from both critics and the audience. However, most of the time these people would unknowingly butcher the book based movie by taking out many important characters and events, with good examples being The Lightning Thief and Eragon. Then another example of a

My name is Taylor Howell and I attend Sanford High school in Hockessin, Delaware. I have just finished reading one of your top novels Foul Trouble. I wanted to tell you I enjoyed your novel. Foul Trouble was about how The book focused on Terrell Jamerson, the #1 recruit in high school basketball with his point guard and best friend, Danny Wilcox, sharing the spotlight with him. They try to survive the fame and temptation of drugs that could mark them as ineligible to being recruited by colleges. Although Danny plays in the shadow of his best friend yet he still gets noticed by other players for his leadership on the court. I was looking for a book that would teach life lessons and also have a very vigorous climax

Behind every great movie, comes a storyline that is derived from a book however, most of the books to the movies have a great number of deviations. The screenwriters and other staff members to include the director come up with these deviations to enhance the plot in the attempt to make it a more interesting film to which in turn can make a better profit. The majority of differences that is found in films main objective is to enhance the mind. For example, when a scene has the ability to get a particular feeling out of a viewer, it is imperative to be able to understand the reasons for those feelings. The dialog and the visual effects of a scene sets a tone that differs from that of the book that it was taken from. Also, screen writers and

    Film and literature are two media forms that are so closely related, that we often forget there is a distinction between them. We often just view the movie as an extension of the book because most movies are based on novels or short stories. Because we are accustomed to this sequence of production, first the novel, then the motion picture, we often find ourselves making value judgments about a movie, based upon our feelings on the novel. It is this overlapping of the creative processes that prevents us from seeing movies as distinct and separate art forms from the novels they are based on.

The discussion of wether film adaptations are better than their novels is ongoing. Khaled Hosseni’s “The Kite Runner” was a New York Times bestseller that was better than the film made for it. Films have time constraints as a long novels must be fit within a 1-2 hour time frame. They have production issues as some scenes from the book are inappropriate for all viewers. Movies also need to target a range of audiences to become blockbuster hits, whereas, novels do not. Although directors strive to make novel-based films as closely related to the books as possible, inevitable distinctions continue to exist.

Literature can, at times, have a fascinating connection with film. Whether it is a film or a piece of literature, both are written by someone that wants to leave an impact on an audience. However, movies and books have different roles. They each have different strong points wherein books give better characterization, stronger revelations, and inner conflict, but movies create a better mood with music and visuals, showing much more emotion. It's a totally different kind of experience, of course, and there are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The movie version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, directed by Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, is essentially a visual, nonverbal experience. It avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essentially poetic and philosophic. The film thus becomes a subjective experience, which hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting. Utilizing its verbal medium, Clarke is able to explain his narrative, whereas Kubrick creates a visual and audial experience, through means of ambiguity, in which the viewer sees everything, is told nothing, and in which one cannot detect the presence of the film as one at all.

* In today's world, the packing is more important that the content. The cover of the book is more important the book itself. The cast of the movie attracts the audiences to theatres than the storyline.