Was anyone else sort of bored while reading the first four chapters? I'm not really interested in the process of making movies, although I do see how that can appeal to some people, so the first four chapters were basically information over-load. However, I did like the quotes on page three because I thought it showed the wide range of opinions on movies. The one I want to talk about is the one about Julius Caesar and how the student was able to get more out of the movie then reading the book. As a future teacher, I feel like if we show a movie in our classroom, that movie should serve some other purpose than entertainment. While that is an important factor because we don't want to waste time on something the students aren't interested in, I feel like the movies we show should also heighten student comprehension. That's why I agree with this quote about Shakespeare. Many times students struggle with Shakespeare plays, but if they can see a movie adaptation, they can better understand what is going on. I know it helped me watching Romeo and Juliet while reading the play. This was my first experience with Shakespeare. Setting besides the fact that this is one of the hardest plays to introduce Shakespeare with (I would chose Macbeth or a comedy personally), learning to understand Shakespearian English is tough until one gets the hang of it, so seeing it acted out helped me understand it. That's why I like the idea of showing a movie at the same time as reading a play. Or, if the class is exploring a theme in the classroom, watching movies that include that theme would be a great way to cover more material. It takes longer to read a book than it does watching a movie, so the combination of the two would be a great way to make the most of our time.
The next point I would like to talk about is the debate the book touches upon: adaptation. This is sort of weird for me because I fall on both sides. Some adaptations I love while others I hate. I don't think every piece of literature should be made into a film, while others should be. Case in point, I personally think Nicholas Sparks' books aren't all that great, but the movies are. I loved the film adaption of A Walk to Remember, but I was bored with the book. I enjoy the Dark Is Rising Sequence, but the movie version of the book that gives the series its name isn't all that good. As a movie itself, it's not bad, but as an adaptation, it's pretty much horrible. For me, the film has to be able to capture what the book is. Yes, there will be some variations, due to constraints. I don't really want to keep going back to Twilight, but there are so many good examples. Sparkling vampires in the book is interesting. I don't entirely like it because I grew up with Buffy and that's how I think vampires should die, but I can appreciate the creative license. However, in the movie, it doesn't work at all. Also, minor plot points can be taken out for the sake of time constraints, like in the Harry Potter movies. While I don't really like that Neville basically replaced Dobby in the 4th and 5th movies and I would hate it if it had happened in the books, in the movies it works. It would be cheaper to have an actor take over that role than it would be to CGI Dobby in.
I like you point about Shakespeare's plays being made into films and how those films can deepen one's understanding of the play. I took Introduction to Shakespeare my sophomore year of college, and I though I was already familiar with Shakespeare's work from the reading we did in High School, I was pleased when my professor had us watch the film adaptation of Much Ado About Nothing. Everyone in the class enjoyed the movie and the play also became more enjoyable as well and more easily understood.
ReplyDelete