Flowers for Algernon
When creating a book or a movie, there are different decisions screenwriters and novelists have to make in order to convey the story well. We see this in action in the story Flowers For Algernon because it was mad into a movie. Let’s discuss the differences between these two very different things.
The first difference that I noticed was in the movie, the screenwriters had to configure the fact that charlie was really dumb into the screenplay so it could convey like it did in book. To do this, the screen writers affected Charlies speech. For example, they did this when they made him say “Gen-as” instead of genius. The novelist conyed Charlies dumbness by affecting his spelling and grammar. You really see this in action on the very first page of the story,””(). This is a really big difference and to sum it up, the screen writers had to figure out how to convey a persos IQ by there image and personality and novelists just have to describe them in the story. …show more content…
This is shown at the end of the movie when Charlie is talking to Ms. Kinnian, the sky is peaceful and there is a gentle wind, it also shows them in a nice little park. All of these things help the viewer better understand what is happening. Novelists on the other hand dont use imagery to help them convey the story better. They use adjectives to better help describe the place the characters are in and what the type of mood it is. For example a writer might say it was a rainy day to help say that something sad was going to happen. In the book Flowers for Algernon the writer really shows this on page when it says””. To sum up this difference the screen writers have to incorprate scenery and imagery while the novelists did not have to as
When creating a book or a movie, there are different decisions screenwriters and novelists have to make in order to convey the story well. We see this in action in the story Flowers For Algernon because it was mad into a movie. Let’s discuss the differences between these two very different things.
The first difference that I noticed was in the movie, the screenwriters had to configure the fact that charlie was really dumb into the screenplay so it could convey like it did in book. To do this, the screen writers affected Charlies speech. For example, they did this when they made him say “Gen-as” instead of genius. The novelist conyed Charlies dumbness by affecting his spelling and grammar. You really see this in action on the very first page of the story,””(). This is a really big difference and to sum it up, the screen writers had to figure out how to convey a persos IQ by there image and personality and novelists just have to describe them in the story. …show more content…
This is shown at the end of the movie when Charlie is talking to Ms. Kinnian, the sky is peaceful and there is a gentle wind, it also shows them in a nice little park. All of these things help the viewer better understand what is happening. Novelists on the other hand dont use imagery to help them convey the story better. They use adjectives to better help describe the place the characters are in and what the type of mood it is. For example a writer might say it was a rainy day to help say that something sad was going to happen. In the book Flowers for Algernon the writer really shows this on page when it says””. To sum up this difference the screen writers have to incorprate scenery and imagery while the novelists did not have to as