Blog 28

I
40
40
20
25
4
_______
129

II
145, because there were a few checkpoint blogs I had missed.  But I did feel I had enough data, as I conducted a follow-up interview. Instead of "categorize" I often used "factor" in my paper, indicating that good characteristics of movies were good factors. I did not explicitly say "categorize." I did come across a new idea. that the oder of experince may play a part in the acceptance level of viewers/readers.
_______________
247

III

138

Blog 29

Devon Yanvary
Eng 3029-01
Professor Chandler
5/9/2013
                                                                  Book v. Movie

Introduction

For as long as movies have been made, they have used books as their inspiration. This has caused a great debate between readers and viewers as to which is the superior medium. It is also a question that has yet to be answered despite all the research and discussions conducted by others, as each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps, instead of asking which is better, we should ask what makes one better than the other. Through my research I hope to determine the factors of a successful book, the factors of a successful movie and if any of these factors overlap to appease both readers and viewers.

Literature Review

In the book Remediation: Understanding New Media, writers Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin explore the different aspects as media in society. In the section regarding movies, they identify key features that can improve or deteriorate the quality of a movie, and what makes people want to see movies in the first place.

They claim that viewers see movies because they want to “experience the oscillations between immediacy and hypermediacy produced by the special effects” (157) Hypermediacy, then, is defined as the software being used within the movie. What this means is audiences realize that the movie is fictional, fake, but they want to be fooled so well into thinking that the movie has become reality. Logically, a factor of a good movie, according to Bolter and Grusin include the ability to “create so authentic an illusion” (155) that they are temporarily unable to distinguish reality from cinema. This is why people will go see a movie version of a book—they want to see the story they loved come to life and become real.

Factors of a bad movie include when the “camera offers a distorted view that makes us aware of the film as a medium” (152) as opposed to creating that convincing illusion. This means that the movie has failed to feel authentic or sincere enough that the viewers will become disillusioned or separated from the viewing experience. Simply put, the movie is not relatable to viewers.

With these factors in mind, I will interview J, who has read the book Silver Linings Playbook and also seen the movie. From this I hope to discover what makes each piece either successful or unsuccessful.

Research and Data

Interviewee J talks about his experiences with reading a book in addition to watching the movie version of that book. In the discussion he talks specifically about the novel, and recent movie production, Silver Linings Playbook. J takes an interesting stance on this topic and states that he found both the movie and book enjoyable, despite their differences. I have found this to be of the unpopular opinion in regard to others who have both read the book and seen the movie, based off of Conversations I have been a part of regarding this topic.

J felt so positively towards the movie it inspired him to follow up with the book. This is atypical, as this study is done primarily on those who have read the book first. However, despite the unusual order, J claims that, though the two mediums differ, they are “both so incredibly good for their own reasons.” He draws many similarities between the two, but overall conveys that he believes (a) the book is good because it allows for plot and character development, and (b) the movie is good because it is well executed (acting, directing, writing, etc.).

J describes the movie as having both “good acting” and a “good story,” signifying that these are key factors in a successful movie. Without good acting the audience loses touch with the characters, which causes the movie to feel insincere—in other words, bad.

He praises the story of the movie for being an “honest portrayal of mental disorders,” as opposed to being a movie that is full of “over the top melodrama.” This is J’s classification of a good story. Outside this context, “over the top” is a phrase used in situations where there is too much of something, so much of it that it becomes overwhelming for audiences, and “melodrama” is used to refer to a play, an act or a farce, (although it is not always used with negative connotations). In this context, by describing the melodrama as over the top, J insinuates that if the movie were any more melodramatic than it already is, it would be ridiculous to watch. Over-exaggerating emotions or events is a problem actors face when filming a movie. If an actor overplays his part in a movie, it becomes ‘over the top’ and unrealistic. If an actor underplays a part, the movie begins to feel forced or unbelievable. This suggests that there is a delicate balance involved in movies that is not present in novels. In a novel a character can act dramatically without repercussions. The book can take more liberties, as the narration often times takes place in the character’s mind. This means that, while the actual even is not as dramatic as the characters makes it out to be, it can still be told overdramatically because that is how the character is interpreting the situation. Because Silver Linings Playbook was not full of over the top melodrama, is realistically reflected normal life and meets J’s criteria of a good movie.

This over focus on drama makes the movie less relatable. In addition to being melodramatic, he says that the directors could have created a movie that was “over the top.” This “over the top” is generally used in a negative context. J uses “over the top” to suggest that

J says that the director “could have” created an overdramatized production, but ultimately did not. These characterizations of cinema can play a large part in what makes a movie distasteful to viewers. While the movie was a “bit of a crowd pleaser,” Silver Linings Playbook, J says, is a movie that takes real problems (mental disorders) and neither “trivializes” them nor glorifies them (melodrama). Instead, J describes the characters as “flawed” which makes them more “human” and “relatable.” In other words, the movie has created an “authentic” (Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin) representation for viewers. This is where the movie succeeded.

When describing the perks of the book, J mentions “development.” Here he uses development to refer to both the characters and the storylines. His praise of both character and plot development reaffirms what many articles, as well as personal experience, suggests—readers enjoy books because of the additional details. J claims to have enjoyed the year-long development involved in the book, as opposed to the month-long development shown in the movie. He claims that the character development in particular is a great aspect of the book not completely captured in the movie. J mentions that, in the book, readers are given more insight to what characters are thinking and feeling, which helps readers better understand their motives, or “why they do what they do.” J extends this to include supporting characters as well. In many movies, supporting characters are neglected, and Silver Linings Playbook is no exception. While supporting characters were not completely ignored, there were certain characteristics about them that were never quite explained and, as a viewer of the movie, I wish they had been. This is most evident in the supporting character of Pat Sr., the main character’s father. In the movie, the father is shown as a caring, compassionate, and at times overbearing, parent. However in the book, J describes Pat’s father as actually “very cold” in the novel. In the movie, Pat Sr. is always seen making an effort to see his son: Pat Sr. wants to spend time with Pat Jr. But in the book, it is revealed that Pat Sr. is “the exact opposite of how he is in the movie.” J indicates that this extra knowledge, or character development, into the minds of both main and supporting characters greatly improves the overall quality of the book. As the book is “more involved” with the characters, it gives readers better perspective and understanding of them. This creates a more personalized feeling towards the story.

This difference, however, does not dissatisfy J. In fact, he prefers the changes made to the book. J says that De Nero “plays a cool dad” and that he “would like to have him as a dad.” It is interesting that J finds the representation of a fictional character realistic enough to connect it to his own life. By not dismissing the character as fictional, it shows a successful transition from paper-based character to cinematic-based character. This again goes back to when J described the characters as “relatable” and “human.”

Additional terminology used by J that alludes to personalization includes when he says readers “spend a year” with the characters when reading the book. The use of “spend” is a particularly powerful verb here, as it indicates a more intimate relationship with the novel than just fictional character/nonfictional reader. ‘Spending’ time with the characters suggests that there is a momentary pause in the distinction between reality and imagination, as ‘spending time’ is traditionally used to describe human interactions. The use of “spend time,” here reasserts J’s description of the characters being “human” and “relatable.” Additionally, when J describes the characters as “human,” he says it is because we, as readers, all know someone who resembles the characters in some way. This furthers the personalization of the reading experience: these characters become ‘human’ to us as we associate what we’re reading to what’s familiar. J’s use of “human” and “relatable” are words that often appear in reasons why people like reading books, as discussed in The New York Times article “A Good Mystery: Why We Read,”  so it is interesting that J uses them in reference to the movie. This shows that the relation between book and movie was not lost in the translation from paper to screen.

However, not everything was translated perfectly from page to screen. While J expresses the essence of the book was captured well, he points out that there were some significant differences. Of these changes, character portrayal again plays a large role in J’s interview, as well as event placement.

There is a large difference in the way the movie portrays Pat Sr. (the main character’s father). Additionally, J mentions some changes in the main character, Pat Jr., as well. J expresses more of a liking for Pat in the movie as well, saying that Cooper makes it easier to understand what is happening in Pat’s mind than it was in the book. He describes Pat’s thought process as “annoying” in the book. This is a contrast to when he is watching the movie and is able to “sympathize” with Pat, having a visual demonstration of Pat’s emotions. In this way, it is atypical for a reader to enjoy the movie more than the book. Also, he states that Pat has a better grasp on reality in the movie. This has to do with a plot change made by directors. J reveals that, while the movie states Pat has been in the hospital for only eight months, in the book it has “actually been for four years and he just thinks it’s been eight months.”

Furthermore, he states that events were moved around in the movie and that it does not accurately represent the chronological order of events in novel. He explains that while “some things happen in both the book and the movie…they switched the order of things.” But despite all this, he still claims that he “loved it.” Silver Linings Playbook still maintained enough elements of the original story as to not dilute it into something unrecognizable. It is interesting of J to say that the movie still manages to be successful, as many viewers dislike the fact that the plots of books are changed in order to fit into Hollywood’s formula for a ‘good movie.’ Plot changes would include generic tactics like re-writing an ending of a story. But he makes it a point to say “watch the movie first. Otherwise you'll probably spend the entire movie telling the person next to you "in the book he does this instead of this and they cut that out, and this character isn't in there at all…both are great though."

Conclusion

This interview proves that not all readers are dissatisfied with the movie adaptation of a book they enjoyed. It has proven that both can be enjoyable, despite any differences. Also, it says a lot about personal opinion, which also plays a large part in viewer feedback. Furthermore, J’s suggestion to “watch the movie first” proposes a new question: does seeing the movie first better the reading experience? Is it, in fact, high viewer expectations that cause bad feedback in book-to-movie productions? Does watching the movie first allow more openness to any plot divergences? Or does it depend completely on execution, despite the order of experience? I believe that I have determined that a good book has significant plot development that helps readers better understand the story, and a good movie entertains viewers while making the movie feel realistic and relatable.

Works Cited

Bolter, David Jay and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Graphic Comparison, Inc.1999 Print.

Data So Far--Checkpoint Info

Questions to address based off of my most recent draft:

Have I stayed on the same track as my original thesis?
What do I say when the data does not match my thesis?
Am I focusing too much on J's language?
Have I focused enough on the content of his answers?



Updated interview data:

(original information):


D: You read "Silver Linings Playbook" after you saw the movie? Which did you like better?

J: I buffered the movie online first, not expecting much but I loved it, so I got a copy of the book and I loved that too. You're not the first to ask which is better and I still can't choose one over the other. They're both so incredibly good for their own reasons. If you want good acting, good story, that is tightly paced and is a bit of a crowd pleaser, go with the movie. Cooper, Lawrence and Deniro are superb. If you want more, if you want to spend a year with these characters instead of a month, go with the book. Its more involved, lots of character development. You can see what the characters are thinking and why they do what they do. Not to mention there is far more development and time spent with the supporting characters as well. I tell everyone though, watch the movie first. Otherwise you'll probably spend the entire movie telling the person next to you "in the book he does this instead of this and they cut that out, and this character isn't in there at all," etc. Both are great though.

D: So what did you like about the movie version of Silver Linings Playbook?

J: Jenifer Lawrence. Just kidding-- I like its honest portrayal of mental disorders. It didn't try to trivialize or hide the fact these characters were flawed, if anything it made them more human and incredibly relate-able if only because we all have met people like these characters. It was also incredibly motivational and moving for a movie that could have been over the top melodrama.

Additional Information: 

D: Now did they explain why the father is so fidigety in the book?

J: Well he has OCD. And he's superstitious.

D: Is superstitious classified as a mental disorder?

J: It's a grey area. Some people accept it, some don't.

D: Okay, so how accurately did the movie portray the characters? Was that the only difference?

J: The father was really different in the book actually. He was very cold, he wouldn't even talk to pat (the main character). He didn't want anything to do with him, the exact opposite of how he is in the movie.

D: Do you like it better that way?

J: I like it this way, I think he plays a cool dad. I'd like to have him as a dad.

D: So was the whole movie different than the book?

J: Yeah. Like certain events happened in both, but the order of things is off. In the book, pat doesn't have a good sense of time. In the movie they say he's been away for 8 months, but the book says its actually been 4 years and he just thinks its been 8 months. and they try to tip-toe around that, like they don't want to tell him it's been 4 years. But I've noticed he's more relatable in the movie. In the book he gets lost in his head, and its just...ehhh.... annoying. But when I watch it I get what he's feeling and I feel bad for him. I sympathize with him.

D: So did they add things that didnt happen, or...?

J: I mean, there are some things happen in both the book and the movie, but the order is wrong.Like the dance isnt thr climax of the book. Like they make a big deal of it in the movie, but in the book it just sort of happens. Its a side plot. They switched the order of things in the movie.

Blog 27

Interviewee J talks about his experiences with reading a book in addition to watching the movie version of that book. In the discussion he talks specifically about the novel, and recent movie production, Silver Linings Playbook. J takes an interesting stance on this topic and states that he found both the movie and book enjoyable, despite their differences. I have found this to be of the unpopular opinion in regard to others who have both read the book and seen the movie.

J felt so positively towards the movie it inspired him to follow up with the book. This is atypical, as this study is done primarily on those who have read the book first. However, despite the unusual order, J does not share the unfriendly feelings many others do when he compares the two. J claims that, though the two mediums are so different, they are “both so incredibly good for their own reasons.” It is the differences, he says, that makes each version of the same story good in its own respect.

J mentions that he had initially low expectations for the movie before watching it, but was pleasantly surprised, describing the movie as having both “good acting” and a “good story.” He praises the movie for being an “honest portrayal” of the topics covered in the text, as opposed to being a movie that is full of “over the top melodrama.” The word “melodrama,” outside of this context, is used to refer to a play, and act or a farce, although it is not always used with negative connotations. In this context, however, J uses “melodrama” negatively, insinuating that if the movie were more melodramatic, it would be insincere to the topics being explored in the film—namely, mental disorders. This insincerity, or over focus on drama, translates into a misrepresentation of the book and a misrepresentation of real life, thus making the movie less relatable. In addition to being melodramatic, he says that the directors could have created a movie that was “over the top.” This is a phrase used in situations where there is too much of something, so much of it that it becomes overwhelming for audiences; “over the top” is generally used in a negative context. J uses “over the top” to suggest that the level of melodrama shown in the movie would be unrealistic to the level of melodrama that the audience, as regular people, might experience in their own lives. J says that the director “could have” done this, but ultimately did not. It is for this lack of over exaggeration that J believes the movie made a successful transformation from page to screen. J believes that Silver Linings Playbook still maintained enough elements of the original story as to not dilute it into something unrecognizable. It is interesting of J to say that the movie still manages to be successful, as many viewers dislike the fact that the plots of books are changed in order to fit into Hollywood’s formula for a ‘good movie.’ Plot changes would include generic tactics like re-writing an ending of a story.

J explicitly says that he finds the movie to be a success by describing it as “good” despite it being a “bit of a crowd pleaser.” This indicates that he feels the movie has taken on certain cinematic features that are commonly used in order to please audiences. Such cinematic features would include elements such as slightly playing-up dramatic situations (while still keeping the movie from becoming too “melodramatic”). J does not feel that the movie misrepresented the message of the book; he feels that Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Nero played the parts of their (respective) characters well and feels that the acting was genuine and accurately portrayed the struggles the characters in the novel go through. Silver Linings Playbook, J says, is a movie that takes real problems (mental disorders) and neither “trivializes” them nor turns them into “over the top melodrama.” Instead, J describes the characters as “flawed” which makes them more “human” and “relatable.”

When describing the perks of the book, J mentions “development.” Here he uses development to refer to both the characters and the storylines. His praise of both character and plot development reaffirms what many articles, as well as personal experience, suggests—readers enjoy books because of the additional details. J clams to have enjoyed the year-long development involved in the book, as opposed to the month-long development shown in the movie. He claims that the character development in particular is a great aspect of the book not completely captured in the movie. J mentions that, in the book, readers are given more insight to what characters are thinking and feeling, which helps readers better understand their motives, or “why they do what they do.” J extends this to include supporting characters as well. In many movies, supporting characters are neglected, and Silver Linings Playbook is no exception. While supporting characters were not completely ignored, there were certain characteristics about them that were never quite explained and, as a viewer of the movie I can tell you, I wish they had been. In his interview, J indicates that this extra knowledge, or character development, into the minds of both main and supporting characters greatly improves the overall quality of the book. As the book is “more involved” with the characters, it gives readers better perspective and understanding of them. This creates a more personalized feeling towards the story.

Additional terminology used by J that alludes to personalization includes when he says readers “spend a year” with the characters when reading the book. The use of “spend” is a particularly powerful verb here, as it indicates a more intimate relationship with the novel than just fictional character/nonfictional reader. ‘Spending’ time with the characters suggests that there is a momentary pause in the distinction between reality and imagination, as ‘spending time’ is traditionally used to describe human interactions. The use of “spend time,” here reasserts J’s description of the characters being “human” and “relatable.” Additionally, when J describes the characters as “human,” he says it is because we, as readers, all know someone who resembles the characters in some way. This furthers the personalization of the reading experience: these characters become ‘human’ to us as we associate what we’re reading to what’s familiar. J’s use of “human” and “relatable” are words that often appear in reasons why people like reading books, as discussed in The New York Times article “A Good Mystery: Why We Read,”  so it is interesting that J uses them in reference to the movie. This shows that the relation between book and movie was not lost in the translation from paper to screen.

However, not everything was translated perfectly from page to screen. While J expresses the essence of the book was captured well, he points out that there were some significant differences. Of these changes, character portrayal again plays a large role in J’s interview, as well as event placement.

There is a large difference in the way the movie portrays Pat Sr. (the main character’s father). In the movie, the father is shown as a caring, compassionate, and at times overbearing, parent. However in the book, J describes Pat’s father as actually “very cold” in the novel. In the movie, Pat Sr. is always seen making an effort to see his son, always asking him to sit down and watch football: Pat Sr. wants to spend time with Pat Jr. But in the book, it is revealed that Pat Sr. “didn’t want anything to do” with his son. He doesn’t talk to him, look at him or even acknowledge that his son is home, “the exact opposite of how he is in the movie.” This difference, however, does not dissatisfy J. In fact, he prefers the changes made to the book. J says that De Nero “plays a cool dad” and that he “would like to have him as a dad.” It is interesting that J finds the representation of a fictional character realistic enough to connect it to his own life. By not dismissing the character as fictional, it shows a successful transition from paper-based character to cinematic-based character. This again goes back to when J described the characters as “relatable” and “human.”

Additionally, J mentions some changes in the main character, Pat Jr., as well. J expresses more of a liking for Pat in the movie as well, saying that Cooper makes it easier to understand what is happening in Pat’s mind than it was in the book. He describes Pat’s thought process as “annoying” in the book. This is a contrast to when he is watching the movie and is able to “sympathize” with Pat, having a visual demonstration of Pat’s emotions. In this way, it is atypical for a reader to enjoy the movie more than the book. Also, he states that Pat has a better grasp on reality in the movie. This has to do with a plot change made by directors. J reveals that, while the movie states Pat has been in the hospital for only eight months, in the book it has “actually been for four years and he just thinks it’s been eight months.”

Furthermore, he states that events were moved around in the movie and that it does not accurately represent the chronological order of events in novel. He explains that while “some things happen in both the book and the movie…they switched the order of things.” But despite all this, he still claims that he “loved it.” But he makes it a point to say “watch the movie first. Otherwise you'll probably spend the entire movie telling the person next to you "in the book he does this instead of this and they cut that out, and this character isn't in there at all…both are great though."

This interview proves that not all readers are dissatisfied with the movie adaptation of a book they enjoyed. It has proven that both can be enjoyable, despite any differences. Also, it says a lot about personal opinion, which also plays a large part in viewer feedback. Furthermore, J’s suggestion to “watch the movie first” proposes a new question: does seeing the movie first better the reading experience? Is it, in fact, high viewer expectations that cause bad feedback in book-to-movie productions? Does watching the movie first allow more openness to any plot divergences? Or does it depend completely on execution, despite the order of experience?