The main difference for me between the book and the movie is the emotions exuded. As I have said before, this was my first time reading the book, but I have watched the movie many times. There is something about the flow of the story, in the movie, that makes it much more emotional. When I talked to my roommate about this we came to two conclusions. The first is Corine's point of view. There are only two chapters in the book that focus on the family and how they felt. Hearing how the sister felt as the story progressed and seeing how it affected her as it happened, gave me a better understanding for the family. The second reason is the story itself. The book is written through Krakauer's eyes; he is constantly interjecting. You read the other adventures stories, about Krakauer's adventure, Alaskans idea of Chris, etc. But with the movie all you get is Chris. Plus the story is in order, so you don't know he dies until the end, and by that time you already have an emotional connection to him (or at least I did.) Reading the book it was way easier to understand that maybe he didn't make the brightest decisions, that he wasn't always prepared, that everyone didn't love him. Watching the movie I didn't get any of that but a feeling of envy for doing exactly what he wanted.
I felt that the movie was a poor portrayal of the story of Chris McCandless. One major difference that stood out to me was how they portrayed the parents. The book allowed the reader to interpret the relationship between Chris and his dad, but the movie made the father a true antagonist. Also, I didn't like the choice of character for the sister or the fact that she was the narrator. I feel that his journal should have narrated the events or that there should be no narrator, and the events should just take place. On the other hand, I did like the fact that there was no interjection from Krakauer, going on a tangent about himself. Also, the fact that the story is in order, and his death is at the end is a good adjustment for the big screen. Still, I perfer the book.
Into the Wild was both an appealing movie and book but I fell that they were different in many ways. The book's motive was to focus on the physiological components of the characters. The text was not just a story about Chris, but it was also a story about the attraction of the challenging, unpredictable wilderness. The book incorporated many different viewpoints that I felt gave the reader a broader understanding as to why Chris decided to leave his past lifestyle behind. I felt that the movie focused solely on Chris' story. The director presented the characters in the way he interpreted the story. For example, Chris' family was much more dramatic in the movie than they probably were in real life. The movie denied the reader the opportunity to daw their own conclusions about the reasons behind each character's actions. It presented the scenario without much debate. This denial of imagination is why I rarely like a movie more than the book. However, I did enjoy how the story was much smoother in the movie than the how it was in book. In the book, I felt that the separate stories of other adventures and Krakauer's opinions made the story very choppy and took away from the reader to personally connect with Chris.
Media is virtuous in the several ways it can portray a story, a thought, a meaning. Movies are often more effective on the public not just because the thought is more easy to access, but the colors, sound and movements together embody a potency to the human mind. Words can be extremely moving, but when you put visuals, music and personable characters to it, a person is likely to become more attached to the story. The book, Into the Wild had such empowering detail that held me in to the story and McCandless' mission. The novel quotes I felt were helpful to explain the intentions of McCandless. The entire story however felt like a detective report that lost the personable sense with the character that existed but we never met. The movie filled this gap on the heart-wrenching emotional level. Books are healthy for the imagination, but when one can actually see what Alaska looks like, one's perspective can be formulated to what the journey of McCandless really could have consisted of. Both the book and the movie had the intention to feed the public a powerful story, and by using multiple medias, the story could alter the spirits of a large population. Each person that connects to this story is able to relate to or appreciate it in a different way and can gather some type of token to shift a mode of thinking. I, personally, am astonished the more I read the book and the more times I watch the movie how much I am like McCandless in my motives and personality, but I am more shocked on how he moved beyond the boundaries of parents and emotional connection with humans to become one with himself and the wilderness. This, I believe, is one perspective that many are moved by, along with so many of his bold traits. The story as a whole gives the audience the freedom to translate the story into their lives, physically and/or mentally, and I believe this is a strengthening process.
For me, the movie was much better than the book. I am not a fan of Krakauers writing. I had to read some of his other books in high school and I never liked his dry writing style. The movie, as Aprille said, involves much more emotion. I like that because it really attaches the audience to Chris. We can relate even more to him and find that personal connection. We cry out for his innocent mother, and feel the pain of the loss of Chris. The movie lets the audience see who Chris was, and we can visualize his interactions with the people he encounters. We see him in action, and only Chris's story. The book skips around too much and brings in Krakauers personal accounts and thoughts too much as well. It really keeps Chris at a distance from the reader, and because of the lack of emotion, we almost don't feel obligated to show emotion toward the tragedy. In the book it's one of those tragedies that we hear about and forget, but the movie, that scene when Chris dies, it plays over in your head over and over again. The scenes and the messages Chris brought about in the movie lie etched in your memory forever, and that holds deeper meaning than the ones portrayed in the book. Not many times am I more impressed with the movie than the book, but this one definitely takes the cake.
For me, the movie was much better than the book. I am not a fan of Krakauers writing. I had to read some of his other books in high school and I never liked his dry writing style. The movie, as Aprille said, involves much more emotion. I like that because it really attaches the audience to Chris. We can relate even more to him and find that personal connection. We cry out for his innocent mother, and feel the pain of the loss of Chris. The movie lets the audience see who Chris was, and we can visualize his interactions with the people he encounters. We see him in action, and only Chris's story. The book skips around too much and brings in Krakauers personal accounts and thoughts too much as well. It really keeps Chris at a distance from the reader, and because of the lack of emotion, we almost don't feel obligated to show emotion toward the tragedy. In the book it's one of those tragedies that we hear about and forget, but the movie, that scene when Chris dies, it plays over in your head over and over again. The scenes and the messages Chris brought about in the movie lie etched in your memory forever, and that holds deeper meaning than the ones portrayed in the book. Not many times am I more impressed with the movie than the book, but this one definitely takes the cake.
6 comments:
The main difference for me between the book and the movie is the emotions exuded. As I have said before, this was my first time reading the book, but I have watched the movie many times. There is something about the flow of the story, in the movie, that makes it much more emotional. When I talked to my roommate about this we came to two conclusions. The first is Corine's point of view. There are only two chapters in the book that focus on the family and how they felt. Hearing how the sister felt as the story progressed and seeing how it affected her as it happened, gave me a better understanding for the family. The second reason is the story itself. The book is written through Krakauer's eyes; he is constantly interjecting. You read the other adventures stories, about Krakauer's adventure, Alaskans idea of Chris, etc. But with the movie all you get is Chris. Plus the story is in order, so you don't know he dies until the end, and by that time you already have an emotional connection to him (or at least I did.) Reading the book it was way easier to understand that maybe he didn't make the brightest decisions, that he wasn't always prepared, that everyone didn't love him. Watching the movie I didn't get any of that but a feeling of envy for doing exactly what he wanted.
I felt that the movie was a poor portrayal of the story of Chris McCandless. One major difference that stood out to me was how they portrayed the parents. The book allowed the reader to interpret the relationship between Chris and his dad, but the movie made the father a true antagonist. Also, I didn't like the choice of character for the sister or the fact that she was the narrator. I feel that his journal should have narrated the events or that there should be no narrator, and the events should just take place. On the other hand, I did like the fact that there was no interjection from Krakauer, going on a tangent about himself. Also, the fact that the story is in order, and his death is at the end is a good adjustment for the big screen. Still, I perfer the book.
Into the Wild was both an appealing movie and book but I fell that they were different in many ways. The book's motive was to focus on the physiological components of the characters. The text was not just a story about Chris, but it was also a story about the attraction of the challenging, unpredictable wilderness. The book incorporated many different viewpoints that I felt gave the reader a broader understanding as to why Chris decided to leave his past lifestyle behind.
I felt that the movie focused solely on Chris' story. The director presented the characters in the way he interpreted the story. For example, Chris' family was much more dramatic in the movie than they probably were in real life. The movie denied the reader the opportunity to daw their own conclusions about the reasons behind each character's actions. It presented the scenario without much debate. This denial of imagination is why I rarely like a movie more than the book. However, I did enjoy how the story was much smoother in the movie than the how it was in book. In the book, I felt that the separate stories of other adventures and Krakauer's opinions made the story very choppy and took away from the reader to personally connect with Chris.
Media is virtuous in the several ways it can portray a story, a thought, a meaning. Movies are often more effective on the public not just because the thought is more easy to access, but the colors, sound and movements together embody a potency to the human mind. Words can be extremely moving, but when you put visuals, music and personable characters to it, a person is likely to become more attached to the story. The book, Into the Wild had such empowering detail that held me in to the story and McCandless' mission. The novel quotes I felt were helpful to explain the intentions of McCandless. The entire story however felt like a detective report that lost the personable sense with the character that existed but we never met. The movie filled this gap on the heart-wrenching emotional level. Books are healthy for the imagination, but when one can actually see what Alaska looks like, one's perspective can be formulated to what the journey of McCandless really could have consisted of. Both the book and the movie had the intention to feed the public a powerful story, and by using multiple medias, the story could alter the spirits of a large population. Each person that connects to this story is able to relate to or appreciate it in a different way and can gather some type of token to shift a mode of thinking. I, personally, am astonished the more I read the book and the more times I watch the movie how much I am like McCandless in my motives and personality, but I am more shocked on how he moved beyond the boundaries of parents and emotional connection with humans to become one with himself and the wilderness. This, I believe, is one perspective that many are moved by, along with so many of his bold traits. The story as a whole gives the audience the freedom to translate the story into their lives, physically and/or mentally, and I believe this is a strengthening process.
For me, the movie was much better than the book. I am not a fan of Krakauers writing. I had to read some of his other books in high school and I never liked his dry writing style. The movie, as Aprille said, involves much more emotion. I like that because it really attaches the audience to Chris. We can relate even more to him and find that personal connection. We cry out for his innocent mother, and feel the pain of the loss of Chris. The movie lets the audience see who Chris was, and we can visualize his interactions with the people he encounters. We see him in action, and only Chris's story. The book skips around too much and brings in Krakauers personal accounts and thoughts too much as well. It really keeps Chris at a distance from the reader, and because of the lack of emotion, we almost don't feel obligated to show emotion toward the tragedy. In the book it's one of those tragedies that we hear about and forget, but the movie, that scene when Chris dies, it plays over in your head over and over again. The scenes and the messages Chris brought about in the movie lie etched in your memory forever, and that holds deeper meaning than the ones portrayed in the book. Not many times am I more impressed with the movie than the book, but this one definitely takes the cake.
For me, the movie was much better than the book. I am not a fan of Krakauers writing. I had to read some of his other books in high school and I never liked his dry writing style. The movie, as Aprille said, involves much more emotion. I like that because it really attaches the audience to Chris. We can relate even more to him and find that personal connection. We cry out for his innocent mother, and feel the pain of the loss of Chris. The movie lets the audience see who Chris was, and we can visualize his interactions with the people he encounters. We see him in action, and only Chris's story. The book skips around too much and brings in Krakauers personal accounts and thoughts too much as well. It really keeps Chris at a distance from the reader, and because of the lack of emotion, we almost don't feel obligated to show emotion toward the tragedy. In the book it's one of those tragedies that we hear about and forget, but the movie, that scene when Chris dies, it plays over in your head over and over again. The scenes and the messages Chris brought about in the movie lie etched in your memory forever, and that holds deeper meaning than the ones portrayed in the book. Not many times am I more impressed with the movie than the book, but this one definitely takes the cake.
Post a Comment