firstly, Ernest Hemingway’s original title for The Sun Also Rises was used for foreign-language editions—Fiesta. He changed the American English version to The Sun Also Rises at the behest of his publisher.
and
To Kill a Mockingbird was simply Atticus before Harper Lee decided the title focused too narrowly on one character.
most importantly, mentalfloss.com is the site for you. check it.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Think What Pleases You...
...the film!
[insert cheesy music]
okay, but really,
If I were to make "How I Met My Husband" into a film, here's how it'd go down:
PLOT
The plot for this really writes itself into a movie. I think I'd definitely have to make the beginning a little less vague. There would be more back story with Edie's family and the home life. I think that needs a little more detail to make it into a full length. it's not super clear ever why she isn't living with her family anymore. I don't mean to say that I'd answer all the questions, but give a little bit more to work on. everything else I would keep the same, but I'd have to develop the relationships a little more to add time, no biggie. we'd just get to know the husband a little bit better, more than just a line here or there.
POINT OF VIEW
The point of view needs to stay the same for the bulk of the story. the innocence that Edie brings along with her is crucial to the meaning of the work, and I don't want that to change at all. The beginning (backstory) would begin in a third person omniscient, and work closer and closer. Eventually we'd end up with Edie and her point of view. it'd be a first person narrative, but there'd be dialogue as well. I mean, the interaction between Edie and Chris are pretty important. I'd need to add additional POV changes for when Edie isn't around but the neighbor ladies are still talking.
CHARACTERIZATION
Obviously we'd have full physicals on each character. I don't know who I'd have play who though... Probably Ellen Page as Edie. just sayin'. maybe Josh Duhamel as Chris. I don't know. I think mostly the characters would be almost strictly physically characterized. we wouldn't really know much else. their actions too, would give clues into their personality, but not a whole lot. Other than Edie, we wouldn't see a deeper side of any of the characters. Everyone would be pretty face-value. the mailman would get a little bit more characterized though.
SETTING
again, setting won't change much. since I'm not changing plot, it wouldn't make sense for the story to take place anywhere else, except by an open field. the time period would have to stay the same too. I don't think the TSA would be cool with a guy landing his plane in some open field. I'm pretty sure stuff's pretty strict with air traffic now. I'm not really fond of huge changes from books to movies, anyway. I'll keep the neighborhood and all that too. the vision I have for this house is a similar visual that I had for the house in TKAM, too. not that that is helpful to any of you. but the house Edie's in is nicer. upscale. her childhood home is rundown, across town. small town.
THEME
I think the passiveness and innocence of the short story is perfectly suitable for film adaptation, so (surprise) not much is changing here either. I think that when the relationships develop a little more, the theme will be able to come across more strongly though. the MAJOR theme in this is going to be Edie's (and society as a whole's) desire for people think what they like, so long as they are happy. every relationship and every encounter that shows up is going to help reinforce that. not to the extent that we're saying "okay, okay, enough already, I GET IT!" by the end, but it'll definitely be clear. that, and the innocence that the POV reinforces are going to be key.
just of note:
it'll end with a soundless flash-forward of Edie's life after she meets her husband. it'll end with these images and her saying the last line of the story, fade to black.
BOOM. =]
[insert cheesy music]
okay, but really,
If I were to make "How I Met My Husband" into a film, here's how it'd go down:
PLOT
The plot for this really writes itself into a movie. I think I'd definitely have to make the beginning a little less vague. There would be more back story with Edie's family and the home life. I think that needs a little more detail to make it into a full length. it's not super clear ever why she isn't living with her family anymore. I don't mean to say that I'd answer all the questions, but give a little bit more to work on. everything else I would keep the same, but I'd have to develop the relationships a little more to add time, no biggie. we'd just get to know the husband a little bit better, more than just a line here or there.
POINT OF VIEW
The point of view needs to stay the same for the bulk of the story. the innocence that Edie brings along with her is crucial to the meaning of the work, and I don't want that to change at all. The beginning (backstory) would begin in a third person omniscient, and work closer and closer. Eventually we'd end up with Edie and her point of view. it'd be a first person narrative, but there'd be dialogue as well. I mean, the interaction between Edie and Chris are pretty important. I'd need to add additional POV changes for when Edie isn't around but the neighbor ladies are still talking.
CHARACTERIZATION
Obviously we'd have full physicals on each character. I don't know who I'd have play who though... Probably Ellen Page as Edie. just sayin'. maybe Josh Duhamel as Chris. I don't know. I think mostly the characters would be almost strictly physically characterized. we wouldn't really know much else. their actions too, would give clues into their personality, but not a whole lot. Other than Edie, we wouldn't see a deeper side of any of the characters. Everyone would be pretty face-value. the mailman would get a little bit more characterized though.
SETTING
again, setting won't change much. since I'm not changing plot, it wouldn't make sense for the story to take place anywhere else, except by an open field. the time period would have to stay the same too. I don't think the TSA would be cool with a guy landing his plane in some open field. I'm pretty sure stuff's pretty strict with air traffic now. I'm not really fond of huge changes from books to movies, anyway. I'll keep the neighborhood and all that too. the vision I have for this house is a similar visual that I had for the house in TKAM, too. not that that is helpful to any of you. but the house Edie's in is nicer. upscale. her childhood home is rundown, across town. small town.
THEME
I think the passiveness and innocence of the short story is perfectly suitable for film adaptation, so (surprise) not much is changing here either. I think that when the relationships develop a little more, the theme will be able to come across more strongly though. the MAJOR theme in this is going to be Edie's (and society as a whole's) desire for people think what they like, so long as they are happy. every relationship and every encounter that shows up is going to help reinforce that. not to the extent that we're saying "okay, okay, enough already, I GET IT!" by the end, but it'll definitely be clear. that, and the innocence that the POV reinforces are going to be key.
just of note:
it'll end with a soundless flash-forward of Edie's life after she meets her husband. it'll end with these images and her saying the last line of the story, fade to black.
BOOM. =]
Monday, December 6, 2010
"At least I'm not a book burner, you Nazi cow!"
ohman. I love this movie.
although, after reading the short story there are quite a few differences. large differences.
PLOT
first off, there's a whole second plot. after the voice says "if you build it, he will come" and the field is built and everybody comes to play and it's all happy and cool! but then, WHOABUDDY...
uhm, excuse me? where is this in the story? oh, that's right, in order to make a full movie out of a short story, you've got to add more. so, Ray Kinsella (the main guy) goes out in search of Terrence Mann, a guy who he must take to a baseball game at Fenway in order to settle something (ease this guy's pain). of course, it's not easy and he has to try a few times to get it to go down (Mr. Mann is a pretty angry guy), but it does and everything's grand. The end. but not quite. we're not going into the whole "go the distance" idea. it just gets more complicated. they go to Minnesota to find Moonlight Graham... don't ask.
also, there is a full field built.
Annie DOES call Ray crazy.
and her family actually physically tries to take the farm away from them.
POINT OF VIEW
Everything is told from a third person point of view. A third person limited though. we don't get any sort of insight into the thoughts or anything of any of the characters. we get lots of dialogue, almost exclusively between Ray and another person. this sort of dialogue makes it almost like a first person narrative. I think that in a movie, this sort of dialogue has to happen. in this case, unlike in the text, the third person is more effective than a first person would be.
CHARACTERIZATION
obviously, since this is a screenplay, all of the characters are given physical attributes. the casting though is quite good. each of the physical attributes given in the text are carried out in the movie. Most importantly, Annie and Karen are both characterized more fully. Annie is given a full personality. she's spunky and fiery and passionate about lots of things. Karen is still a quiet, shy girl who loves her daddy. Ray's father is only mentioned and there aren't many good things that Ray has to say.
SETTING
The part that follows the story completely - quotes included - still takes place in Iowa. it's in a cornfield at the back of Ray's house. but then, Ray moves to Boston to find Terrence. They go to Fenway park. Then they go to Minnesota. and then they go back home. so it jumps around a little bit from place to place, but each place has a specific reason to take them there.
THEME
theme theme themey theme.
the theme in this is not at all the same. in the story, it's all about Ray being able to do something for his father. it's all about following dreams. he builds this park to let Shoeless Joe play again. but in the movie, it's about following dreams still, but mostly being able to repay his dad in some way. namely, by bringing back his dad's hero. in allowing for this to happen, Ray finally can "Ease his pain" and restore in some way the relationship with his father.
aaaaw. =]
although, after reading the short story there are quite a few differences. large differences.
PLOT
first off, there's a whole second plot. after the voice says "if you build it, he will come" and the field is built and everybody comes to play and it's all happy and cool! but then, WHOABUDDY...
"Ease his pain."
uhm, excuse me? where is this in the story? oh, that's right, in order to make a full movie out of a short story, you've got to add more. so, Ray Kinsella (the main guy) goes out in search of Terrence Mann, a guy who he must take to a baseball game at Fenway in order to settle something (ease this guy's pain). of course, it's not easy and he has to try a few times to get it to go down (Mr. Mann is a pretty angry guy), but it does and everything's grand. The end. but not quite. we're not going into the whole "go the distance" idea. it just gets more complicated. they go to Minnesota to find Moonlight Graham... don't ask.
also, there is a full field built.
Annie DOES call Ray crazy.
and her family actually physically tries to take the farm away from them.
POINT OF VIEW
Everything is told from a third person point of view. A third person limited though. we don't get any sort of insight into the thoughts or anything of any of the characters. we get lots of dialogue, almost exclusively between Ray and another person. this sort of dialogue makes it almost like a first person narrative. I think that in a movie, this sort of dialogue has to happen. in this case, unlike in the text, the third person is more effective than a first person would be.
CHARACTERIZATION
obviously, since this is a screenplay, all of the characters are given physical attributes. the casting though is quite good. each of the physical attributes given in the text are carried out in the movie. Most importantly, Annie and Karen are both characterized more fully. Annie is given a full personality. she's spunky and fiery and passionate about lots of things. Karen is still a quiet, shy girl who loves her daddy. Ray's father is only mentioned and there aren't many good things that Ray has to say.
SETTING
The part that follows the story completely - quotes included - still takes place in Iowa. it's in a cornfield at the back of Ray's house. but then, Ray moves to Boston to find Terrence. They go to Fenway park. Then they go to Minnesota. and then they go back home. so it jumps around a little bit from place to place, but each place has a specific reason to take them there.
THEME
theme theme themey theme.
the theme in this is not at all the same. in the story, it's all about Ray being able to do something for his father. it's all about following dreams. he builds this park to let Shoeless Joe play again. but in the movie, it's about following dreams still, but mostly being able to repay his dad in some way. namely, by bringing back his dad's hero. in allowing for this to happen, Ray finally can "Ease his pain" and restore in some way the relationship with his father.
aaaaw. =]
Thursday, December 2, 2010
tug-o-war
...the worst kind. ew.
the question that I've heard floating around this whole week is "did the baby actually die?!"
I think that, much like in "A Worn Path", it doesn't really matter if the child is dead or not... what matters is the fact that these "parents" are LITERALLY fighting over their child. cartoons and TV shows always show those cutesy scenes where two people are fighting over a third person and tugging back and forth on their arms until they all fall down comically. but this time it's real. and it's disgusting.
the lack of differentiation between action and dialogue really help to contribute to the fact of what is actually occurring. there is no distraction, and it all happens in such a way that no one can do anything about it. it's a lost cause, and even the reader is helpless to stop reading the action (or dialogue, whichever they may choose) because it just sneaks up with no warning. just like the baby has no way to stop what is going on.
this song is kinda cool. but I only posted it for the VEEEEEEEEEEERY last line.. and when you hear it, you'll know. but it's a terrible connection. I apologize.
the question that I've heard floating around this whole week is "did the baby actually die?!"
I think that, much like in "A Worn Path", it doesn't really matter if the child is dead or not... what matters is the fact that these "parents" are LITERALLY fighting over their child. cartoons and TV shows always show those cutesy scenes where two people are fighting over a third person and tugging back and forth on their arms until they all fall down comically. but this time it's real. and it's disgusting.
the lack of differentiation between action and dialogue really help to contribute to the fact of what is actually occurring. there is no distraction, and it all happens in such a way that no one can do anything about it. it's a lost cause, and even the reader is helpless to stop reading the action (or dialogue, whichever they may choose) because it just sneaks up with no warning. just like the baby has no way to stop what is going on.
this song is kinda cool. but I only posted it for the VEEEEEEEEEEERY last line.. and when you hear it, you'll know. but it's a terrible connection. I apologize.
YOUR MOTHER!
that's the only "joke" I can think of now. sorry.
question three at the end of this story asks about the use of jokes and the importance to the characterization of Zoë.
Zoë, to put it as plainly as possible is eccentric. just matter-of-factly eccentric. I think the fact that she cracks jokes all the time builds (or rather, shields) her character quite nicely. realistically, too. she's suuper sarcastic with everything. I believe that when people go through personality analysis by a psychiatrist, they are told that the frequent use of sarcasm is a way of shielding oneself. I think this definitely fits Zoë, to an extent. even when others are trying to be serious (like about getting married), she can't help but come back with some smart-alecky response. in addition to suggesting that she doesn't like letting people in, it accentuates her lack of seriousness. she feels like life is too short to be worrying about stuff all the time. her constant joking shows that.
question three at the end of this story asks about the use of jokes and the importance to the characterization of Zoë.
Zoë, to put it as plainly as possible is eccentric. just matter-of-factly eccentric. I think the fact that she cracks jokes all the time builds (or rather, shields) her character quite nicely. realistically, too. she's suuper sarcastic with everything. I believe that when people go through personality analysis by a psychiatrist, they are told that the frequent use of sarcasm is a way of shielding oneself. I think this definitely fits Zoë, to an extent. even when others are trying to be serious (like about getting married), she can't help but come back with some smart-alecky response. in addition to suggesting that she doesn't like letting people in, it accentuates her lack of seriousness. she feels like life is too short to be worrying about stuff all the time. her constant joking shows that.
I swear to drunk I'm not God!
okay, first let me say that my father is nowhere near a drunkard, but if he were and I got drunk myself, my mother would NOT praise me and say "OH, how brave! you were his guardian angel!" wouldn't happen. but of course that's where the irony comes in.
the son drinks to keep dad from drinking. but that's NOT what his intentions are anyway! he looks at the drink and says "oh, I wonder what that tastes like... *sip*".
anyone else catch the parallel between the son's drinking and the father's?
the father doesn't like what he's doing after the first sip, takes a sip to forget it, and then by the third he's over it.
the son takes a first sip, thinks it's disgusting, takes a second to confirm, and then by the third he's over it as well... hm!
little drunkard...
lolcats...
the son drinks to keep dad from drinking. but that's NOT what his intentions are anyway! he looks at the drink and says "oh, I wonder what that tastes like... *sip*".
anyone else catch the parallel between the son's drinking and the father's?
the father doesn't like what he's doing after the first sip, takes a sip to forget it, and then by the third he's over it.
the son takes a first sip, thinks it's disgusting, takes a second to confirm, and then by the third he's over it as well... hm!
little drunkard...
lolcats...
aaaaaand the winner is...
oh. yikes. you mean you DON'T want to be the winner?
whoops. this is... erm. awkward [IT'SONLYAWKWARDIFYOUMAKIEITAWKWARD!]
the first question in the book asks first what a "lottery" is, and then how that title leads you to think something very different.
a lottery is something that is regarded as a chance event. that perfectly fits the action of a story. everything was indeed random, so based on that we shouldn't really expect anything different? right? WRONG-O! today's society tells us that a lottery is a game where you win. the story provides exactly the opposite. life is not a game, so there goes that theory. most importantly, the "winner" of this particular lottery is anything but! I'm not sure that anyone chalks up the loss of life as a "win" in their scorebook (who would even keep a book of that sort of thing?!) but, in that way, this title is incredibly misleading in terms of what the story presents.
whoops. this is... erm. awkward [IT'SONLYAWKWARDIFYOUMAKIEITAWKWARD!]
the first question in the book asks first what a "lottery" is, and then how that title leads you to think something very different.
a lottery is something that is regarded as a chance event. that perfectly fits the action of a story. everything was indeed random, so based on that we shouldn't really expect anything different? right? WRONG-O! today's society tells us that a lottery is a game where you win. the story provides exactly the opposite. life is not a game, so there goes that theory. most importantly, the "winner" of this particular lottery is anything but! I'm not sure that anyone chalks up the loss of life as a "win" in their scorebook (who would even keep a book of that sort of thing?!) but, in that way, this title is incredibly misleading in terms of what the story presents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)