The Comparisons Betiween Movies and Books

I want to start out by saying that I believe that it is pointless to try to compare two different forms of media that are based on one another, especially books to movies. Lets face it 9 times out of 10 the book is better than the movie ( the other 1 out of 10 being “how the Grinch Stole Christmas”) because books have one huge advantage over movies that every author uses though most of them don’t realize it. You can put down a book and come back to it later, this lets writers expand the story far more than a movie can, allowing them to insert subplots and further explain the situation that each character faces. A movie on the other hand is made to be completed in one sitting. This means that moviemakers have to keep the audience entertained for the entire movie. This gives a limit of time constraint since, no matter how good the movie is people get bored doing nothing for eight hours. A perfect example of this would be the last movie in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. This was a great movie however towards the end I actually became really annoyed at all of the possible ending spots (I counted 4). So movie makers tend to cut many of the subplots from the book in order to cut back on the time that the viewers spend doing nothing. This is actually quite tragic since some of the subplots and subtle actions are what inevitably make the book great. Because of this I really hate to cross reference a book to its movie counterpart since all that really comes out of it is a list of everything that the movie cut out of the book in order to save on time. However there is one thing about the movie version of Jayne Eyre that I feel that I would like to comment on. That is the way Rochester looks.

Rochester to me just looks way too hot to really express an underlying feeling that the story presented. That was the feeling was that this type of love could happen to anyone. Now don’t get me wrong this guy was far from being Fabio however he just gave the vibe (at least to me) of being a cut above the rest. Replacing this actor with another would not change the film length at all and it would give the aforementioned feeling to all of the moviegoers. Personally I feel that Jack Nickelson would make a much better Rochester. He’s short, has an older looking face which would add to the illusion of Rochester being so much older than Jayne. He also has a lot of practice doing individual roles that combine to make Rochester. He has played a rich man who learns how to not look down on others and he has played the lover of a much younger female counterpart. If he can fake a British accent then he’s perfect.

Till next time.

Will Pugh

The Human Named Crusoe

The reason that the idea of Robinson Crusoe learning anything or changing over the course of the book is so fiercely debated is actually quite simple. Daniel Defoe first pitched this book as a true story, in order to do this he would have to give Robinson Crusoe very detailed human Characteristics, including the characteristic of a “fleeting heart”. To put it simply the reason for this debate was because Robinson Crusoe had his “good days” and “bad days”. To help prove my point rather than giving exact quotes form the book I think that it would be better if I made somewhat of a flowchart to show what I believe to be his progression throughout the story.

At the beginning of the story Robinson is a bit of a brat. He decides that all he wants to do in life is go out to sea to seek his fortune there. This in and of itself is not that bad of a thing to do. However he decides to set out on this journey against his parent’s wishes and without telling them, even though they had lost another son to the sea, worrying them to death.

Later on in the book Crusoe really has not changed much if anything he has changed for the worse. After he was captured and forced into slavery he escapes by backstabbing the man who helped him get out of there. He then finds himself with a dilemma. A little boy named Xury is tagging along with him during his escape. What was Crusoe’s dilemma? “Should I kill the kid or make him work for me?” thankfully he decides to spare the kid but after a few years he sells Xury back into slavery.

Now we fast forward to the time where Crusoe has had some time to himself on a deserted island. He’s conquered a deadly illness and in the process has taken god into his life. Recently he has also been living in fear from some cannibals from a neighboring island. It is here when his biggest change is actually shown that is when he actually confronts several of the cannibals and saves one who is about to be eaten. This shows that he has changed for the better since it can be assumed that the old Crusoe, who had backstabbed people in the back to escape from slavery when it really wasn’t needed, would not have stuck his neck out for a man he did not even know and he considered to be a savage. However this is a very fleeting good deed, since Crusoe turns right around and gives that cannibal a new name Friday and tells Friday to call him “Master.”

Now here is where the biggest change in his personality is seen. After several more years Crusoe finds a way off the island but in order to get off the island he needs to defeat a mutinous crew. He defeats the crew and then actually lets them stay on the island where the law was to take them back to England so that they would be executed for their crimes. So in essence Crusoe has now broken the law in order to spare the people that were his enemy’s just moments before. This shows the most dramatic change in the character so far. After he returns home he finds that he has become quite rich so what does Crusoe do with all the money? He gives most of it away! This is concrete proof that Crusoe is now a changed man.

TTFN (Ta Ta For Now)

Will Pugh

Taboo birds of the sea

While reading "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" I noticed that there were some questions on why the Mariner was being punished so for killing the albatross. I decided to clear some of the confusion on this area. First off, to sailors there are two birds which are considered to be the greatest good luck. They are the dove and the albatross. It is easy enough to see why both of these birds are seen as good luck to sailors. The dove is seen as good luck thanks to the supernatural nature of the sailors and the fact that it was a dove that brought Noah the olive branch that signaled land after god's seven day flood. This symbol within the bible would obviously lead sailors to assume that the dove is a symbol of good fortune since the greatest fortune for a sailor was arriving at the island they were sailing to. The albatross became famous for virtually the same reason except this story’s origins have more of a scientific background. The albatross is a sea bird meaning that it is naturally able to fly much further out to sea than many other types of birds. Birds are able to fly across the sea but most bird only do this during a migration season while the albatross can be found out at sea all year long. Also while it is able to fly fairly far out to sea it has somewhat of a natural boundary from an island or land mass. Because of this the albatross was the first bird that sailors saw and land was soon after a sighting of this bird. It is from these backgrounds that the myths about the dove and albatross were born. The myths state that while the birds remained free and unharmed a fair and plentiful land will always await those who follow it. However those foolish enough to endanger either of these birds would be met with the full ferocity of the sea. Obviously we saw how ferocious the sea can be when the Mariner killed the albatross.