Because the movie is alot different from the book, main characters has changed and also the ending.
2. 3
There was some images I saw from reading the book that I remember seeing in the movie, for example when they enter the one cart of the train where they have fresh tomato and other fruits.
At this point, we have read sections of the graphic novel Snowpiercer, and we've watched the film.
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.
During class, we have talked about arms and it's meaning. Almost everyone has sacrificed their arm expect for Curtis. Also Gilliam have talked about having both arms and how useful it is. Curtis has scares from wanting to cut his arm off but he never brought himself to do it. But in the end, he has sacrificed his arm to save Timmy. Wildford also talked about how Curtis has a destiny but he would never have thought that it was to destroy the train. He has tried to in a way brainwash Curtis and it did not work out.
I strongly agree with Yasminda, in order to fully understand whats going on in the book you need to have words that you can understand. The words should be used as a back up if the pictures aren't explaining the situation enough, or vice versa. But if the pictures in a book or novel are very explicit and clear then some readers can go a long way with just pictures.
I think the language does matter because in order to understand what the author is trying to get you to understand about the story, you need to understand the language which includes the dialogue and dialect. I believe we could understand this graphic novel in any language because we have the illustrations. We may not be able to understand it 100% but I believe we could determine what is happening for the most part. This book can be appealing to many cultures because it is relatable. This situation could happen to anyone regardless of where you are in the world.
In class, we discussed various aspects of the graphic novel, Snowpiercer #1: The Escape (written by Jacques Lob; Art by Jean-Marc Rochelle. Translated by Virginie Selavy).
We discussed matters of plot, character, setting and situation,
as well as how it works as a graphic novel.
We also discussed what Snowpiercer is really about. What are the larger issues at play?
Pick up on one of those questions we discussed in class, and develop your own thoughts more fully.
or--
Consider this:
Snowpiercer was originally written in French. It was called Le Transperceneige, by Jacques Lob and Jean-March Rochette. Here, in fact, is the above image in French:
Here is another scene, in German:
Notably, too, the film we will watch was made in Korea.
Does the language matter? Could we understand this graphic novel in any language? Why/why not?
What is it about the book that might make it appeal to many different cultures?
I think the director did a great job drawing the audience into the film...if you had not read the story. Having read the story, I kind of already understood what was going on with the photo and the dead guy. Looking at the opening pretending not to know what is going on, this is a great opening! I think creating the movie backwards was brilliant!
I have to agree with his analysis of the movie. I think that if you watched this movie multiple times, there wouldn't be much that you would have missed. The director did a good job drawing the audience into the movie but in my opinion it's not the type of movie I would watch multiple times. You can see that Lenny has a condition that makes it easy for him to be a target of manipulation and he is easily confused. He even begins to make his own story at the end of the movie by making "Teddy" the new "killer" of his wife that he must seek revenge on. He really could make this movie go on forever.
This scene shows that Lenny had real memories of his wife, however I think he was also confusing his real memories with distorted information given to him by Natalie and Teddy.
This was the pivotal moment in the movie where I really realized that everyone around Leonard was manipulating and taking advantage of him. In the beginning of the film, we are made to believe that Natalie is the victim and was seeking help from Leonard but we see here that Natalie is only using him. I believe she purposely hid the pens in the house so that Lenny couldn't write down what she was saying to him.
This breaks down Christoper Nolan's perspective on the characters and the distortion we view in the film. He starts off expressing that this is not only a story based on a freaky instance, but on a mental state that actual happens to a lot of people. He also touches upon how the actors felt playing the characters they did. He says it couldn't have been told chronologically, it would be a completely different story of a man being abused mentally by the people around him. It was better to deny the audience all of the information in order. By putting it in reverse we make him a hero. I agree with this, we see him trying to take control of his condition by making ways to remember. Overall, I thought this was an interesting video to why Christopher Nolan did everything the way he did.
Ending Scene:
I want to believe that Lenard isn't the killer, but after watching this a third time and now reading it. I am having second thoughts. I do believe that Lenny could be the killer because after seeing the way Teddy tries to tell Lenny the truth and he puts "Don't believe his lies" on Teddy's photograph. No sooner after he does that, he begins writing down Teddy's license plate number for a tattoo idea. Why? For what reason did he need to do that when he didn't even have enough information at that time to think it could be him. To top it off, Lenny burns the photos while he is in the car. Knowing that he wont remember he did that when he wakes up again. Not only does he tamper with his own evidence, he does it with his clues as well. As far as Sammie Jenkins is concerned, I do believe that there is a slight chance that Lenny could have had him as a client before his accident. But what are the odds of Lenny being diagnosed with the same condition as Sammie? I mean come on. I think that Lenny conjured up all of these other stories in order to hide what he has done. He tries to give himself purpose, but by tampering with his evidence and clues he only furthers himself from any real purpose in life,
Listen to the director comment on how he structured Memento. What new insights does it bring you about the art of film making? What insights does it give you about the relationship between the story and the film?
So, how do you interpret the ending of Memento? Who killed Leonard's wife? Is she dead? Why does he kill Teddy? Does he really have amnesia? Use evidence from throughout the movie to support your response.
In Rear
Window, the psychological activities of Jefferies in It Had to Be Murder is presented by various facial expressions and
body gestures, his conversations with Stella and Lisa, and especially the
selective long shot of his neighbors. The scenes of the ballet dancer, the
Miss. Lonelyheart and the newly married couples, are all apparently biased and
created sense of chaos and cynicism in this middle-class community. Then the
focus of the camera has shifted to the Thorwalds which is the main line of the
movie. In the novel, the stereotyped thoughts and imprudent judges of readers
are guided by the thoughts and judgement of Jefferies; however, in the movie,
the judges of audiences are directed by the swing of camera, the selective shoots
and editing.
Alfred Hitchcock has adapted It Had to be Murder to film Rear Window. In the movie, except the
setting and the plot were kept, Alfred changed the name of characters, added
new roles and story lines and established a new love story. In the original
script, the story is straight and clear, it happens continuously in an
inductive path; while in Alfred’s version, the story has more extents that
filled by the lives of other neighbors and Jefferies’ s observation has
expanded to the whole neighborhood. In both version, if at the end Jefferies
has found his prediction is stereotyped and conspiratorial and Mr. Thorwald is
innocent, the story will be an absurd.
