Inkheart

Ever since I watched the movie Inkheart, I became obsessed with it and saved all my money just to buy the first two installments of the Cornelia Funke's trilogy. I just finished reading it and re-watched the film. By doing so, I managed to observe numerous differences between the two.

Honestly, I always feel sleepy every time I read the novel. I don't know why but maybe because of the style of writing and the theme of the novel. Inkheart is like a typical classic children book with all the fantasies the writer could imagine included. The fairies, the henchmen, the fireraisers, the magical creatures and the cruel villains. The style of writing is somewhat like in the Narnia chronicles and Lord of the Rings saga, however Funke's was toned down and quite modern already. 

Between the two, I must say that despite the wonderful changes for cinematic purposes, I would prefer the novel. It was more complete, full, the characters' personality were more defined and developed, also it gives you more freedom to visualize or imagine Inkworld and Capricorn's village. In the novel, it was not clear where they are (just possibly somewhere in Europe) but the houses, the villages, the plazas were vividly described. Capricorn's village was like no other with its brick roads and houses, dungeons and stables and the magnanimous church turned castle. On the contrary, the movie clearly puts the story in Italy. Though they captured the places quite enough, there are still differences that I think they should not have done.

First, Capricorn's church was literally a Church. It's just that the cathedral's pews were removed and replaced with tables, and the dais was made with a throne instead of an altar. The movie on the contrary created a palace for him. Though the details and designs was quite similar, the redness of the Church that defines Capricorn was not included. I believe that it was essential because the theme of colors was essential in the book. For example, red signifies Capricorn's anger and cruelty. His "heart that was black as an ink" was shown in his attires and his men's attires. Meggie's white dress in the end of the story signifies her innocence and sacrifice. It also makes a contrast between white and black. light and dark. good and evil. The magnanimity of the Church was definitely disregarded also which I believe signifies his greed and lust for power.

Second, Elinor's mansion does not only have a library full of rare books. The mansion itself was rather filled with books---the walls, the living rooms, bedrooms, libraries. This hunger of Elinor for learning, knowledge and wisdom, her wide collection of rare, leatherbound, first edition books of the past centuries, were quite toned down in the movie. This does not only fall to Elinor but to all other characters. In the movie, the actors do not seem to be booklovers as that of the novel. They were simply labeled as the "book doctor", "bookworms", "silvertongues". In the novel, it is their life. They would rather die than their books. It is hard to explain but in the novel,everywhere thy go, they manage to bring a book or two and read. They know all the stories and the characters. However, only the Wonderful Wizard Of Oz was the only dominant novel in the film. But actually, also the Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings, Arabian Nights and many other novels had their parts in the story. The movie emphasized more on the main plot, disregarding another point of the novel, that it was a novel that gives tribute to other great novels by using characters that symbolize different types of book enthusiasts.

In reading also the book, I admit that the voices of those who portrayed Mortimer Folchart, Elinor Loredan and Meggie ring in my ear. However, I visualize the character (even the whole novel) to be animated. I think their voices truly give justice to the characters, especially Brendan Fraiser's.

The ending of the two were very different. Completely different. And because they made the film's ending "somehow like" the sequel's opening scene, I think Inkheart would be a stand-alone. Guess that's all. You must read the novel so you would know what I'm talking about. :)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Despite its length, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) is a very enjoyable film. Maybe it's because I love watching old-era-themed films. Also, the movie's cinematography and musical scoring make me cry, together with its wonderful plot.

After reading F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1922 short story with the same title, I realized that the two were somehow similar and mostly different. Now, I will not point/enumerate their differences, rather I'll give to you my personal suggestions regarding the changes.

First, the movie was studded with many other characters whose lives were touched by Benjamin. Each has their own backgrounds and their small parts on Benjamin's life. However, the short story revolved around Benjamin's family--from his parents down to his son--making it more personal, and very heartwarming. I think, it would be better if in the film, they introduced also the characters of his family and gave them more part to deepen Benjamin's trials.

The movie also used key events in world history in order to lead the audiences about the time. The scenes showing the world war, the first man on the moon, the Beatles, hurricane Katrina, helped the audiences know what year is it. However in the story, there were none.

Benjamin Button, both the short story and the film touched my heart with their memorable quotes and life-reality plots.

First in the short story, Hildegarde Moncrief (Benjamin's wife) says

"Young boys are so idiotic. They tell me how much champagne they drink at college, and how much money they lose playing cards. Men of your age know how to appreciate women. […] You're just the romantic age […], fifty. Twenty-five is too wordly-wise; thirty is apt to be pale from overwork; forty is the age of long stories that take a whole cigar to tell; sixty is – oh, sixty is too near 70; but fifty is the mellow age. I love fifty. […] I've always said […] that I'd rather marry a man of fifty and be taken care of than many a man of thirty and take care of him. (1.6.15-18)"

 This connotes that she understands the importance of age and their meanings. She also serves as a contrast to Benjamin by being of the same age but different physical features, meeting in the middle (40+). This is the same in the movie for the character of Daisy Fuller. However, they differed on how they loved Benjamin. Hildegarde was like other wives, embarrassed on their husbands, and feeling that they had the biggest mistakes in their lives. While Daisy, since the time they were married, loved Benjamin and became faithful to him no matter what. She understands his case, and very positive that there child would be normal. She even said that when if not, She'll take care of both of them.

In the story, Benjamin's son Roscoe was a very mean character. He dislikes his father and even commanded the latter to call him uncle because he was very ashamed of him. Also, they were together most of their lives. In the movie, Caroline, his daughter, saw him only once in their lives and as strangers. But she however felt longing for him.

Queenie, Benjamin's foster mother, was also a heartbreaking character. She loved Benjamin the way others didn't. Without her, he might not have been alive. Their relationship also was very realistic.

 In the movie, there were many cameo roles, especially those who stayed in the elderly home. I am very fond of the man who was struck by lightning seven times. Because in the end of his sharing, he said that he is very thankful he's still alive.

The themes of life, love, friendship, and overcoming trials are prevalent in the film and the short story, both by plot and by quotes. And so I'll end this blog by giving you memorable quotes from the movie and the short story.

From the Short Story

“Our lives are defined by opportunities, even the ones we miss.”

“You never know what's coming for you.”

“I hope you live a life you’re proud of. If you find that you’re not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again.”

From the movie

"For what it's worth: it's never too late or, in my case, too early to be whoever you want to be. There's no time limit, start whenever you want. You can change or stay the same, there are no rules to this thing. We can make the best or the worst of it. I hope you make the best of it. I hope you see things that startle you. I hope you feel things you never felt before. I hope you meet people who have a different point of view. I hope you live a life you're proud of, and if you find that you're not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."

"You can be as mad as a mad dog at the way things went. You could swear, curse the fates, but when it comes to the end, you have to let go."

"Benjamin Button: Some people were born to sit by a river. Some get struck by lightning. Some have an ear for music. Some are artists. Some swim. Some know buttons. Some know Shakespeare. Some are mothers. And some people — dance."

"Benjamin, we're meant to lose the people we love. How else would we know how important they are to us?"


"Sometimes we're on a collision course, and we just don't know it. Whether it's by accident or by design, there's not a thing we can do about it."

"It's a funny thing about comin' home. Looks the same, smells the same, feels the same. You'll realize what's changed is you."

War of The Worlds

my copy of the book

When I was in elementary, we went to the planetarium in Manila on a field trip. There, I saw a film sitting on a reclined chair about the possible life in Mars. Since then, I remember myself being so curious about the red planet and even asserting the possibility of the theory. 

Some weeks ago, I bought H.G. Well's 1898 scientific romance (later known as science fiction) novel War of the Worlds that is about the experiences of an unnamed scientific journalist, his wife and brother during the invasion of Martian aliens on Earth. I have watched the most recent film adaptation starring Tom Cruise and after reading the novel, I might say that the book was better.

Yes. Though it is a classic, it is way better. First, I think it was more action-packed than the film. There were more killings, explosions, chaos, eating, firing and many others that would make you feel nauseous. And fuck, that was what I was expecting from the film. 

Second, the drama was toned down. It is not about a man struggling to gain his children's love.Rather it is about a man longing for his wife who is safe "in the other side". I find the book very stern and scientific because of the toning down of the drama. And for me, that was better.

This leads me to my third reason... in the book, I understood better than in the film the reason why they invaded, invading, and left.

Despite their advancement, the Martians' technology, they are implied to be ignorant of disease and decomposition. It is theorized that their advanced technology eliminated whatever indigenous diseases were present on Mars thousands of years ago, to the point that they no longer remembered their effects. Ultimately, their lack of knowledge or preparation of any bacteria indigenous to Earth proves to be their downfall 

I would definitely prefer the book than the film. :)

Snow Falling On Cedars

I just finished reading Snow Falling on Cedars and watching its film adaptation. Well, for me, both had advantages in their different styles of storytelling.

Before I go into details, I would first narrate how I knew this book. Way before, when we still have cable tv, I saw the trailer of this movie on HBO and I said to myself that I'm gonna watch it. But due to "territorial disputes" in our tv, I wasn't able to. So years have passed and just last year, I saw this book in softbound at Booksale. Discovering that it got a price that is too cheap for an award-winning movie tie-in book, I bought it immediately.

But it's just 2 days ago when I finished reading it because of my long list of books to-read. So there, I finished it, and I'm telling you, it's worth the excruciating pain it gave me while reading it.

First, the book was too detailed. Too descriptive. David Guterson did not manage to overlook details about the place, the history of the place, the characters' family histories, the events during the war, and many others. So when I was reading it, It's kind of a long wait before I get to the real happenings. What I like to what he did is that, because of too much vividness and descriptiveness, I was able to understand the community. It's like, being in there already because I already knew half a century's worth of happenings in San Piedro Island.

The gory details of Carl Heine Jr.'s death was perfect. It captured my attention and interest. I also accept what the author did which was to provide the details in the beginning of the novel. So that the rest of it has no elements of such. By that way, I see that it became balanced.

I also like its way of storytelling. Everything that happened in the book was within the three-day trial of Kabuo Miyamoto. And flashbacks were given by witnesses and other main characters in the middle of their testimonies. However, the flashbacks give you a thematic arrangement of events, not a chronological one. Thus, it gives you a freedom to think critically, arrange the sequence of events, analyze each others sentiments.

                                          

Now let us talk about the movie. For me, it was a great adaptation actually.

Many omissions were done to simplify the complex, too detailed plot. What's surprising too me was the change of position of Ishmael and Hatsue love story in the sequence of events. I think they did it to emphasize Ishmael's initial refusal in helping Kabuo win the case against him. But in the book, it was not like that. Yes, he initially had second thoughts but way after the love story.

What's good also in the movie was the merging of storylines. The love story of Ishmael and Hatsue was not written in one chapter only and was not narrated in a linear way. The same goes to other storylines. I loved the bringing in to screen of the misty fog of September 15 and the freight that struck Carl jr. The production in there was good. However, the depiction of the snowstorm was bad. I didn't feel it like in the book. 

The movie however was faithful in the book, so it's still okay. The cinematography was great, including the production of a post-war community.

Wonder Boys

For my first book/movie review, I give you, the 1995 novel, Wonder Boys, written by Michael Chabon.

the mo

vie poster that is also the my book's cover

So I was able to read this book back in grade 6? 1st yr? sometime like that... when I was starting to appreciate reading books. I saw this in my sister's dusty bookshelf and found it ULTIMATELY off for me because of its complexity, vocabulary, collegiate grammar,and theme. I found it difficult to comprehend. Then... when I entered my Second year in high school I think, I read it all over again (together with some other books I read before yet I didn't understood that much. There, finally... I liked it.

You see. It was so long ago. That only the striking parts did remain in my mind. The flying off of 2611 pages of manuscript, the death of a dog by a gun, the jacket of marilyn monroe, the dungeon-like bedroom of James Leer, the greenhouse.... those remained in my memory for quite some time until I managed to finally watch the film just last month. (thanks to the pirates) And I'm telling you, I THINK it was a close adaptation.

Simply because they retained the parts that I remember do I claim that the movie starring Michael Douglas was really excellent in adapting the wonderfully plotted novel. BUT of course. I think that's inaccurate also because of the fact that I don't remember that much already.

Now let's criticize the film. First, I am so proud with the actors. Katie Holmes, Michael Douglas, Robert Downey, Jr., Frances McDommand were excellent. And of course.... the one who really in my opinion did the greatest job in the film was Toby Maguire. Seriously. Not because of his looks, but because of his stoned childish weird dark comic portrayal of James Leer. 

Next is the production. For me, the movie was able to capture the simplicity of the settings in the novel juxtaposed to the incredible happenings round it. Pittsburgh, the location of the story in the novel, was also the location of the film. By saying "production" I include the chancellor's house, the auditorium and Professor Tripp's apartment were truly captivated.

To conclude, I really do enjoyed the film. as well as my reading of the novel. Hope you read it or watch it sometime :)