As an avid book reader, my response to “book or movie,” is always book. The book has free reign to take one where the author intended for one to go. A movie has no such ability. It is constrained by social obligations and media requirements. Often, the director of said movie is unable to dig into the details and moments the author has laid before one. This is additionally accurate for those telling a true story. Many vital parts of the story line are left out because the director saw them not important enough to make the cut in the allotted time. “12 years a slave,” was an intense book and while the movie did a decent job following its intensity, it lacked many moments told in his story and like all movies, some of the details were changed
…show more content…
While “The Giver,” is not a true story, it is an excellent example for this. The book, as many have read, is not like the movie. Or shall I say, the movie is not like the book. It was exaggerated to gain more interest, to make it more appealing on the big screen and to wrap it up in the time they are allowed to use for the film. If every book, that became a movie, was followed exactly in film as it did in writing, there would be multiple films for one story. It is not possible to find that amount of detail into a two-hour time slot. But the questions are, does this take away the integrity of the story? Do the drones of the film industry have the right to change art to fit our societal needs? As a people, “we” are not equipped to handle the raw truths behind stories like Solomon’s story. We want safe and non-offensive, not real. This accounts for many of the changes in movies. “We” as a society, just are not prepared anymore to face the hard truths, and run when confronted with them. While the movie does a decent job portraying the story, is it the story Solomon was intent on telling? In his book, he tells only of the slavery that he experienced. He does not claim to know for all slavery only his encounters (18). The movie portrays to account of all
While “The Giver,” is not a true story, it is an excellent example for this. The book, as many have read, is not like the movie. Or shall I say, the movie is not like the book. It was exaggerated to gain more interest, to make it more appealing on the big screen and to wrap it up in the time they are allowed to use for the film. If every book, that became a movie, was followed exactly in film as it did in writing, there would be multiple films for one story. It is not possible to find that amount of detail into a two-hour time slot. But the questions are, does this take away the integrity of the story? Do the drones of the film industry have the right to change art to fit our societal needs? As a people, “we” are not equipped to handle the raw truths behind stories like Solomon’s story. We want safe and non-offensive, not real. This accounts for many of the changes in movies. “We” as a society, just are not prepared anymore to face the hard truths, and run when confronted with them. While the movie does a decent job portraying the story, is it the story Solomon was intent on telling? In his book, he tells only of the slavery that he experienced. He does not claim to know for all slavery only his encounters (18). The movie portrays to account of all