Lit to Film: The Hunger Games

Today’s Lit to Film post is on The Hunger Games, a YA dystopian fantasy by Suzanne Collins. Picked up by Lionsgate and released in March 2012, both the novel and the film follow our heroine, Katniss Everdeen, and her struggle to win the Hunger Games—a televised, annual event where twenty-four tributes from the ages of 12 to 18 are taken from each of the twelve Districts where they live, to fight to the death in order to entertain the public. This event ensures that the government keeps its citizens under their control.

The film follows the book closely, however there are slight differences. The novel is told in Katniss’s first-person POV, while the film explores a broader scope. Along with Katniss’s reactions, we see how the Districts react to the death of their loved ones and the reaction of the villain, President Snow, to this growing unrest in the Districts.

Another difference between the two was the visuals. In the novel, Collins did not go into too much detail with Katniss’s surroundings, how people dressed and spoke. It all felt a bit vague. In the film, everything—to the settings and costumes and accents—gave viewers a clearer picture of the futuristic setting and the strangeness of the Capitol. There were also advantages in world building that the book couldn’t explore like the arena control room. We see the advancements of this world and how exactly the Gamemakers throw obstacles in the way of the tributes.

Another difference was the pace. In the first half of the novel, the pacing was slow with moments of tension, setting up for the tributes time in the arena. Once the tributes entered the arena, the pace picked up. In the film however, the set up and preparation seemed quicker then the scenes in the arena—the pacing became uneven, seemed to drag in places then speed up again and lacked the same punch that the novel had.

Speaking of punch, a thing that struck me was that the film did not carry the novel’s message of how our culture has become desensitized by violence. In the novel, I felt the horror of the violence, could feel the characters react to it and gained an emotional attachment. In the film, I expected the same but, instead, did not. There felt like little to no visceral reaction from the characters, not enough emotional attachment—thus not enough investment. The characters felt a bit distant to what was happening to them but perhaps that’s a personal preference.

Overall, I am satisfied with this adaptation. Not sure which version I’d prefer out of the two though, both had their advantages and disadvantages.

Which one—the novel or the film—in your opinion, was the best version?            

Lit To Film: The Wizard of OZ

               

            It’s that time again for Lit To Film!! To be honest this particular one I debated even trying to do as the movie is a classic in my mind. How dare I think of even allowing a BOOK to taint my feelings for the film? And that movie is *drumroll please, although you can tell from the title and the picture, ugh, just play along* THE WIZARD OF OZ!!  Yes the film that brought you dazzling Technicolor is about to get the Lit to Film treatment J

****SPOILER ALERT!!! ****

                Okay now that that’s out of the way let’s get down to business. When I was growing up I didn’t have a great library thus many children’s classics were unavailable to me. Classic TV and movies however, well, that is a different story. I LOVE the 1939 movie with a passion. Who doesn’t?  Yeah, the Amish, you got me there. But when you hear “Over The Rainbow” tell me you don’t stop what you’re doing and belt out the song line by line in off key glory. So over time I honestly forgot to look up the book…until recently.

                Yes, I finally read Frank L. Baum’s classic novel, thanks to Kindle and their free books. Although I did enjoy the book, I don’t think it’s a classic, and the differences between the movie and book are so astounding they can barely be compared.

                The movie was as bright and cheery as the vibrant as the yellow brick road. Everything led to a chipper song and meeting with adorable people. The book however is…darker. The scarecrow, the tin man, and the cowardly lion all tell their own origin stories. My favorite would have to be the tin man who self-mutilated himself because of a spell placed on him by a witch who wished to have the woman he loved all to herself. Well, maybe not that homoerotic but you get the point, nothing like that would have appeared in the movie. If you were frightened of the flying monkeys then my lord the kalidahs, tiger faced and bear- bodied creatures with a taste for our adventurers. There were more attacks and peril abounded in the short read. Certainly if the Dorothy of the book had the opportunity to take a route that included more singing and dancing I’m sure she would have chosen that one.

                So while the imagination is high in the book. The movie is rich with life and fun. Still to judge between the two…I don’t know.  They have the same characters but the way of telling the story is too different. If I had to choose between them I’d have to choose the movie J Sorry Mr. Baum, the film did it better I think.

                If you want something to compare the book to, may I suggest the Marvel Comics adaptation by Eric Shownar with art by Skottie Young. Wow. The book loses again. The art captures innocence from that time period while the story is spot on with the story. I also suggest you continue on with their captivating series. Weeeeeeeellllllllllll worth it. LOL I hope you enjoyed! Sorry for any Baum lovers out there but come on…you know those are better.

SEE YA NEXT TIME!!!

Lit to Film: Angels and Demons

I think it's pretty safe to say that the books Hollywood turns into films are often...lacking. Whether it's missing character traits or thoughts, plot changes to make the story flow better on screen, certain scenes removed altogether...etc...we all know how badly a book can be destroyed while making its way to the silver screen. Last month D.F. Matthews gave an example about how The Shining was one of those films that wound up being better than the book. This time it's the opposite. The film Angels and Demons has nothing on the book by Dan Brown.

Before you go on though, I have to warn you:

*SPOILER ALERT*



Angels and Demons is actually the first book (not The DaVinci Code) from Dan Brown that introduces the character Robert Langdon. The novel opens with Langdon receiving a midnight phone call from Maximilian Kohler, the director of CERN, the world's largest scientific research facility in Geneva, Switzerland. One of their top physicists has been murdered and branded with the word Illuminati across his chest. As a symbologist, and expert on this ancient secret society, Langdon is asked to help solve the murder. Turns out that this dead guy was not just a physicist but also a Catholic priest who had been working in secret with his adopted daughter Vittoria (also a scientist) to create antimatter. Problem? This antimatter stuff is extremely delicate. As in it can destroy an entire city--Vatican City--which is where the canister containing it is hidden.

To make matters worse, the Pope has just died and the four priests being considered as replacements have been kidnapped. So now Langdon and Vittoria are in a race against time to try and decipher the clues left by this murderer, who claims to be Illuminati, before it's too late. This race leads them to sealed crypts, empty cathedrals, and into the greatly restricted vault of Vatican City itself to search for the trail of enlightenment which will lead to the location of the secret Illuminati meeting place that has been hidden for centuries.

Now here comes the film, directed by Ron Howard. To say the interpretation was okay would be putting it nicely. Those of you who have read the books and seen the film will probably agree with me. Those who haven't...let me explain.

While the plot pretty much remains the same....

Langdon must figure out the clues and what the Illuminati are saying before the murderer kills every one of the kidnapped priests.

...I was shocked to see how different the film interpretation of the book was right from the start. Not only was it not Kohler who calls Robert Langdon--but Kohler's character was completely erased from the film. The dead scientist was depicted as Vittoria's colleague and not her father. Even Vittoria seemed to be 'dummed' down in the film. From here it just gets worse. The Carmerlengo (a major part of the story) is missing so much of the backstory that made him the great character he should have stayed. There was no understanding from the audience as to why he would do the things he does and his relation to the Pope was also taken out. It made him seem more like master's pet and nothing more. One thing I did find very disappointing is the murderer himself. The Hassasin. There was nothing about his past to motivate him. He's merely a hire for kill. Truly saddening, considering he was very good at what he did. In fact...it was beautiful. (Though I'm no sadist)

Still, I don't have to point out the details to show how off mark the film was. In the end of the book, all four priests are killed. In the movie, however, Robert Langdon manages to save one--who later becomes the Pope.

For those who did read the book and saw the film, the plot changes made the thing hard to follow. Then again there was so much that the director assumed viewers knew that he left out things that would allow the non book readers to understand the story the way it was meant to. An epic battle between Science and Religion. The film played up the conspiracy of the Catholic Church more than explaining the reasons behind WHY characters behaved the way they did. It was typical bad guy vs good guy. So not what it should have been.

So for those of you who have read and watched Angels and Demons...which do you think was better?

Or if you've only watched one and not the other...would you consider reading/viewing the other?

I'm sure there will be some of you who disagree, but I wouldn't recommend watching the film until you've read the book. It will ruin things for you. Then again, I can't really say the book won't ruin the movie either. Guess that's just a decision y'all will have to make. :)

Lit To Film: The Shining

Wow, 2011 has been a strong year for books on film. I mean Water For Elephants, Red Riding Hood, I Am Number Four, Harry Potter and The Deathly Hollows part two, and Beastly have made their appearance known already and it’s only June!! Books are almost destined to take a shot at the silver screen. Some maintain the heart of their printed counterparts while others…uh, try. Then there are some who outshine the book (stop laughing it’s possible). That’s what this segment is about: Books that have been turned into movies and which is better. The long standing debate of ‘can a film ever capture what is on the page’ will be debated here. So grab the film and the book, a bowl of popcorn, and a pair of boxing gloves because it may get fierce. :P
Let’s start off fairly easier as this is a new segment. So no Harry Potter, Twilight, or Lord of the Rings this week. How about one that is certainly a classic film and book, both crafted by masters, and one I think is better than the book.
The Shining.
Let me start off by saying I am a huge Stephen King fan. The bulk of my bookshelf is his work, and he is one of the few people that I would be struck speechless to meet one day. This is not bashing him in anyway. Oh and if you haven’t seen or read The Shining by now, shame on you. LOL Okay but there will be spoilers to both so *SPOILER ALERT*
The story goes Jack Torrence becomes caretaker for The Overlook Hotel, and takes his wife Wendy and his son Danny with him. As he watches over this historical and quite vast hotel he convinces himself that he will write his novel, and that the change of scenery is just what he needs to get the creative juices flowing. (sound familiar?) The general part of the beginning is captured wonderfully by director Stanley Kubrick although he did miss the true reasons from the book as to why Jack had no choice but to take the job.
In the book Jack starts as a teacher in a university, but after a night of drinking he accidently kills a colleague and dumps his body in the river. After that travesty he can’t concentrate on his job, quits, and turns to writing for a living. His writing can’t pay the bills and this job is a few months of having a roof over his family’s head.
This was missed but it didn’t really matter as from this moment on every last thing is painted onto the screen. Kubrick didn’t miss a syllable of King’s words through the middle. You got the mental breakdown, the haunting of the hotel, Danny’s finger friend, Wendy’s passiveness to her husband’s murderous tendencies. It’s all there in all in sparkling Techno-color. You are totally wrapped up in the story now. This is one of the best horror movies of all time, if not the best after all.
Then comes the end and here is where I find the movie is better. Stephen King is great at what he does…but my gripe has always been with his endings. Most of them suck. Seriously. They lack the punch that managed to drag you in at the beginning. In the movie the ending is Danny calls out to the old hotel manager with his Shining power, bringing the old man to the hotel. His arrival is short lived as he gets an ax to the back. Then Wendy and Danny run out into the snowy hedge maze outside with Jack chasing after them. They find their way out while Jack freezes to death. Wow! Bravo! Encore!
Now the book. The end consists of the old hotel manager comes back, knocks out the ax wielding Jack, and then he proceeds to overload the furnace which causes it to explode. Epilogue: Wendy, Danny and the hotel manager are in the tropics and sipping drinks. Ugh, really. That’s it? Yawn. To me the book ended really weak and when you stack the whole experience up to the movie I was left wanting more from the print.
So pick up the movie and book, if you don’t remember already, and add your two cents to the discussion. Which do you think was better? The Lit or The Film?