Who Is Pauline Kael's Wrong With Her Comment

A film as popular culture becomes something that is often criticized by the Cultural Studies. A film can show many aspects of cultures because the producer tries to deliver his/her imagination or reality on it. However, it is not rare when a writer or producer deliver something about prediction or assumption if some people use a certain ideology to a society. This kind of prediction based on imagination can be clearly seen on the adaptation film, Divergent.

One word-to-screen translation that I found particularly frustrating was the Harry Potter series. I blew a gasket when the Durmstrang and Beauxbaton schools were simplified to purely male and purely female students, I had my head in my hands when the Weasley house caught on fire, and the forced chemistry between Harry and Hermione made me want to gag. These elements that are completely irrelevant to the content of the series were added simply for the fact that they are entertaining. Movie audiences love dramatic entrances, destruction scenes, and love triangles. Meanwhile, elements that added depth to the written series, such as Peeves the Poltergeist, Winky the house elf, and Hermione’s advocation of S.P.E.W, were all left out, for they were not deemed important, or entertaining, enough. The part of this that is the most frustrating is the way that the themes of the series are interpreted by movie fans. I cannot tell you how many times I have talked to people that believe Harry Potter is about whether Hermione ends up with Harry or Ron, or that it’s about ‘wands shooting cool colours.’ The metaphor by which the Harry Potter series and other information is identified is defined by the medium through which people view it. Furthermore, the mediums through which individuals view entertainment shape the way they view the

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.

fair to argue that had this film been handled by someone who shared the culture, certain

What makes a good adaptation? This is a question I asked myself after watching the trailer for the new Death Note Film. There are two ways you can mess an adaptation up, defined by a scale in my mind. There is being completely faithful to the source material, following it to a tee and essentially translating the source from it's medium, book, comic or whatever; to film. Then there's the other side of the spectrum where the Director strays too far away from the source material. Perhaps they make a good Film, but it is no longer an adaptation at this point. Where you want to be for an adaptation is anywhere in the middle.

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.

Although this paper uses a mainstream movie, at all times you should use scholarly writing and language throughout the paper.

One major insult to the book from the movie comes with the fact that the motion picture ultimately changes the title of the entire work and thus changes the

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

“The last thing you want is Hannibal Lecter inside your head.” It is a daunting task to effectively transfer textual tonality from page to screen. Balancing proper visual interpretations of the text with original insights is not an easy procedure, and not every filmmaker is equipped with the artistic skills necessary to complete such an undertaking. Alejandro Jodorowsky’s wildly unsuccessful attempt at adapting Frank Herbert’s Dune, for example, ended in bankruptcy for the studio and premature cancellation of the project due to the extensive runtime the film was to have in accordance with the length of the book. Many filmic adaptations fail in their inability to recapture and translate what originally gave a text literary merit. Jonathan Demme’s adaptation of the quintessential Thomas Harris novel Silence of the Lambs is so well

"I would not think of quarreling with your interpretation nor offering any other, as I have found it always the best policy to allow the film to speak for itself."

When it comes my general reaction to the violence against women that occurs during the film,

In my opinion generic diversity strengthens Gittell’s argument about “ a new enemy of the moment”. As we all know there are different kinds of film genres and some of them have the same message but just being protrude differently. In some films we can see corporation interest as the villain but see it as if they were talking about a terrorist or someone trying to do wrong to other people. In reality the writers use films to give hints to the viewers on what’s happening around the world or in our own country. Some people can relate and understand what the writer is telling us and some just see them as another great action movie. Some movies are base on real life experience and stuff that are happening around the world or even in our own country

This is truly a fascinating topic to be discussing, as I have often pondered and discussed with friends how we should examine films. I personally am of the mind that director intent is an important thing to keep in mind when you're viewing a film, as it can tell you a lot about the artist and where their mind was at when they were making the film. As scholars we should try to avoid putting words in other people's mouths, if Ridley Scott believes their is no message in the film than the artist obviously never intended to produce anything other than their own artistic vision. On that note, that doesn’t mean that we as scholars and viewers shouldn’t discuss how we see a film, what we interpret from the characters/storytelling and the aesthetic choices. Everyone has their own view on a film and ignoring your own feelings when discussing it with others or in a paper would be a waste of a unique perspective. In short I think the director's intent and individual views should have symbiotic relationship, keeping both perspectives in mind is something I always try to do and it

"Although the movie Philadelphia contains many issues centering around homosexuality and discrimination, upheld by today's society, it is evident that attitudes about these issues are constantly changing with the ever changing values of society." Refer to the movies to give specific examples that you agree/disagree with this statement.