A Very Rough Draft of Essay
I am not sure of where I want to take this essay but here is a hint of where my thoughts are at…
There is only one way to describe children’s literature as whole and that is whimsical. The whimsical element is something that is necessary to include into every child’s book. The books that our class has read and studied this semester are especially good examples. Each book has a portal in which the characters enter, and once inside the new world that the portal opened up the most fantastical things happen. Is the reason why these elements are built-in is because without them would the mind of a child still be capable of understanding or be entertained by the story? I’m not quite sure of the correct answer but when I think of adult literature I don’t see the stories containing such whimsical and capricious elements. I know that a story has the potential to be an escape from reality. One of the most interesting gifts that literature offers is the transition into a fictional world, where the reader is taken into history or the future or even a made up world. The idea of being able to escape into a fictional world for a couple of hours is fabulous and could be just what the doctor ordered.
Creating that fictional world is the hardest task especially when it comes to children’s literature. The translation of an idea into a story for such a specific audience is tough. When the main audience is children the author is expected to focus on the mind of a child as a reference point therefore, there are several things that need to be studied. For example one of the aspects would be the character archetypes of the protagonists and antagonists. Another important task is to study the difference between the male and female characters and how their actions and emotions represent what a child should be doing, feeling or learning etc.
Are the children supposed to take these parable -like lessons that can be learned from these stories and then incorporate them into their own lives? What exactly is the point of children’s literature?
Please Note: I am going to add and revise shortly.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Disney Alice VS Svankmajer Alice
Alice VS Alice
Alice is such a well known character, why? I believe the reason is because she has been around for quite some time and the stories have been adapted and then adapted again into several different mediums like movies, video games, dolls and toys etc. Most Disney movies are now considered children’s classics and they are seen by many children hence the characters are often introduced to a new generation again and again. The Disney movie “Alice in Wonderland” was made in 1951 and is very different from another movie adaptation “Alice” created by director Svankmajer in 1988. The only similarity between these two adaptations is that they are based on the famous novels of Lewis Carroll.
The Disney version is very child friendly. “Alice in Wonderland” has all the classic elements of a children’s fairytale, meaning its vibrant color scheme, the dancing, the singing, the silly characters, and it’s animated. The Svankmajer version of “Alice” is dark and the setting is dirty and grubby. There are no happy elements for example there is no singing or background music it’s just Alice talking, the characters are robot like, hardly moving and not speaking, nothing in this movie is inviting it is scary and unnerving. Each of these movies has strong points, the Disney version is kid friendly and leaves you with a happy feeling and the Svankmajer version is not kid friendly it’s meant to be I think a statement piece. The characters scenes and motions are repetitive and they are meant to grate on your nerves and freak you out. Svankmajer wanted to focus on the dark and serious elements of the story and skip the wonderment and joy. Svankmajer picked up on the darker side of Carroll’s story and Disney focused on the lighter and happier side of Carroll’s story.
In class a lot of time was spent analyzing the tea party scenes. First the Disney version of the tea party scene is silly and colorful. The characters, the Mad Hatter and the Hare are singing about un-birthdays, asking Alice riddles, and everything at the table is moving. The characters in the Disney version have smooth movements and the characters in Svankmajer film are very robot-like, they don’t talk and there is no sound it’s just the same thing over and over. While watching the film I thought to myself how many more times could they repeat the loop of motions? The motions being the Hare’s eye falls out, the Hatter drinks his tea, and they move around the table to the next seat over and the rabbit rolls over to the next seat over and the rabbit rolls over to the next chair always going around the long way, then whenever his eye comes loose he just pulls the string and tightens it just to have it come loose again, and I really dislike when the animal (ferret?) would slither on to the table and lick clean the dirty teacups…gross! I couldn’t believe that Alice just stood in the doorway and watched, I would have been out of there quick! Both movies have a scene towards the end of the tea party where the rabbit appears with his watch and the Hare and Hatter attempt to fix it while actually breaking it. In the Disney version the White Rabbit just seems flustered and then upset and then runs off, while in the Svankmajer version the White Rabbit is livid and on the way out wipes the butter on his hands off on Alice’s socks. The biggest difference between the two movies is the characters and their personalities.
As far as Alice goes she couldn’t be more different in each movie. In Disney’s she is smart and level headed because she questions things. Plus she is emotional happy, sad, scared, homesick et cetera throughout the movie. In the Svankmajer film she is very docile, she talks for the characters and the camera does a close up of her mouth, but other than that she is very unemotional. Another noticeable thing about her disposition is that she doesn’t ever get very involved in a scene she is more of an observant presence, she is somewhat curious just like the Disney Alice. The visual interpretation of her character is very different in each film, in the Disney film she is very clean and is wearing a blue dress with a white pinafore and in the other film she is wearing a pink dress and she is dirty and her hair looks un-brushed. There is also a distinct age difference in the characters for instance the Disney Alice looks older and the Svankmajer Alice look way younger. I think that the difference in the clothing and age is the fact that one movie is focusing on the whimsical and the other is focusing on the sinister elements of the story. I also believe that each director focused on specific parts of Alice’s character that was described in the book and that is why the characters are similar and dissimilar.
Overall Disney’s version isn’t as faithful as Svankmajer’s, for example it focused on both of Carroll’s wonderland books where as Svankmajer just focused on the first book. Svankmajer kept the pig pepper scene and Disney did not. On the other hand Svankmajer did add the character in the tea party scene that would clean out the cups and Disney did not. As for their similar qualities Disney and Svankmajer both got rid of the wine.
These movies are truly adaptations because they are making a statement about the original meaning the book. The directors and screenwriters pick and choose the different parts of the book(s) that they want to include and then translate them into film. Each movie includes new elements and they also take out elements and even take parts and storylines from both books. By doing this each film is different. In general Disney focused on both books and portrayed the fun and lighter side of the books and Svankmajer focused only on one book and then portrayed the grim and darker side of the books. Each movie has something very special to offer its audience.
Alice is such a well known character, why? I believe the reason is because she has been around for quite some time and the stories have been adapted and then adapted again into several different mediums like movies, video games, dolls and toys etc. Most Disney movies are now considered children’s classics and they are seen by many children hence the characters are often introduced to a new generation again and again. The Disney movie “Alice in Wonderland” was made in 1951 and is very different from another movie adaptation “Alice” created by director Svankmajer in 1988. The only similarity between these two adaptations is that they are based on the famous novels of Lewis Carroll.
The Disney version is very child friendly. “Alice in Wonderland” has all the classic elements of a children’s fairytale, meaning its vibrant color scheme, the dancing, the singing, the silly characters, and it’s animated. The Svankmajer version of “Alice” is dark and the setting is dirty and grubby. There are no happy elements for example there is no singing or background music it’s just Alice talking, the characters are robot like, hardly moving and not speaking, nothing in this movie is inviting it is scary and unnerving. Each of these movies has strong points, the Disney version is kid friendly and leaves you with a happy feeling and the Svankmajer version is not kid friendly it’s meant to be I think a statement piece. The characters scenes and motions are repetitive and they are meant to grate on your nerves and freak you out. Svankmajer wanted to focus on the dark and serious elements of the story and skip the wonderment and joy. Svankmajer picked up on the darker side of Carroll’s story and Disney focused on the lighter and happier side of Carroll’s story.
In class a lot of time was spent analyzing the tea party scenes. First the Disney version of the tea party scene is silly and colorful. The characters, the Mad Hatter and the Hare are singing about un-birthdays, asking Alice riddles, and everything at the table is moving. The characters in the Disney version have smooth movements and the characters in Svankmajer film are very robot-like, they don’t talk and there is no sound it’s just the same thing over and over. While watching the film I thought to myself how many more times could they repeat the loop of motions? The motions being the Hare’s eye falls out, the Hatter drinks his tea, and they move around the table to the next seat over and the rabbit rolls over to the next seat over and the rabbit rolls over to the next chair always going around the long way, then whenever his eye comes loose he just pulls the string and tightens it just to have it come loose again, and I really dislike when the animal (ferret?) would slither on to the table and lick clean the dirty teacups…gross! I couldn’t believe that Alice just stood in the doorway and watched, I would have been out of there quick! Both movies have a scene towards the end of the tea party where the rabbit appears with his watch and the Hare and Hatter attempt to fix it while actually breaking it. In the Disney version the White Rabbit just seems flustered and then upset and then runs off, while in the Svankmajer version the White Rabbit is livid and on the way out wipes the butter on his hands off on Alice’s socks. The biggest difference between the two movies is the characters and their personalities.
As far as Alice goes she couldn’t be more different in each movie. In Disney’s she is smart and level headed because she questions things. Plus she is emotional happy, sad, scared, homesick et cetera throughout the movie. In the Svankmajer film she is very docile, she talks for the characters and the camera does a close up of her mouth, but other than that she is very unemotional. Another noticeable thing about her disposition is that she doesn’t ever get very involved in a scene she is more of an observant presence, she is somewhat curious just like the Disney Alice. The visual interpretation of her character is very different in each film, in the Disney film she is very clean and is wearing a blue dress with a white pinafore and in the other film she is wearing a pink dress and she is dirty and her hair looks un-brushed. There is also a distinct age difference in the characters for instance the Disney Alice looks older and the Svankmajer Alice look way younger. I think that the difference in the clothing and age is the fact that one movie is focusing on the whimsical and the other is focusing on the sinister elements of the story. I also believe that each director focused on specific parts of Alice’s character that was described in the book and that is why the characters are similar and dissimilar.
Overall Disney’s version isn’t as faithful as Svankmajer’s, for example it focused on both of Carroll’s wonderland books where as Svankmajer just focused on the first book. Svankmajer kept the pig pepper scene and Disney did not. On the other hand Svankmajer did add the character in the tea party scene that would clean out the cups and Disney did not. As for their similar qualities Disney and Svankmajer both got rid of the wine.
These movies are truly adaptations because they are making a statement about the original meaning the book. The directors and screenwriters pick and choose the different parts of the book(s) that they want to include and then translate them into film. Each movie includes new elements and they also take out elements and even take parts and storylines from both books. By doing this each film is different. In general Disney focused on both books and portrayed the fun and lighter side of the books and Svankmajer focused only on one book and then portrayed the grim and darker side of the books. Each movie has something very special to offer its audience.
Movie Review: Better Late Than Never
Movie Review and Analysis of She’s The Man
Source and Review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/REVIEWS/60314005
I have been a fan of She’s the Man (2006) because it’s just a silly heartwarming film that lets you escape into the characters world. The movie follows Viola who plays soccer on the girl’s team at Cornwall Prep but when her team was cut at school she decides she wants to join the boys’ team. The boy’s team won’t allow that because they think she isn’t good enough plus she’s a GIRL. Viola then takes matters into her own hands and goes to her twin brother’s school Illyria Prep, while he is in London performing with his band, to play soccer. She heads to the rival school while impersonating her brother so that she can make the team and prove to the other people that she is good enough to play with the boys. While at the school there are loads of hysterical mishaps and funny characters that draw the audience in.
For the reason that I was already a fan of the movie I began to notice while our class was reading Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night” that the whole plot from the movie came from this play. In Roger Ebert’s review of the movie he picks up on the similarity between the plotlines. I can tell from Ebert’s review that he is very familiar with Shakespeare’s play because he points out the several parts where they are the same. First he notes the lead female characters similar situation where both of the female leads brothers are gone which allows them to impersonate a male character. Viola’s (Amanda Bynes) brother Sebastian is in London performing with his band while in Shakespeare’s play, Viola’s fears that her brother is lost or has perished at sea. For the reason that the brothers are missing in action the real fun begins and the trouble ensues. Another connection between the two is the names for instance Viola and Sebastian are twins in both with the same names as in the play, when Viola is impersonating a male her name is Cesario and that is the name of the popular pizza parlor, and lastly the Duke of Illyria named Orsino is in the movie as just Duke Orsino and the name of the country Illyria is the name of the school. One of the funny things about this movie and the play were the “interlocking romantic triangles” that arise. The most hilarious being that Olivia is in love with Viola, who she thinks is a man ( Cesario or Sebastian) and Duke is in love with Olivia, and Viola is really in love with Duke, so the whole situation is just comedic. Of course in the end of the movie and the play the characters end up with the right person.
Although the movie is not remotely realistic it is enjoyable. One of the reasons that it is unrealistic is the characters are too old to be in high school Tatum who plays duke was 26 years old at the time. Another notable point is that Bynes isn’t convincing as a boy but then again that is half the humor, seeing her get out of awkward situations like shirts and skins game at practice, getting hit in the crotch and not being in pain, or showering etc. it’s all in good humor. In conclusion Ebert’s review was honest and fair and gave the reader a reliable and knowledgeable perspective regarding the movie.
Source and Review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/REVIEWS/60314005
I have been a fan of She’s the Man (2006) because it’s just a silly heartwarming film that lets you escape into the characters world. The movie follows Viola who plays soccer on the girl’s team at Cornwall Prep but when her team was cut at school she decides she wants to join the boys’ team. The boy’s team won’t allow that because they think she isn’t good enough plus she’s a GIRL. Viola then takes matters into her own hands and goes to her twin brother’s school Illyria Prep, while he is in London performing with his band, to play soccer. She heads to the rival school while impersonating her brother so that she can make the team and prove to the other people that she is good enough to play with the boys. While at the school there are loads of hysterical mishaps and funny characters that draw the audience in.
For the reason that I was already a fan of the movie I began to notice while our class was reading Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night” that the whole plot from the movie came from this play. In Roger Ebert’s review of the movie he picks up on the similarity between the plotlines. I can tell from Ebert’s review that he is very familiar with Shakespeare’s play because he points out the several parts where they are the same. First he notes the lead female characters similar situation where both of the female leads brothers are gone which allows them to impersonate a male character. Viola’s (Amanda Bynes) brother Sebastian is in London performing with his band while in Shakespeare’s play, Viola’s fears that her brother is lost or has perished at sea. For the reason that the brothers are missing in action the real fun begins and the trouble ensues. Another connection between the two is the names for instance Viola and Sebastian are twins in both with the same names as in the play, when Viola is impersonating a male her name is Cesario and that is the name of the popular pizza parlor, and lastly the Duke of Illyria named Orsino is in the movie as just Duke Orsino and the name of the country Illyria is the name of the school. One of the funny things about this movie and the play were the “interlocking romantic triangles” that arise. The most hilarious being that Olivia is in love with Viola, who she thinks is a man ( Cesario or Sebastian) and Duke is in love with Olivia, and Viola is really in love with Duke, so the whole situation is just comedic. Of course in the end of the movie and the play the characters end up with the right person.
Although the movie is not remotely realistic it is enjoyable. One of the reasons that it is unrealistic is the characters are too old to be in high school Tatum who plays duke was 26 years old at the time. Another notable point is that Bynes isn’t convincing as a boy but then again that is half the humor, seeing her get out of awkward situations like shirts and skins game at practice, getting hit in the crotch and not being in pain, or showering etc. it’s all in good humor. In conclusion Ebert’s review was honest and fair and gave the reader a reliable and knowledgeable perspective regarding the movie.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)