Using the aesthetic rubric from our text (please read Chapter 4), assess how well Bong Joon-ho (the director) "translated" the graphic novel into a film. The Aesthetic Rubric includes these four following terms of assessment:
"1. The film must communicate definite ideas concerning the integral meaning and value of the literary text, as the filmmakers interpret it.
"2. The film must exhibit a collaboration of filmmaking skills (the details of which are provided in Chapter II [editing, montage, continuity, camera angles, shots, movement])
"3. The film must demonstrate an audacity to create a work that stands as a world apart, that exploits the literature in such a way that a self-reliant, but related, offspring is born.
"4. The film cannot be so self-governing as to be completely independent of or antithetical to the source material. " (Cahir, Linda. Literature into Film, page 99)
Using a 0-4 point rubric, with 4 being the highest score, assess the film in each area. Then please explain why you assessed it as you did. What you say here will help with Thursday's discussion, so please be clear and thoughtful.
1.) I do think that the film had integral meaning behind it because the filmmaker was able to take a graphic novel and turn it into film. Though the graphic novel literally paints a picture, the film puts the pictures in motion.
ReplyDeleteRate: 3
2.) The director used a lot of sound and lighting skills. Dark representing the back half the train (the poor) and light representing the front of the train (the rich, privileged to see the outside world.)
Rate: 3
3.) I think that this film can stand alone on its own because of the specific qualities that the director threw into the movie. Like the drugs for instance. They were pretty pointless until they were needed to blow open the side of the train. That was the filmmakers way of adding a little creativity to this story. And the cannibalism. It made their situation on the train more dramatic, more dire circumstances than in the graphic novel. Eat or be eaten. And with the whole "preordained positions." That gave another creative and realistic view on how a society would actually be governed in that situation and the lengths they would go to in order to keep these people in check. They play god in this movie, by creating chaos which is shortly followed by death.
Rate: 4
4.) Rate: 2
Some interesting points, Kortni! Try writing a tad more, though--it can help you practice for the paper. You're a stern critic, and I'd love to see more about how you form your conclusions.
DeleteI give the film a rate of 3, according to the rubric. The filmmakers took the graphic novel and interpreted their own meaning--which i saw in the film as the continuous references to the bible, and the several liberties they added. The film's shots, angles, camera movement, etc. was a combination of closeups and long shots, etc. I didn't see any creative montage, and the editing seemed average according to modern movies. However, i do feel that the film can stand on it's own. It communicated the main idea of the novel, while adding liberties, and can easily be watched without reading the graphic novel. It is related, and should be viewed as a supplement, as a way to see how a graphic novel is turned into a movie, but this movie was not a literal translation. Even though the film can stand on it's own, that does not mean it is completely apart from the graphic novel. They are still very much related. Overall, I give it a 3 and view it as a traditional translation.
ReplyDeleteOkay, that's fair! A very succinct but clear assessment; you're using the rubric pretty well!
Deletefor this film I would have rate it a 3. comparing the film and the graphic novel the filmmakers took the graphic novel and made it into their own. The noticed in this film that they were not really creative with the editing compared to movies nowadays. The movie was okay it got the main points across with of course added substance.
ReplyDeleteHuh. I wonder if you could say something more about what makes a film creative, and why you say this less creative? You've got a strong opinion there, and I'd love to see where it comes from.
DeleteI would rate this film with a 3! The novel is different because it is nontraditional. BUT even though it is different than what most are used to reading, the plot stays the same. The movie depicts the plot in a more graphic way than the novel! It was not completely literal but I believe the director did a great job, they made me more of a fan than I was originally reading the graphic novel.
ReplyDeleteLike your colleagues, Alyssa, you have some pretty strong opinions. Say a little more about how you formed them. I'm sure you have good reasons!
Delete1 I will give the rate of 3. Admittedly, the film shows us the bloody fighting and conflict between the lower class and the upper class, which is the same theme shown in the graphic novel. But in the graphic novel, the author emphasizes the environmental disaster, which is the reason why people would fight against each other.
ReplyDelete2 I will give the rate of 4. The film displays the theme thoroughly via a lot of collaboration of filmmaking skills. The director uses a lot of short shot of people faces when they fight against each other. It is seen the great anger and determination to rebel on their faces, which implies the great conflict between the two different class. Besides, the director uses long and full shot to show the terrible environment that the lower class lives in.
3 I will give rate of 4. The film uses the different color to show the different class. The dim and black color represents the lower class, implying life with desperation and no light. The bright and colorful color stands for the upper class, which shows the life for the upper class is filled with hope and bright future. The use of color is self-reliant part in the movie, for the graphic novel is just black and white without colorful color. But it is still related for the application of color also shows the theme of class difference in graphic novel.
4 I will give the rate of 4. Admittedly, in the film, it is seen many from many different countries including Asian, European and American. People of yellow, white and black skin color are all seen in the film, which is seen as the difference between the film and the graphic novel. The different skin color people represents that the class difference is a worldwide problem, which is the theme in the graphic novel. Besides, in the novel, author wants to say that the train is like a microcosm of our world. People with different skin color are all in the train makes the train more like a microcosm of our world even though we can not see the that author depicts people with different color in his novel.
Great comments, Nicole, and I particularly like your response to #4. Yes, he does turn the train into a mini, multicultural world, thereby showing the universality of human problems. And that makes the film a distinctly different work, though it relies heavily on the graphic novel for inspiration.
DeleteOverall the fil is quite exquisite and I would rate as a 3 for the majority of it qualifying towards the aesthetic rubric and how each aspect of the movie lines up with another perspective and take. The author shows different takes on the novel versus the film but still reaches the full potential of the meaning and criteria of what he is trying to explain and make a point of.
ReplyDeleteLet's talk a bit Rylee. Not quite sure what you mean here! Would love more details.
Delete1. I want to give 3. Because he used the main theme “snow train” and “the man” who wants to go to the head part of train and wants renovation. However, he changed the final scene and add a lot of important points.
ReplyDelete2. In this section, i want to give him 4. He used a lot of filmmaking skills. Those skills are really nice. Close-up for the characters’ face, long shots for train or snow and full shots for train sections.
3, 4. I want to give 4. I think this movie absolutely can be self-reliant and self-governing because the movie has a lot of creative and important meaning by movie itself. For example, each section of train shows the class of people. Also, the note in the protein bar is the symbol of the 4 integral thing of human being.
Oh! You're right: earth, water, air, fire (?) Nice comments, . . . more on cinematic techniques
DeleteThe movie's plot is about having some authority that allows you to socially impose ideology. Everyone at the back of the train has been living in in squalor for the last seventeen years, so the planned to revolt to get themselves to the front of the train. The leader was called Curtis. They knew doing this was a very huge risk and they lose their lives by taking this action.
ReplyDelete