Movies Are Not Always Worse Than The Book!

This blog entry serves the purpose of countering the common argument that the movie is always better than the book. Yes, in many to most cases, the book far surpasses the movie, but it is not always the case. 

Over the summer, as part of my AP Literature assignment, I chose to read the book Flags of Our Fathers by James Bradley. Having seen the movie several years ago I already knew the gist of the plot. I truly enjoyed the novel. James Bradley exhibited a true talent at creating three-dimensional characters and bringing a non-fiction story to life. The novel is centered on and around the Battle of Iwo Jima and the six men who raised the symbolic flag atop Mount Suribachi. One of those men, John "Doc" Bradley is in fact James Bradley's father. Despite never being told of his father's heroism until after his death, James Bradley was able to research, uncover, document, and publish the horrific battle and the tragic story of the men who fought it. His talent as a writer also showed through his ability to create a bond between the audience and the characters. When John Bradley gave a speech at an impromptu press conference concerning his actions on Iwo Jima, I was there, in the audience. 

Having been so moved by the book, I decided that it would be worth re-watching the movie, hoping that it would not be a disappointment in comparison to the novel. It most certainly was not. 

At age 76, Clint Eastwood remains a legendarily talented filmmaker, and Flags of Our Fathers is perhaps arguably one of his best films. Through skilled directing and an even higher level of acting, nearly every scrap of emotion felt when reading the novel is retransmitted in the film. While at first, I was expecting a “gung-ho” movie full of only gore and violence. Adam Beach’s emotional performance as Ira Hayes instilled the movie with emotion and sympathy. Many movies often lose the theme(s) the original novel was based on; this was not the case with Flags of Our Fathers. James Bradley’s theme of the conflict between earned and manufactured heroism is fully retained and perhaps intensified in the motion picture.

The movie’s biggest flaw is its lack of organization. Clint Eastwood attempted to be original by dividing the movie into three sections: the military training, the actual battle, and the war bond drive that followed. Scenes from each section are intermittently played, mostly through the use of “flashbacks.” This, however, mattered little to me since I had read the novel prior. I, therefore, had no issues keeping track of the storyline as it unfolded on the screen. What bothered me more was the shortening of the story. Like it is the case with most movies, to be able to fit the entire story within the time frame of a movie, many scenes had to be discarded. The men’s military training was considerably shortened in the movie, which I believe was a mistake. In the novel, it is during the training phase that I, as the reader, learned most about each character’s personalities. By discarding this section of the novel, Eastwood lost events that would have made the movie deeper and more three-dimensional. In retrospect, I would not go as far as to say the movie was better than the novel, but it was certainly not worse either. It is, however, necessary for the audience to read the novel first to get a better understanding of the film.

Harry Potter: Literary or Commercial Fiction

Through this blog entry, I would like to address a topic that was briefly discussed in class today. An argument arose over whether or not the Harry Potter series can be considered a literary work deserving of merit. The seven-novel series has often been referred to as a money making machine and a huge cliché that dumbs down our culture. My opinion is that while Rowling’s work is not nearly deserving of as high of a distinction as novels such as Frankenstein, it should not be dismissed as worthless. A key issue that many critics have with the Potter series is the “workman-like” prose used by Rowling. One may find that the prose used in all seven novels has no particular style or “pizzazz.” Everything is simple and to the point. While this may be desired in a phone book or encyclopedia, my belief is that a true literary work should have a discernable writing style that makes it worth remembering. Many sentences in each chapter feel like filler sentences that were just added to lengthen the novel. Something that critics sometimes commend about the Potter series, however, is the structure used by Rowling (in the first three books at least). The plots seem to be well constructed and while trained readers may in part be able to foresee these events, constant twists and shifts keep the plot lively and suspenseful. This, in my opinion, ends with The Goblet of Fire, after which the plots appear oversimplified, bland, and only designed for suspense and commercial success. However, Rowling can be praised for being able to evolve the plot the way she did. As the series progress, readers may notice that the plots seem to be getting darker and darker. They stray away from the simple fantasy mystery structure of the first three books to a grittier plot centered on the central conflict of what may be considered the second trilogy (books 5-7). The “odd one out” is The Goblet of Fire, which seems to serve the purpose of transitioning from the simple fantasy plots to the darker, more serious, latter novels. Rowling’s biggest talent as a writer is her ability to build entertaining, three-dimensional characters. Each character has an immense family tree that sometimes almost becomes hard to remember as the reader progresses in the series. In addition, every character has his/her own personality that is carefully maintained through each novel.

Perhaps the biggest factor that may or may not disqualify Harry Potter as a work worthy of literary merit is the lack of a clear theme. While a theme is not formally required, it is what often discerns literary fiction from everyday commercial fiction. A possible theme present in the series is man’s struggle against death. Many, if not all, key events revolve around the concept of mortality from the moment Potter is born (his parents’ death/his survival) until Harry ‘s resurrection and Voldemort’s death in the seventh novel. It is likely that we will never know if J.K. Rowling purposely included these revelations about man’s constant struggle against death, or whether it simply created a more suspenseful and dramatic plot that would sell more copies. What is certain is that the series possesses a strong entertainment value. What remains to be (hotly) debated is whether it is worthy of going down in history as a work of literary merit.

Is Victor's Creation Good or Evil?

As part of our in class seminar this week, an argument that arose was whether the creature was good or evil, despite killing Victor’s loved ones. Those who argued that we can sympathize with the creature mainly argued that the murders were simply an eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth. They argued that the creature is good by nature, but that his environment and upbringing led him to violence and that therefore, he cannot be blamed for the crimes. The main quote that supports this position is “I was benevolent and good; misery made me a fiend.” (Shelley 89). What needs to be taken into account, however, is that the quote is said by the creature, and therefore subject to bias. When the creature was observing the De Lacey family, he unintentionally based his emotions upon theirs. “When they were unhappy, I felt depressed; when they rejoiced, I sympathized in their joys.” (Shelley 101). It may therefore be argued that the reason he helped them in their daily tasks was to make them happy, which in turn would make him happy, instead of doing so simply because he was “benevolent and good” by nature. We therefore cannot know with certainty whether he was good by nature or not. What we do know is that he committed acts that would classify him as evil. No matter how miserable and alone the creature felt, he still had the freedom to choose, and he chose murder. In fact, it even seemed as if the creature enjoyed killing. “I gazed on my victim, and my heart swelled with exultation and hellish triumph” (Shelley 127). There are no circumstances under which murder is warranted. Outcasts in our society today that some may argue have every reason to commit crimes have to suffer the consequences, so why shouldn’t the creature?  These facts lead me to believe that the monster is in fact evil.

A thoughtful point that was brought up during the discussion is that since the creature is not accepted into society, he should not have to abide by the rules of society. While abstractly that is a valid point, it does not answer the question. We were debating whether the creature was evil or good. Someone’s status as good or evil is not determined by how well he/she follows the rules of society, but rather morally. From a moral standpoint, murdering (directly or indirectly) William, Justine, Clerval, Mr. Frankenstein, and Elizabeth is plainly evil regardless of the rules of society. Another argument can be made that what is morally right depends on societal norms and that, since the creature does not belong in society, he does not have to abide by that society’s moral standards. From the novel, however, we have learned that the creature thinks rationally and exhibits the same mental capacities as humans. Therefore, if the creature thinks like a human being, he should be held by the same moral standards.

I believe that despite the several passages that make the audience want to sympathize with the creature, he is not good. While it is possible and reasonable to argue that the creature lies in the “grey” area, for the reasons stated above I believe that the creature can be regarded as evil (based on his actions).