The first chapter really upset me. Although it was interesting to read, and taught me a lot about books and movies, I didn't like quote by Keith Cohen, "the contours of modern narrative would not be what they are without the precedents set by movies," (Costanzo, 14). I do not agree with this statement because I would like to reverse it. Films wouldn't be what they are today without literature.
Reading along the other chapters, I believe that it was stated that almost half of the world's movies are made from literature. I find this good evidence to defend books when it comes to this argument. I know that the context of the quote is talking about how writing styles have changed so drastically for modern writers, but I don't believe that.
If the classics weren't so visually comprehended by readers, I don't think that they would be classics. It is important to me to make this argument because I don't think that it is fair to say that film-making is the sole purpose of why authors' styles have changed over the years. Reading books from the 1800s and earlier, some authors were using film like techniques before motion pictures were even popular or being produced.
Charles Dickens' books are known, (in my opinion), for his use of appearances and details about setting, scenes, and people. That hasn't changed that much in the last centuries. I also think that it should be taken into account that technology has also played a role in how author's pen books these days and their style. Most author's in the early 1800s and or didn't have computers to spell check, and couldn't just delete a word and add more. It would take ages to go through their manuscripts and change details and spelling of words and having to transcribe them on different paper or parchment.
I completely agree with you that films wouldn't be what they are today without literature. I worked in a library for 4 years and it always surprised me at the vast number of movies that were based on books. I recently found out one of my favorite movies, P.S. I Love You was actually a book first...I love the movie and the book is also fantastic so far.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think your passion is well founded and in your future classroom you can use your feelings to help your students appreciate both literature and film - and not just running to grab the movie instead of the book.
I think it's really sad that many students would choose to watch the movie version, instead of reading the book. I understand that it's easier and more convenient to just watch the movie, but they are missing so much. This chapter talks about how many movies take the gist of a book and put their own twist for the movie. If students could learn to understand and appreciate books and movies separately, I think it would do some justice. There are many movies created from books that I love, but you can't capture every aspect into a 90 minute film, and they often leave out the most important ones.
ReplyDeleteMovies totally wouldn't even exist without literature! I think whoever thinks up ideas for movies nowadays is running out of things to think up! It seems like the cinemas only show movies that have been adapted from a book. I love pride and prejudice and I think showing scenes from the movie would be a great way to get students in the time period of the book and see what its really like to be at one of those balls in a great house like the ones that used to be built on plantation-like estates. I also think it would help them get a sense of how the characters talked in that day. There are a lot of benefits to showing clips of movies to go along with texts.
ReplyDelete