Certainity in Novels

    In this day and age a large amount of movies made are based off of popular novels. Classics like Doctor Zhavago, Jaws, The Godfather, Frankenstein and Gone with the Wind were all adapted to the screen after a book. Even some of the most popular movie and tv shows today were not originally planned for screen (ex: Twilight, Vampire Diaries, Harry Potter, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, etc.), yet it is commonly known that the book is often better than the movie. Aside from films in which events and plot lines are completely changed, this mostly has to do with the narration.
    Narration in a movie does not impress the majority of the public anymore. For the most part the constant voice-overs annoy the audience, however this is the main method of description in a book. While some may claim this is only true in first person narration, it is certainly present in stories told in third person narration too. In a book we can understand that the chair is green because the statement is plainly written while in a movie the image relies much more on perspective. Even something as simple as color can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the shades. A thought or feeling, like portraying that the main character is thinking about the loss of a companion, is much more difficult to express without dialogue in a film. To compensate for these difficiencies in films, many lines and scenes must be tweaked to keep the same meaning, causing changes in the script to be made when adapting from a written source.
    The narration in a book is even very different in life because of this true picture the descriptions and feelings give us. In a sense, novels provide much more of a black and white world than real life. Due to the lack of a visual when we read, the author must give a solid description of places, people, and feelings. Though there surely is flexibility in these narratives, there is considerably more than in actual life when it is common for one person to be described completely differently from one person to the other. This idea that we are seeing through someone else's prospective is in the back of our minds as we read, but for the most part what is written is accepted (even more so in third person narratives than first person). It is an intriguing concept to grasp when delving into a new book.
    The ability to give the reader a solid picture in a novel makes it possible for the point of the piece to be understood. Without creating a more certain understanding for the feelings and circumstances of the characters the meaning of a written piece would lose its specific meaning. Movies, therefore, must also construct a central idea and show one side of the story to make a statement, but is still more of a gray picture because the scenes are not constructed as certainly through written words. Though we can be moved by books and relate to the feelings illustrated within them, life does lack the element to make such direct points.

Three Different Versions of "To Be Or Not To Be"

    In Franco Zeffirelli's version of Hamlet, starring Mel Gibson, his choices of setting and staging causes his rendition of the classic to come across differently than in others. Both Lawrence Olivier and Kenneth Branaugh's films of the Shakespearean tale contrast because of such choices as well. By only looking at one scene from each movie, the feeling can be proven to be signifigantly changed. The setting and action of the famed "To Be Or Not To Be" sililoquy is shaped by the way the scene is shot.
    When Mel Gibson takes on the part of Hamlet, he is given much more movement in his speech than in other productions. The angles the camera takes of him change notably more than either other examples of Hamlet. These changes in Hamlet's stance and facial exposure give the speech more of a transitioning effect. Every important new statement in the speech is broken apart by a movement of Gibson or the change in a camera angle. Hamlet, in this version, is visiting his father's tomb when giving these important lines. The setting is dark and still, giving us a feeling of darkness in what Hamlet is contemplating. The setting matches the mood of the segment.
    In the production of Hamlet which stars Kenneth Branaugh, the movement creates the opposite effect. Instead of creating movement in the scene, there seems to be a noticable lack of energy. This gives Hamlet a sort of lazed imagine during his serious contemplation of suicide, wholy the opposite impression the viewer may get of Hamlet with Mel Gibson's acting. Though this version does not puncuate the scene as it did in Franco Zeffirelli's adaptation, the absence of other action may give more emphasis on the actual lines. The black and white filming and dramatic background music gives a more melodramatic feel of Hamlet. Hamlet's setting also leads one to believe he is debating committing suicide at the very moment as we see him on the edge of a tower and variously taking out and inspecting a dagger.
    The biggest visible difference in Kenneth Branaugh's adaptation is the brightness and spendid area which Hamlet contemplates death in. While both other films had this sililoquy preformed in dark, dreary locations, Hamlet here is in a magnificantly ornamented ballroom. Though it can not be said that this room matches the speech, this use of juxtaposition causes the eeriness of Hamlet's thoughts to starkly stand out. This and Hamlet's lack of shown emotion lead us to the conclusion that this Hamlet is even more crazed than in Mel Gibson's portrayl.