Books to Movies and Back Again: Harry Potter

     I've always been a book kind of person reading the story and imagining what characters look like and what their settings are supposed to be before I go and watch the movie and have that image destroyed by someone else's picture. I never thought it was a huge deal, until the Harry Potter franchise. Now, I'm from that generation that grew up while all the Hogwarts kids were growing up, when I was eleven I read the first book, when I was twelve I read the second, etc. until the final book came out when I was seventeen.
     The movies didn't start coming out until I was about thirteen (a couple years after they were filmed) and by then I'd formed my own image of what Harry should look like. Daniel Radcliffe, as much as he is what J.K. Rowling and the producers might have imagined and wanted him to look like, was not my choice for Harry. I don't know of any actor of this generation that would have made a good Harry for what I first imagined him to be. But that's because I don't remember what I imagined him to look like.
     When the movie posters and trailers came out they were everywhere; Harry Potter was one of the biggest series and stood to make a lot of money. But what that did for my imagination was take the kid I'd created and replaced him with this real person that didn't exactly fit how I interpreted the book. Looking back at it, I'm annoyed. But I enjoyed the movies and I enjoyed the books, for different reasons.
     The books were heavier on the relationships and what it means to grow up in a world you never knew existed. They dealt with Peeves and his antics, yet he was an accepted part of Hogwarts--everyone has a place where they can belong and feel at home--in fact the story wouldn't be the same without the prankster ghost. The books dealt with Harry's insecurities and he had more alone time to delve into his own thoughts.
     The films were more action-oriented and focused more on the savior aspect. Harry was no longer just a kid growing up and dealing with his demons; he became the boy who would save the wizarding world from Voldemort. Harry wasn't allowed to have as many weaknesses, or to work through them. Yet the movies are still great stories (I'm still a little peeved that the origin of the Marauder's Map didn't make it into the third movie).

     In general I become frustrated when movies are made out of books, yet I understand the mentality behind it. I have always enjoyed Jane Austen, and the movies of her stories have both made the books more accessible and visible. But, to me, her stories seem less dependent on the details than the interactions--Elizabeth Bennett doesn't have to wear Regency attire to be judgemental of Darcy when she first meets him, the Lizzie Bennet Diaries proved that. But when movies leave out important details, like why the Potters chose Peter Pettigrew to be their secret keeper rather than Sirius and the connection between the four friends, they leave out important parts that make the story so remarkable. The Potters weren't betrayed because the information was beaten out of someone, it was given over freely and Sirius was betrayed as much as anyone else after suggesting it. These details color the entire story and take some of the magic when they're glossed over.
     Some movies based on books are great, others not so much. And while I enjoy both the movies and books in the Harry Potter franchise, I will always hold the books more dear for the magic they were in my life.

Just a thought...
Stephie

MASH

     I started reading like crazy this summer, to make up for all that time I spent on required readings, and in looking for something interesting found M.A.S.H: A Novel About Three Army Doctors. This was exciting for me because I've been watching the television show since I was a kid. It was fascinating to see the transition of the story: the movie, and television show, were based on this book. I hadn't noticed when I saw the movie or in watching the show--I guess they didn't credit the author unless he or she was associated with the screen production too--so I was surprised when all three of the renditions were similar.
     The show follows Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce, a Captain in the US Army stationed at a Mobile Army Surgical Hospital situated near the front lines. He lives in "The Swamp" with a rotation of four other officers and makes it through the Korean War by drinking and flirting outrageously with any and all women he comes across. Yet, he is still one of the best doctors in Asian campaign, with an honest care for the well-being of the people around him. Hawkeye and his friends' hi-jinks illustrate the futility of war while still showing their humanity: their pranks and shows of temper are how they maintain dignity in the midst of one of the most brutal situations man faces.

     The movie is a precursor to the television show and based on the novel. A dark comedy about the same characters and problems as in the novel and television show. The 4077 MASH calls in two replacement doctors and gets Hawkeye and Captain "Duke" Forrest. The two encounter their new tent-mate, Major Frank Burns, who is extremely religious and an inferior surgeon to Hawkeye and Duke. A new surgeon arrives, "Trapper" John, whom Hawkeye knew in college. Hi-jinks ensue and Burns is sent stateside. Meanwhile, the unit's dentist confesses to the chaplain that he is considering suicide. He comes to the Swampmen (for they again live in a tent named "The Swamp") for a quick and easy way to finish it. The three men suggest a "black-pill" quick acting poison and prepare a Last Supper-like going away party for the dentist. The black-pill is a sleeping pill and the dentist's confidence is renewed when he spends the night with one of the nurses, negating his worry of inability to perform. The movie then includes Trapper and Hawkeye's journey to Japan to save a congressman's son. Through blackmail and political implication they escape court-martial and run into a friend of Hawkeye's from college. The story ends with a football game between the 4077th and 325th MASH units. Both sides have ringers and the 4077th manages to win through a combination of cheating and trickery. Soon afterward Hawkeye and Duke are discharged and sent home.
     The book is much like both the movie and the television series. Character outlines vary and some characters are combined to create those who appear in both the movie and television show. I found the personifications between the book and shows enlightening. Alan Alda as Hawkeye in the show has always struck me as the perfect character, but in reading the book I realize how much the two are intertwined. Donald Sutherland as Hawkeye in the movie is a good imagining, but he doesn't have as much of the carefree rake in his personification as Alda's Hawkeye does. Yet the Hawkeye of the book isn't quite as much of a womanizer as in the television show. The relationships between characters, though, are spot-on. How they interact and react to each other, in both the show and movie, mirrors a relationship in the book that creates the community the characters can exist within.
     Despite the differences in characterizations between mediums, the MASH characters are powerful examples of humanity in times of trouble and chaos. I enjoyed all three tellings of Richard Hooker's story. What if all franchises had this similarity threading through them?

Just a thought....
Stephie

Paper Airplane Love

     Last year, Disney came out with a new short, it's called "Paperman" and I saw it for the first time today and completely fell in love with it. It's a combination of Computer Generated Imaging and the hand-drawn line which is apparently new...? I thought they'd have tried the combination before transitioning into CGI only, but that's just me.
     The short is in black and white and it shows this young man in the 1950s who works at some corporate job filling out papers with a bunch of other men. When he meets a beautiful girl at the train station he thinks it's a one-time meeting: he'll never see her again. He's surprised when she appears in the window of the building across the street. He starts throwing paper airplanes, trying to get her attention but failing. Some of his reactions are so lifelike they're priceless to watch.
     Eventually the man runs out of paper and decides to go find her, but she's turned a corner out of sight. He finds the last airplane and throws it out of frustration, but the airplane (and I can just hear that little voice in my head) thinks "Oh no, buddy, you're not giving up on love." It goes and finds a bunch of the failed attempts and they push the young man along, keeping him sitting still when he tries to fight them. Then the one airplane finds the beautiful woman. It's fascinatingly adorable watching the airplanes bounce along on the wind because they look like the mops from the Sorcerer's Apprentice in Fantasia, where Mickey enchants the mop to clean the floor.
     It's Disney, so of course there's a happy ending, but I strongly encourage you to watch through the credits. It's an amazing story of 'love conquers all' and an especially helpful reminder that sometimes you just have to wait, and sometimes fate needs to be shown that you're serious about it. So, now that I'm done fan-girl-ing about it; Enjoy!

Just a thought...
Stephie

Movie Night!

     A few of my friends were lamenting the fact that I hadn't seen several of their favorite movies--Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Fight Club--so they all but blackmailed me into watching them.
     Star Wars was entertaining: a few of us got together and watched the more recent trilogy. I really enjoyed them, but there seemed to be a bit of disconnect between the original trilogy and the newer set. Not in the storyline, but in the technology that was used to create the story. The computer generated images seemed out of place: there was too much color and the style--shapes, patterns, blends and contrasts--was completely different from the original trilogy. Why wouldn't the artists look at the original concept art and work form there? It seemed like they watched the movies, but then, instead of continuing in the pattern already established, the artists branched out and introduced something completely new. In some places this worked, but when they went back to places where the first trilogy took place it looked completely out of place and as if they'd photo-shopped something in that wasn't supposed to be there.
     I'm interested to see what Disney does with the new trilogy. I hope they add more congruity and can bridge the first and second trilogies together.

Just a thought...
Stephie