Allyson Hallman: La Vie Est Belle

I, too, am posting this wayyyy late.

     Nonetheless, I really liked La Vie Est Belle. As Molly pointed out, we as North Americans are so conditioned to believe that every single African country is full of people who are starving and afflicted with various diseases that we think won't affect us here (even though it's entirely possible). I personally knew that couldn't be true and that it's a stereotype that has been drilled into my head by the media, but it's still hard to overcome that stereotype and not have that thought pass through your head when you hear the name of an African country.
     This movie does a really good job, in my opinion, of dismantling that myth and showing that African people can definitely be happy. They might not have the first world luxuries that we're accustomed to, but their happiness is just as fulfilling, in a different way. I love that they make the music they love with whatever they have, during the scene where they're shining people's shoes in the streets to fight for a living. I love that this movie is full of the same theme of love that is overwhelmingly prevalent in Hollywood films, showing that although these people live in an entirely different culture, they too experience some of the same problems and some of the same desires because we're all just human.
     Likewise, this film shows that just because we have "North American privilege" doesn't mean that we can't experience the problems the African people do because, again, we're all just human. We too could have to fight for a living cleaning houses and shining people's shoes and acting as a chauffeur for a rich couple with no kids. We're not invincible, and I like to think that I didn't think that before watching this movie, although I know I did to some degree. But this movie really helped me understand that our North American view of African cultures and people is incomplete and skewed.

Death and the Maiden_ C. Collins

After reading Death and the Maiden as well as watching the Polanski adaptation it became very apparent that the text was much more willing to stay ambiguous unlike the film. One reason for the lack of ambiguity is due to what type of person is viewing the film, as well as what type of person would be reading the text version, the reason for each format also serves a purpose. The idea of functionality of film vs. text also can be discussed when comparing the film and text version of The Reluctant Fundamentalist. Films seem to all follow a formula (this is talking about Hollywood style films) that 1. you can't completely hate the main character, and 2. the film shouldn't crush the viewer's spirit in the end. Both text versions vary from the film guidelines in some way. The text Death and the Maiden encounters great ambiguity in the end, there is no relief for the reader. The reader does not know if the female protagonist truly found the person who did wrong to her.  The film however makes it so there is almost no doubt that Paulina was going to enact her revenge on a man who raped and tortured her. In the play, if Paulina is wrong then she is a crazed woman who just destroyed the life on an innocent-- which seems to be too much for a film watcher to handle. The Reluctant Fundamentalist  also varies greatly from text to film due to the constructs that most films seem abide by. If the film followed the text completly, the male protagonist would be utterly hated by most people. If the film followed the text completely, people may have even left the theatre before the film was over, due to disgust over the manipulation of Erica by Changez. The text also leaves the ending very ambigious, the film however sees no reason to do so since most watchers are not used to such ambiguity at the end of a film.

La Vie Est Belle (Super late...)

First off, I apologize that this post is so late!

From what I remember of La Vie Est Belle, the overarching message of the film is that there is always a silver lining. The film reminded me of the type of Western film that children would like- it had almost a Disney-esque plot in that there were clearly defined issues that needed to be resolved and that all were tied together at the end (a happy end, I might add) in a neat little package. What's different about La Vie Est Belle is that takes place in an area that many of us would associate with sadness, poverty, death and disease. By creating a film that encourages the decidedly African audience that "life is rosy", I think Mwese is trying to uplift the people that watch the film. 

The fact that the film is rich with African culture makes me agree with  Manthia Diawara's opinion that the film was purposefully incorporating African working-class culture into cinema. I really enjoyed how authentic the film felt and it really helped me to put myself in the situation of the citizens of the village in which the film takes place. It helped me realize that not everyone who is living in Africa in our generation is starving or dying of disease. As Americans, we are conditioned to believe Africa to be a place of desolation and despair when really the opposite is the truth. As is the reality in the United States, there are people throughout the country (or continent, in Africa's case) that are living full, happy lives and unfortunately, there are people who are less forunate as well. I know from seeing commericals on TV and from hearing about celebrities who make mission trips to Africa that I began to believe that everyone in Africa was unhappy and was desperate for Americans (or other well off countries) to come to their aid. From watching Life Is Rosy, I can see that, while Africa is not nearly as wealthy as the U.S., that does not mean that African people cannot be happy. The people in the village, including Kourou, are generally happy. They are aware that they are not the wealthiest people in the world, and as such, they are able to be truly appreciative of everything they have. I think that's a really great outlook to have on life. As Americans, many of us take so many things for granted- having food to eat, a bed to sleep in, and even having clean water to drink. We feel entitled to a lot of things, and we often do not feel appreciative of what we do have. I think if we were able to recognize how well off we are, we would all live happier, fuller lives. 

Death and The Maiden - Jamie Hughes

                 Out of all the movies we have watched thus far, I would have to say this one is my favorite. I enjoyed the satire and unpredictability of the plot. I felt the actors did a good job of keeping their character and sold the film to me. I also believe I enjoyed this film the most because it was the closest representation to Western film that we have seen in class. The film was produced with a large budget and followed many standard film protocols and angles, unlike many of the low budget documentaries we have watched. Not to say one is better than the other, but they do produce two separate types of feelings when being watched.

                The main difference I noticed between the play write and the film was the ending. I was a bit disappointed when the film decided it was necessary to prove Miranda guilty on screen to wrap up everything up. Unfortunately many movies do this in our culture because if the ending is left hanging, they are deemed as bad by people stating “What a horrible ending!” and “I can’t believe they just left us hanging like that!” The majority of people who watch films like to go through the whole story, including the ending, and when the end is not clear there is a feeling of anger or resentment towards the film. I feel that Polanski tried to avoid this negativity by adding in an ending, but this did take away from the impact of the story. By having the ending open ended like in the play, it creates a sense of pins and needles, trying to figure out what happened and who was actual crazy and who was right? Leaving the viewer with so many questions and not sure what to do next, to me, is a sign of a great work of art, distilling passion and curiosity in its viewers. 

Heather's thoughts on "Death and the Maiden"

            There were many similarities between the play and the film adaptation of Death and the Maiden. The play was open ended; the reader did not know what happened to any of the characters- if Roberto was guilty and Paulina was right all along. With the film, Polanski directed it so that the viewer did not leave asking many questions about the ending. For instance, in the play, Paulina and Gerardo go to the concert and Paulina “sees” Roberto, “He could be real or he could be an illusion in Paulina’s head” (67). In the film, we know that Roberto is at the orchestra because both Paulina and Gerardo look up and stare at Roberto.

            I enjoyed the play more than the film adaptation. I love endings that are pretty open and where the reader can decide how he or she wants the piece to end. With this film and The Reluctant Fundamentalist, the endings and many of the scenes are changed or simply removed. This is because sometimes scenes from books just do not come across right in a film form, and films are obviously, well, usually time restricted. Also, the director is free to put his or her interpretation of a piece into the film, and no one has the same analysis for anything.

Polansky and the Maiden

After having read Ariel Dorfman’s play and then watching the film adaptation, I must say I think the play was far more impactful.  The point of the play was to show the cycle of tyrannical violence that often happens when the oppressed come into power and how easy it is to become a tyrant.  What also made the play far more moving was its ability to never resolve if Dr. Miranda was guilty, if Gerardo was ineffective or if Paulina was striking out in blind vengeance. 

                While the acting was very well done in the film I was disturbed by the choice to make everything so deliberate and final.  Paulina destroys Miranda’s car establishing that there is no hint of escape.  Gerardo strikes Miranda instead of remaining distant as the Law is distant.  And finally, the audience views what seems to be an honest confession from Miranda while they Paulina say that people like him are often given alibis.  The audience was practically fed Polansky’s interpretation of the play.  In the end though I suppose that is what would make the film far less controversial.  It is what Polansky himself took away from Dorfman’s work. It is not a visual recording of Dorfman’s work.

Life and Debt

I was really shocked by everything that occurred in the documentary. However, and this may make me sound bad, but my knowledge of what goes on behind resort walls hasn’t hindered my desire to go visit these beautiful places. I am sure that this does not just happen in Jamaica, which is pretty sad to think about. As tourists, we are going to get away from the stress of working to pay off the things we have in our lives. I guess the reason I am not dissuaded to go to these poverty-ridden places is because I know that the US if full of poverty. I am not exactly sure of the percentage, but I know that a great number of people in America are well below the poverty line.

Yet, how many tourists come to America? To New York, to Philly, to any of our big cities? Unlike in these resorts, in America, just walking around in center city Philadelphia you see the homeless huddled on street corners. Visit Love Park and a homeless man will ask for money to take your photo for you with your camera, and by this point, he is actually pretty good at taking them too. Our poverty is not hidden. As college students, we will all (unless those who are very well off) be in debt, if we are not already. We are in debt to banks, loan distributors, our own parents. We are owned by the capitalist society in which we live to constantly spend money on the things we think we need, on top of the products we actually do need.

Death and The Maiden

I didn’t really notice too, too many differences between the play and film versions, aside from the beginning and the end. For instance, in the play, Paulina doesn’t steal his car, she just knocks him out. And the ending is more open to interpretation in the play; we do not know if she actually kills him or she lets him go. I think ultimately, in comparison to The Reluctant Fundamentalist, we can see that the major difference between book and film adaptation is in the details. A book clearly has more space to give lots of detail about characters and plot; whereas, in a film, it has to condense the book into a script. Details have to be spared. Because of this, films aim for a more dramatic effect I think. They pack a punch and get the point across more quickly, because they have to. Books have the leisure to go on as long as they need to, and readers have the opportunity to go back and reread parts that they do not fully understand. Sure, we can re-watch a film but still we will not understand as clearly as we would from the details in a book, or in the case of Death and The Maiden, a play.

            As for what we discussed in class, I realized I really have this weird fascination with the topic of rape and why people do it and how victims recover, or don’t. Knowing now that Polanski raped a young girl and then wrote this play I think says something about him. Maybe it is just me, but I feel like in a way, this is his method of reconciling himself. A rapist is caught and forced to verbalize the terrible crime he has committed. Polanski, probably like Miranda, at the time didn’t feel like what he was doing was so terrible. Of course, to the viewer/reader, that sounds like crap. How could you possibly not know that what you are doing is wrong? I think Polanski uses Miranda’s confession as a means to confess to his own heinous deed. And like with Miranda, we never know if Polanski was killed (figuratively, meaning couldn’t handle what he had done) or if he was let free (figuratively, meaning he reconciled with his actions). In both cases, regardless of the outcome, no one is ever forgiven.

I really think what Norway is doing is a good thing, for the people who really do have a psychological problem, which I feel that many serial criminals have. Someone does not just wake up one day and begin to rape women over and over again. I understand that it can happen once and someone not have a mental problem, but if it happens continuously, in a similar form, someone has a real problem. I do not think, though, that these people should receive so many luxuries. They still committed a crime, but they should be getting help. Not just get thrown in jail and possible be released and commit those crimes all over again. 

Death and the Maiden

            I really enjoyed death and the maiden, once again I believe it is because of the western style film the drew my attention. The actors we relatable and all very well done. I used to do theater in my high school, so to see the movie filmed in basically one location I could see how it would easily transfer to the stage. As well the acting could easily transfer since the main character tells hers story verbally with no assistance of flashbacks. Like said in class I think it is a very well written monologue because her words are all that is needed to tell this story.

            The difference between the play and movie are very interesting. The play makes us walk away questioning what was the true ending, while the film just gives us an ending. Both are good in their on regard, but I prefer the Theater idea. The film gives us a sense of justice as she proves that it truly was him. Which is a great and interesting ending that portrays a certain idea that torture is bad, but I think the idea that we do not know who is truly wrong is better. It helps show off that torture is a horrible thing and that any of us could submit to it. This idea I feel is belittled in the film since we know who is wrong. With us not knowing who is wrong it makes us leave the film questioning what is right and wrong, which is what the movie is trying to get across. On a more simple note all it wants us to do is think about it.

Death and the Maiden

In some of the other posts people commented on on how well Paulina's emotions. To me this played a big role in the differentiation of the written script and the film. Being able to see her frustration and grief made me feel more of a connection to her character. Dr. Miranda was very straight-faced which made me feel disconnected with that particular character. When Paulina accused him he did not give any tell-tale signs that he was involved in her torture. I also think that the choice of not using flashbacks was a great idea. The viewer gets to out together their own pieces of the puzzle and decide who may be guilty and who may be innocent. The story is well written in the sense that it lets the reader or viewer be the judge. We get to see the humane and inhumane qualities of all three of the characters. We are reminded that people are people. They all, to an extent, do good and they do bad.
         To me Death and the Maiden is a metaphor for the average person(Paulina) and their frustration with political injustice (torture tactics); be it inequality of that person or the the inequality they've seen inflicted on others.

Death and The Maiden

The film adaption and the play were both similar. However, each interpreted scenes and the ending differently. The film had the advantage to take many liberties from the original play be reorganizing some scenes such as showing the orchestra in the beginning as well as the end. The ending of the two were both confusing. You never really got to know if Miranda was killed or not. The book implied that it could go either way, while the film made it seem like he was alive. One thing I really wish the film kept was the uncertainty you had of whether or not Miranda was innocent. The book implied that maybe he did slip up and unconsciously incriminate himself, while the film just made it seem like he was developing Stockholm syndrome.

I really enjoyed this film, because despite its strange moments you never really got to know who was innocent and who was guilty. It also made me question if people deserve punishment equal to the crimes they commit. I don't think Paulina was justified in her actions at all, but she did deserve some sort of closure. I feel like her husband did little to help her and maybe she should have gotten some sort of therapy. I can't even begin to imagine how she could even live her day to day life with all those horrid memories and paranoia. Gerardo should have been a better husband and looked after his wife instead leaving her alone for business. I wonder if he even really loved her or stayed with her out of guilt. After all she had endured so much suffering just for him. He couldn't just abandon her then or I don't think he ever could.

Death and the Maiden - Maggie Varga

I think it was an interesting perspective for me to read the play after watching the film, based on what others were saying about the written play. During the film I was conflicted until the end because I was really unsure of who to believe, which I think is the point. I think Roman Polanski wanted those who only watched the film to be curious if Dr. Miranda was actually telling the truth or not. I was truly engaged at what would happen next. I was waiting and waiting until Miranda would confess, and when he wasn't confessing for the longest time, my thoughts wandered. Throughout the film I wanted to believe Paulina, and for the most part I did, but there was a small part of me that thought an alternate ending might occur. Perhaps another man would come in and confess to everything, and it was not Miranda all along. Or she was making the whole thing up, while Miranda was actually telling the truth. While reading the play, however, maybe it was because I knew the outcome or because there was a different tone, I believed Paulina without any doubt. The way she described her experience had more emotion, and the details she knew about Miranda made me certain it was him. Paulina letting Miranda go also struck a nerve with me. Although I'm glad she did not kill him, she completely let him go. The look on his face, watching her from above made me feel sick and if that were to happen to me, and knowing that man was still out there would make me frightened each and every day. I wished she would have reported him at least. I was hoping she was recording his confession and she could turn it into someone.
With The Reluctant Fundamentalist, I felt that film was much more Hollywood driven. There were flashbacks, action, a love story all glorified to keep the viewer's interest. There were those aspects in the book, but not as cheeky as they were in the film. The fact that Death and the Maiden took place in one single room for the majority of the film emphasized how important the plot was, rather than special effects and action. Having only three characters in the film also was surprising to me for keeping my attention. I was engaged in the film and the play, which was interesting to me because its not what I am used to. The Reluctant Fundamentalist kept my interest as well, but that is most likely because it was more like the Hollywood movies I am used to.

Death and the Maiden

There are obviously a few differences between the play and the movie. I think they are relatively minor for the most part. There were slight differences in the dialogue and some scenes were off. In my opinion there are two major differences in the plot.

The first one is when Dr. Miranda knocks on the door in the middle of the night. In the play, Paulina just knocks out Dr. Miranda and ties him up after he was already asleep, deciding to stay over. In the movie she blatantly steals his car no more than ten minutes after he walks in the house. She then comes back after disposing of the car and proceeds to knockout Dr. Miranda.

The second, and most obvious, is the ending. In the play the ending is left more open than it was in the movie. In the play, the curtain falls as Paulina is holding Dr. Miranda at gunpoint in the living room. In the movie Paulina just walks away from him at the cliff. The play, you are not sure whether or not she kills him. If she doesn't kill him, does she just let him walk out of the house? We can not tell if when she sees him at the theater, if he is a figment of her imagination or not. Whereas, in the movie you clearly see that he was not killed and at the theater is shown peering down at her.

I have somewhat of an issue with what we talked about in class. I have no problem with the conversation at all. I have an issue saying that the United States should follow the path of places like Norway in terms of our punishments. Why should we be less harsh on criminals? In Norway they study the prisoner while they are in a psychiatric hospital, with certain luxury items like television. As far as I am concerned when you commit a ruthless criminal act such as rape, you lose your privileges. They should not be afforded comfort and luxury. They should be as uncomfortable as possible for such a heinous act.

Death and the Maiden--Melissa Hurley

I have a lot of disconnected feelings and opinions about Death and the Maiden so I think I will just list them and then try to tie them all together at the end of this post once I get my thoughts sorted out.

1.     I enjoyed the film more than the play only because I read the play very quickly. I have trouble focusing on reading when I am stressed or very busy (reading is definitely a summertime activity for me—during the semester it is too hard for me to concentrate…I need to work on this flaw)

2.     However, I did make connections back to the play as I watched the film. Small details such as the behavior of the characters or the tone of Paulina’s voice as she described the horrific events that happened to her gave me those little “aha!” moments because it solidified what I had read because I was able to see and hear it in action.

3.     I didn’t notice this as I read the play, but as soon as they said “Dr. Miranda” in the film, I started thinking about a person’s Miranda Rights. The web definition for Miranda rights is: “that prior to the time of arrest and any interrogation of a person suspected of a crime, he/she must be told that he/she has: ‘the right to remain silent, the right to legal counsel, and the right to be told that anything he/she says can be used in court against’ him/her.” Dr. Miranda did not get any of these rights, because he was forced to confess, he did not have the right to remain silent or else he would have been shot, he did not have proper legal counsel and there was not even a proper court system going on. I wonder if this was just a coincidence, but it seemed almost intentional, to emphasize the fact of the ridiculousness of the situation.

4.     I loved the orchestral music Death and the Maiden. This was one thing in the play that I could not fully appreciate until hearing it in the film. I found it to be eerie and haunting. It gave me chills when the film opened and I could finally imagine what it sounded like to Paulina.

      Although I tried to search for comparisons to The Reluctant Fundamentalist, I had to really stretch to make them. The film had flashbacks, a lot more action, different locations and in my opinion, a lot more drama. Death and the Maiden took place in one room, with a lot fewer lives at stake.

It's always better to read a book first before watching the film adaptation of the story. When reading a book second, I feel as if you're constantly expecting something to happen the exact way it did in the movie, which can completely ruin a good book or film. Unfortunately, I read "Death and the Maiden" after we finished the film in class. Although the book was fairly similar and had the same plot (considering some movies stray away from their print counterparts), I think I enjoyed the film more for it's dramatic purposes. However, I have a feeling that actually seeing the play "Death and the Maiden" performed would be more enjoyable rather than reading it, or the film.

For starters, I think the difference of settings was a big change that made me connect with the film more. In the play, Miranda brings Gerardo home in the middle of the night and later returns and is asked to stay until the morning. Paulina wakes up in the middle of the night, ties the doctor up, and returns to bed until the morning - all while her husband is asleep and clueless. However, in the film Miranda does all this in the middle of a storm and although he comes back not too long after, he is never invited to spend the night and Paulina quickly takes action by crashing his car and tying him. In one version the entire story takes place during the day time, and in the other everything is taken place in the later hours of the night, ending just around dawn. The fact that Paulina was so patient as to return to sleep (or at least to bed) in the book and wait to make her demands doesn't personify her character enough for me. I feel that any person who suffered the trauma she had would make all of the irrational actions as she did in the film.

I'd consider the biggest factor differentiating the two versions would be Paulina's intention to kill Miranda without a confession. In the play, Paulina states from the beginning that all she wants is a confession and has absolutely no desire to kill him. Regardless, she still threatens him with her plan to kill if he doesn't meet her demands and almost follows through with them in the end when he accidentally confesses the truth. In the film, Paulina cannot wait to kill the doctor and get her revenge. The entire time watching, I actually thought he was innocent but that she'd kill him anyway. I was extremely shocked in the end by his detailed depictions of his mental process for his abuse and how Paulina surprisingly untied him instead of pushing him off of the cliff.

In both the end of the film and play, Paulina and Miranda seem to be in an awkward state of calm. Paulina gets her confession and when she sees Miranda she shows no inner emotion although she is inevitably has to be filled with several. Dr. Miranda is able to keep his life and once he notices the couple out in public he is not able to his gaze away from them. Almost in a trance, it's questionable whether he feels guilt or the complete opposite in that he will always have a sort of dominance over Paulina.

Response to Death and the Maiden

            I think this was by far my favorite movie that was shown in this class. For once, I was fully engaged in the film from beginning to end and could not wait to finish the rest of it. I also thoroughly enjoyed reading the play since it took grabbed my attention. The film was simple but had so much going on. Who knew a movie about three people in one room could make for such an intense thriller. There was always suspense and it really kept me hooked. The book did a good job of describing the scenes and helping paint the image for the reader which I think is necessary in order to understand the severity of the situation.

            I found myself conflicted with the characters in regards to the movie and the play. In the play I was not annoyed by any of the characters actions and I sympathized with Paulina the entire time. I was not bothered by her husband in the play but I was in the film. The film did a better job of showing who the characters really are and how they were reacting to the situation. It was hard to notice all of it in the play itself. While watching the film I was constantly angered by the husband because he was such a pushover. He lacked backbone and worried too much. It made him seem weak and useless. I appreciated his role though because no movie should have only actors or actresses that everyone likes. As for Dr. Miranda I was only bothered by his strange accent he acquired when saying certain things, I found it distracting even though it’s such a minor thing. He played his role well and it made me hate him for lying and for potentially having hurt women.  

As for Paulina, I was back and forth with her in the film unlike with the play. Most of the time, I felt bad for Paulina and all that she endured when she was held captive. However, I also was highly annoyed with her and wanted to yell at her a few times. She was powerful and independent at times which made me root for her. At other times she needed too much attention and interrupted everyone. She needed to just sit back and listen instead of jumping in every three seconds. She can’t get a confession if all she does is talk nonstop. She was too pushy at times and even treated her husband terribly. She yelled at him and forced him to play along and did not take his thoughts into consideration. She got off topic so often like when she asked her husband how many times he slept with a certain woman. It bothered me that she could not let a single thing in life go.

            Despite all of this character annoyance, I enjoyed that it made me feel so many emotions and made me think.  The Reluctant Fundamentalist did not keep my attention the same way and I despised the book in comparison to the movie. Death and the Maiden kept the two similar expect the film was more vulgar and the ending was explained differently. The Reluctant Fundamentalist was entirely different all together and the movie was the only tolerable one of the two. I barely even recall what all happened in the film.

            Film is made to be more vulgar because it grabs attention to see and hear things a certain way. A book cannot depict as much emotion or tone of voice. They have to increase the entertaining aspect for films since people expect much more visual excitement from them. Books are only able to describe and attempt to help you see something or someone. A movie can actually make you feel as if you are part of what is happening and actually witnessing it. Also, books include more to them in most cases because films are so elaborate that they can only include so much unless they make a super long movie.

Allyson Hallman: Death and the Maiden

     Literature and film are not the same medium. It sounds obvious, but so many people (definitely including myself) forget that. Because they are not the same medium, they cannot tell the same story in the same way. To quote John Green, "Movie adaptations are not, and should not attempt to be, visualizations of a novel. They are movies. They need different kinds of structure, and different metaphors* and different ways of expressing thoughts and ideas because you’re moving from text to the visible/audible world." But it's difficult to not criticize a film because it's not 100% like the book. Every reader--as Katherine and Jessica have both mentioned--creates a different version of the book in their mind, and movies cannot satisfy every reader who sees the movie.

     John Green wrote The Fault in Our Stars, published in 2012, and that book's movie adaptation just recently wrapped up filming and will be released next year. John was heavily involved in writing the screenplay and the filming process, throughout which he posted updates on Twitter. At one point, he mentioned that almost every single line of dialogue from his book is being used in the movie, but other aspects of the movie are not exactly like the book because the book is so nuanced that the movie cannot capture everything perfectly. I share this attitude towards film adaptations of books, but at the same time, I love the film adaptation of Death and the Maiden, and the film adaptation of The Reluctant Fundamentalist was kind of eh for me.

     I love the film adaptation of Death and the Maiden because it was made very similarly to how the TFiOS movie seems to have been produced; most of the dialogue from the book was used in the screenplay, along with some extra stuff, and the majority of the plot was captured well on screen but not exactly. Both Death and the Maiden and The Reluctant Fundamentalist--the books--have one major setting. The characters talk about and refer to past events, but the characters do not physically or drastically change locations for most of the book. I enjoyed how Polanski conveyed that one setting in Death and the Maiden, but I also liked that he added the cliff part to the movie because it made me root for Paulina even more, hoping she would just push Miranda off the cliff or even that Miranda would decide of his own volition to jump.
     On the other hand, I didn't really like how the film adaptation of The Reluctant Fundamentalist was made because of the flashbacks and the intense fight scenes with tons of jump cuts that seemed to butt heads with the peaceful environment the book created in my head. Reading the book, I knew that it would be difficult for Hollywood to create a faithful film adaptation that would be engaging--as films should be--because the book was just two characters in a cafe having a conversation. But in the film version, the director completely changed the personality and character of both Changez and Erica, and in my opinion, if you're going to try to make a movie based on such a loose, open book, the characters should be the aspect of the film that you keep as close to the book as possible. (See also: book Ginny Weasley vs. movie Ginny Weasley.)

Death and the Maiden-Molly McLaughlin

I think the differences in cinematic depictions of both Death and the Maiden and The Reluctant Fundamentalist are difficult to compare. The main reason for this difficulty is the differences in genres between Death and the Maiden and The Reluctant Fundamentalist. Ariel Dorfman's work is a play, which is already more easily translated into a film than Hamid's novel. Death and the Maiden was written to be performed, much like movie. The Reluctant Fundamentalist, on the other hand, would be much more difficult to be translated to film because novels are longer than plays and are not created to be performed. This would explain why the film adaptation of Death and the Maiden sticks much closer to the plot of the play than the film adaptation of The Reluctant Fundamentalist did to the novel. 

I also think it's important not to judge the quality of a work's cinematic adaptation based on its ability to strictly stick to the plot of the original work. For instance, I don't believe that the film adaptation of Death and the Maiden is "better" than the film adaptation of The Reluctant Fundamentalist simply because it sticks more closely to the original plot of the play. One should take into account the benefits and restrictions of adapting a work to the screen. That being said, it is important to analyze the differences that are made in the cinematic adaptations of these works of literature. It can be assumed that the changes made were made for a specific purpose to further drive the plot or give the plot meaning in relation to the filmmakers' lives. For instance, in class we discussed how interesting it was that Roman Polanski chose to adapt Death and the Maiden, a story about torture, rape and revenge after having been involved in a very similar situation with the law having to do with statutory rape. Did Polanski choose to do Death and the Maiden because of his able to relate to the story? 

The changes that bothered me the most in the film versions of both Death and the Maiden and The Reluctant Fundamentalist were the changes in the endings. In Death and the Maiden, the reason why the story is so unsettling is because there really is no resolution at the end. You are left completely unsure of whether or not Dr. Miranda is guilty. By choosing to wrap up the ending into a neat little package, Polanski really takes away a lot of the unsettling uncertainty that Dorfman utilized in his play. Personally, I think the entire story is much more frightening left to the imagination as it was in the play because it makes the entire plot much more realistic. Unfortunately, situations such as the one that Paulina found herself in in the play happen quite often in our world. Capture, rape and torture are not uncommon. Furthermore, many of the perpetrators of these crimes are never caught and are never brought to justice. In the play version of Death and the Maiden, Dorfman plays on this reality by leaving Dr. Miranda's guilt or innocence ambiguous. That being said, it doesn't surprise me that Polanski did choose to have a more conclusive ending to his film because that's what many people look for when they watch a film. Many people value the kind of closed denouement that Polanski provides the viewer in his film. Typically, the general public is more likely to appreciate a story that has a clear resolution. Polanski, who is a very skilled filmmaker, probably took this into account when adapting Death and the Maiden to the screen. 

What Death and the Maiden and The Reluctant Fundamentalist in both their forms show us is that one story can translate so many different ways depending on genre. Neither story was so drastically altered from its original state that it was unrecognizable in film version; however, both did change significantly when adapted to the screen. I think by reading both the novel and the play and watching both film adaptations, we're able to have a really comprehensive view of both what the stories are trying to convey and how literature is so malleable. 

Death and the Maiden

After reading and watching Death and the Maiden, I was very surprised to see how closely the play and the film resembled one another. Nine times out of ten, if I read a book then see the film later, there are multiple inconsistencies, holes in the plot, or sometimes, the plot has been completely rewritten. It is disappointing to read a book and think that the film adaptation will follow closely, then varies so greatly. The fact that both the play and the film were so similar was refreshing. I feel as if I would have been able to read the play while watching the film and it would have been the same. The ending was confusing though because it did not make it known definitely who was right or wrong or whether Dr. Miranda was the man who tortured Paulina. I felt like that was kind of left up in the air to be interpreted however the reader/ viewer wanted. I would have rather have known for sure that Dr. Miranda was guilty or that Paulina was mistaken.

            It was also interesting that the film took place in one scene in one room. The actors stayed within the confines of the home, except for when Paulina stole and crashed the car. The majority of the plot took place in the living room area of the house with occasional trips to the porch right outside. There were no flashbacks or other interrupting scenes. In a way, it reminded me of an amateur film, as if the director did all of the shots in sequence on a continuous film. From the moment Paulina sets the table and the power goes out until she and Gerardo leave Dr. Miranda at the cliff, it was one continuous scene which spanned the course of a night. The only scene that did not happen that night was when the characters were at the concert hall and Dr. Miranda stares at Paulina as Schubert plays. I think that was an interesting way to film the movie, but it made it appealing because it focused on what was happening in the scene rather than confusing viewers with changing locations or utilizing flashbacks.

            In comparing both the play and the movie to The Reluctant Fundamentalist, there are stark differences. The Reluctant Fundamentalist uses flashbacks, various locations and settings, voiceovers, and spans the course of a few years. Changez starts out in college at the beginning of the film but by the end he has graduated, worked at a big company for a few years, and returned to his home in Lahore. Death and the Maiden spans the time of one night, without changing scenery or using flashbacks. Another difference is that The Reluctant Fundamentalist does not follow the book closely at all. There are many differences, some which are substantial to the plot and storyline. Although there are various differences, both the novel and the movie are compelling in different ways. Although I am often disappointed when watching films that differ from the novels they were based on, I found both versions of The Reluctant Fundamentalist to be entertaining. The film did not take away from the novel and the novel did not make me feel differently towards the film. I think this shows that there can be differences, even major ones, between films and their book counterparts so long as they convey the same message and leave the viewer with the same interpretations, perspectives, and feelings as the book did. Obviously when making a book into a film, some things need to be cut, shortened, or added in order to make sense on the screen while keeping within a time frame. It is interesting that Roman Polanski was able to stick so closely to the play without having to drastically change the plot.

Jessica Weiss on film versus literature

The primary difference I feel between most works of literature and their film adaptations is the level of emotion I feel. While reading Death and the Maiden I felt more creeped out and more drawn into the book. Reading, for me, is a lot like thinking. I feel I am constantly thinking and feeling complex thoughts, and feelings are not images. Often times,when I read, I don't have the same images in my head as what I see in the movie. For example, when I read The Reluctant Fundamentalist I imagined the restaurant to be lavish and beautiful, with romantic candelight. In the movie, it was much dirtier, scarier, and seemed like a terrorist hide-out organization. Unfortunately, I saw the first part of Death and the Maiden before I ever began reading the play. When I read the play, I already had the image of a stormy night, with the lights out, and with the waves roaring in the background. This gave me false images that I would not have had in such detail had I read the play first. The parts of the play where Paulina talks about the metal rod being inserted inside her where scarier for me because they seemed more like personal thoughts inside my head, whereas when she says the same things in the movie, I feel like it is another Hollywood shocker tactic. I enjoyed the movie, but I loved the play. Often times, when I see a movie, I feel entertained. I see movies frequently, but I rarely see any movie more than once. With literature, I find that books have different effects on me emotionally at different times, and that whatever feeling I get, it is profound and long-lasting. Because The Reluctant Fundamentalist was my favorite piece of literature for any of my classes this semester, I find I relate many things to it. But I hated the film and how they totally lost the essence of the book. Probably the thing that bothered me the most was the two endings of Death and the Maiden. In the play, at the end Paulina is about to shot Dr. Miranda. It is the same sort of ending as The Relucatnt Fundamentalist where Changez is about to get shot, but no shots are actually described as being fired just yet. I find this to be an excellent ending because the reader doesn't really know what happens, so the reader can make it up in his/her head and ponder further. With the films adaptations of these movies, some really cliché emotions are forced upon you in what I feel is typical, so therefore devoid of real-life emotion. Paulina just walks away from Dr. Miranda on the edge of a cliff, then sees him casually at the orchestra. In this version, you get the feeling that Dr. Miranda is real. In the play, you aren't sure if he is an illusion in Paulina's head, a lasting impression of the post-traumatic stress she will probably suffer in silence for the rest of their life. Primarily, I think literature tends to be more complex, and allows for different ideas to occur in the mind of the reader, where as films tend to have an agenda that prevents quality emotions from the audience.

Dorfman's Death and the Maiden and Polanski's adaptation of the same name

After reading Ariel Dorfman's Death and the Maiden and watching Roman Polanski's cinematic adaptation of this play, reflect upon the textual and cinematic similarities and differences, and then compare your observations and analyses to Moshen Hamid's The Reluctant Fundamentalist and Mira Nair's cinematic adaptation of that novel. What do these works and their adaptations tell us about literature and film?

Feel free, as well, to further elaborate upon any of those subjects broached in our class discussion on Thursday. Remember, too, to comment on a classmate's blog post.

Ally Headings - La Vie Est Belle

            La Vie Est Belle was such a thought provoking film for me. I think Kourou is just like the rest of us. We all have dreams and interests that drive us out into the world to go after what we want in this life. We make plans to make our dreams come true and when something goes awry, we treat it as a minor bump in the road, but we press on. I see Kourou doing all of that in this film. His goal is to make it to the city to be a musician, but love and poverty get in his way. But to what extent will we go to make our dreams come true? How big of a role do the people with whom we associate the most play in our lives? We see Kourou at his lowest point when he tries to kill himself over Kabibi. That threw me for a loop because it kind of went against the character Kourou carried throughout the entire film. He’d been shut down a lot of times, and always managed to find a way back on track. It seemed like no one in the city thought he could play music, but he continued to play. I see this movie as a reminder that my worldly desires will fail me and that I need to turn to something greater than this world, something constant, in order to be able to resist the trials and tribulations of this broken earth.

Life is rosy. Life is a blessing. Life is unpredictable. Life is a mess. Life is a plethora of different events and different people and different places… Life is unique. Your life is different from my life and everyone else’s life. I think that’s why they call it “rosy.” It’s beautiful and it makes me happy.