“Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary competencies that daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the deserts that our lives have already become.”
― C.S. Lewis
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Friday, December 7, 2012
Stephen King's "Carrie"
Most of us went to high school and most of us know what an awkward period that can be. Not feeling pretty enough, tall enough or smart enough. Not fitting in with the “right crowd” at some point. Stephen King’s character “Carrie” had never fit in, she was the ultimate misfit.
Carrie White was a shy, quite 17 year old who lived in Westover, Maine. Both her parents were very religious. Her father was killed in a construction accident before she was born. That left her alone with her mother, who felt her daughter was a product of pure sin. She and Carrie lived a very simple life in their home and conducting home churches at least 3 times a week for several hours at a time.
Spare the rod and spoil the child was the philosophy of the house. Due to the strict religious code, Carrie did not behave as a normal teenager would of the time. The story begins with Carrie showering in Gym Class at the high school. This was an act her mother would disapprove of as showering was viewed as sinful, especially with other people. As she leaves the shower, blood begins to drip down her leg. Not an unusual occurrence for a typical teenager if it had been her first period. Carrie has never been told of menstruation and becomes instantly hysterical. The other girls tease her by calling her names and throwing tampons at her while she stood wet and naked in the shower. The gym teacher intervened, the taunting girls are punished with detention in the gym or no Prom and Carrie is sent home for the day to recover.
The day in the shower was unfortunately no different than most days. Ever since she started school, Carrie was teased and the butt of jokes. She never had one friend throughout her years in school. She wasn’t unattractive or unintelligent. She was just different and in the clicks of youth, just different won’t do.
Carrie had begun to notice in times of emotion stress, such as the shower incident, things would happen. A light busted after in the showers while the gym teacher tried to comfort her. A little boy on a bike was making fun of her on her way home and his tires popped. And there was the incident when she three years old…where stones fell from the heavens on only the home she lived in. It seemed stronger after she began her monthly cycle. She worked in secret in her bedroom to strengthen this ability.
Life seemed to get a little better when Carrie was invited to the Prom by one of her schoolmates. It all seemed too perfect, a wonderful date, a beautiful dress she made, and it would have been an unbelievable night if not for a girl in her class, Christine. She had been one of the girls who had teased Carrie in the shower and had never attended her detention. So she was unable to attend the Prom and blamed Carrie for it. She and some followers planned a horrible prank to play on Carrie. That prank would bring out the worst in Carrie White and cause destruction in the little town of Westover, Maine.
The book shows Carrie as the true victim of the story. The never ending teases and taunts from fellow classmates and teachers who didn’t care. A mother who was obsessed with religion and felt her daughter was an abomination. All she wanted was love and friendship but in the end all she could she caused was hate and fear. It also asks the question “If Carrie had a different childhood, with love, caring, and friendship, would her powers have come out?” This review was not mine but if you want to read more, please check out www.king-stephen.com
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Adaptation
Many books have turned into major films, this is called and Adaptation and I often hear “OH the book was way better than the movie!” Books are things that take time and imagination, not only to write but to read as well. So of course the book is better because you yourself put your own point of view into the story making it a much engaging piece of work.
However I have read some amazing books that just do not translate onto the silver screen well at all. A few examples of these books are “The Lightning Thief” by Rick Riordan and “Carrie” by Stephen King. These reasons are as follows; “The Lightning Thief” is written from the point of view of a 12 year old boy, the boy in the first film is almost seventeen…WOW. They really did an awful job of following the story line to any degree accuracy at all. Annabeth in the books is a blond, in the film she is a brunette, Grover is white in the books and just has a limb and weak legs (no mention of crutches), in the movie he is a black guy with crutches and is a total douche bag “player”. WHAT?!? In the books Grover is so shy and frightened all the time, hes described as having a bad case of acne and the jitters almost all the time. Also they took out several one of the main characters, Dionysus, Clarisse, The Stoll Brothers, The Fates, And Ares (there are even more). Not to mention the thing with the pearls being so wrong. Not only did the screen writers take out a few main characters and events they also completely changed the story line! (I’m not gonna go into even more of a rant here but if you want to see more(not all)of the amazing things that happened in the book that were not included in the movie click here) Honestly though I could not believe how many main characters that are vitally important to the story line were removed for this piece of crap they called a movie.
Carrie was a good movie and an even better book, the reasons I don’t think it translated very well though to the silver screen are somewhat minor. Considering the time frame in which the movie was produced I understand some of these things not being done, and other things I understand because they just only work for a book. The way “Carrie” is written makes it a challenge to adapt because a lot of the story is exerts from medical books and things like that, things that must be read and not filmed. There are mention of text books and news paper clippings that are thrown into the story every now and then to tell you more about what Carrie might have gone through, things like this are just difficult to explain, let alone turn into a movie. Other things that were different were the ending scene and the description of Carrie’s mother. In the book her mother is fat and in the film she is skinny, it is a small difference but one worth noting. ( BTW I’m talking about the 1976 version of the movie). The ending scene in the book Sue find Carrie and they have a short telepathic link with each other, but in the movie Carrie is stabbed by her mother while the house burns to the ground and she hides in the closet. All of these things were differences that did not have much of an impact on the film, but in general the film was just well done and well directed. At least when they rewrote things they rewrote them well, unlike “The Lightning Thief”. Carrie was a better movie than it was a book, but it was not as bad as “The Lightning Theif”.
I think adaptations can be great if the screen writers follow the story and try not to change the plot too much, and if they do change it, make it small, and make it work well with the rest of the story. For example, “Harry Potter” is excellently adapted for the silver screen. These were just my thought on how adaptions work, but please feel free to comment and let me know what you think, I would love to hear your thoughts.
However I have read some amazing books that just do not translate onto the silver screen well at all. A few examples of these books are “The Lightning Thief” by Rick Riordan and “Carrie” by Stephen King. These reasons are as follows; “The Lightning Thief” is written from the point of view of a 12 year old boy, the boy in the first film is almost seventeen…WOW. They really did an awful job of following the story line to any degree accuracy at all. Annabeth in the books is a blond, in the film she is a brunette, Grover is white in the books and just has a limb and weak legs (no mention of crutches), in the movie he is a black guy with crutches and is a total douche bag “player”. WHAT?!? In the books Grover is so shy and frightened all the time, hes described as having a bad case of acne and the jitters almost all the time. Also they took out several one of the main characters, Dionysus, Clarisse, The Stoll Brothers, The Fates, And Ares (there are even more). Not to mention the thing with the pearls being so wrong. Not only did the screen writers take out a few main characters and events they also completely changed the story line! (I’m not gonna go into even more of a rant here but if you want to see more(not all)of the amazing things that happened in the book that were not included in the movie click here) Honestly though I could not believe how many main characters that are vitally important to the story line were removed for this piece of crap they called a movie.
Carrie was a good movie and an even better book, the reasons I don’t think it translated very well though to the silver screen are somewhat minor. Considering the time frame in which the movie was produced I understand some of these things not being done, and other things I understand because they just only work for a book. The way “Carrie” is written makes it a challenge to adapt because a lot of the story is exerts from medical books and things like that, things that must be read and not filmed. There are mention of text books and news paper clippings that are thrown into the story every now and then to tell you more about what Carrie might have gone through, things like this are just difficult to explain, let alone turn into a movie. Other things that were different were the ending scene and the description of Carrie’s mother. In the book her mother is fat and in the film she is skinny, it is a small difference but one worth noting. ( BTW I’m talking about the 1976 version of the movie). The ending scene in the book Sue find Carrie and they have a short telepathic link with each other, but in the movie Carrie is stabbed by her mother while the house burns to the ground and she hides in the closet. All of these things were differences that did not have much of an impact on the film, but in general the film was just well done and well directed. At least when they rewrote things they rewrote them well, unlike “The Lightning Thief”. Carrie was a better movie than it was a book, but it was not as bad as “The Lightning Theif”.
I think adaptations can be great if the screen writers follow the story and try not to change the plot too much, and if they do change it, make it small, and make it work well with the rest of the story. For example, “Harry Potter” is excellently adapted for the silver screen. These were just my thought on how adaptions work, but please feel free to comment and let me know what you think, I would love to hear your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)