When the movie Persepolis began to play in class on Wednesday I was surprised to see that it was basically in comic book format. I thought that it was going to be a movie with real actors in a real setting. The reason I thought that was because that is how other comic book movies are made so I just assumed this would be the same way. Realizing that it was filmed like a comic book I thought that the movie was going to be stupid because I was thinking we just read this, and now we are watching it on screen, what a waste of time. However, as the movie progressed I began to like how it was filmed.
Since the movie was basically the book on screen, it actually made more sense to make the film this way because it did not take a lot away from the book. Even though they could not fit every little detail into the move they were able to get all of the major points across. There still were some problems that took away from the book while watching the movie. For example, in the book there were a lot of things going on at once in some points. Like the grandmother and Marjane would be talking, and then the mom and dad would be talking at the same time. While reading I actually had time to look at every “bubble” to understand what everyone was saying. However, in the movie I could not grasp what everyone was saying because it was going so fast, I did not have time to think about anything; the movie just kept going. Another thing was the transition from one scene of her life to the next was hard to understand where they were going. In comparison to the book, there was a title for each time Marjane was going to tell another story so you had time to contemplate what just happened previously, and move on to the next message she was trying to give. In the movie, it jumped around from scene to scene so fast that I was confused as to what was actually going on. While I was watching the movie I was thinking, wait did this happen first in the book or are they just trying to speed the movie up?
I was really excited when we got to watch the second part of the film because we had only read the first part. I actually had no idea that there was a second part after she moved to France when she was younger. I was surprised that she actually went back with her parents eventually because I just figured that they were going to die, and she would live in France for the rest of her life miserable. Even though I did not read the second half of the book, I think that it did a great job at getting across what happened in the next chapter of her life. Back to the way it was filmed, in the book I laughed at some points because Marjane was an interesting character, so when things happened in the movie that happened in the book I still found them funny. So even if I never read the book, I still think that they did a wonderful job at conveying Marjane’s experience through the Islamic Revolution. I normally do not like comic books, or movies that are based off of books, but I found Persepolis enjoyable and easy to understand.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Spiderman 2
Todd Gilchrist was not very fond of the film Spiderman 2. He felt that many of the scenes were dragged out for too long, like when spiderman starts to lose his powers and he has to take the elevator. Another part he mentioned was when Aunt May was saying how spiderman was a necessary hero to society, and how the audience obviously understood that he was going to become spiderman again. Gilchrist also felt like there was way too much emotion in the movie because it kept showing Peter Parker's life. He thinks that it would be good for the people who read Spiderman in the 70's, but not for people who are going to see a movie at all.
Roger Ebert felt that the movie was great. He thought that the sequel was much better than the first Spiderman movie, and the it was a job well done. He loved the fact that it gave a better view of Peter Parker and who he was, rather than only showing Spiderman because people relate more to the human behind the super hero. Ebert also thinks that this is not only a good movie based off a comic book for comic book readers, but it is also a movie for movie goers because it was an all around good movie. Ebert also makes plenty of time to point out how amazing the special effects in this movie were because they did a great job in combining human with super powers so it looked real, and not all fake like in the first one.
Roger Ebert felt that the movie was great. He thought that the sequel was much better than the first Spiderman movie, and the it was a job well done. He loved the fact that it gave a better view of Peter Parker and who he was, rather than only showing Spiderman because people relate more to the human behind the super hero. Ebert also thinks that this is not only a good movie based off a comic book for comic book readers, but it is also a movie for movie goers because it was an all around good movie. Ebert also makes plenty of time to point out how amazing the special effects in this movie were because they did a great job in combining human with super powers so it looked real, and not all fake like in the first one.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Persepolis
When we began watching the movie Persepolis I was actually surprised to see that it was basically a comic book in motion. What I mean by that is the format of the film was exactly like the book, and I was kind of upset because I was thinking we just read this and it is exactly the same as watching the movie, what a waste of time. However, I began to pay more attention and I like the format of the film this way because it doesn't take away from the message the book was trying to give.
There were a few things that took away from the book when watching the movie. Evven though they left out a few scenes, they put all of the major scenes in the movie so that is the least of the problems. When reading the book I had time to look at was everyone was saying in their little "bubble" when they speak, but in the movie that was not possible. There were a lot of things going on at once, just like in the book. In the movie it was harder to grasp what was happening at some points because you didn't have time to think, the movie kept going. Another thing is the transition from one scene of her life to the next. In the book it says the title of what you are going to read about next, and you had time to think about waht previously happened. The movie sort of jumped around from this scene to the next scene so fast that I was confused as to what was actually going on. While watching the movie I was thinking, wait did this happen first in the book, or are they just speeing the movie up?
Overall, I did like the movie, besides the fact that we didn't get to watch all of it;). I think that not a lot was taken away from the book because they were set up the same way. Unlike other movies where they change the characters apperances, dialogue, and other things to make it more dramatic. I like how this movei did not do that at all. Therefore, the book and movie are simillar and do not contrast too much as to where it takes away the actual message.
There were a few things that took away from the book when watching the movie. Evven though they left out a few scenes, they put all of the major scenes in the movie so that is the least of the problems. When reading the book I had time to look at was everyone was saying in their little "bubble" when they speak, but in the movie that was not possible. There were a lot of things going on at once, just like in the book. In the movie it was harder to grasp what was happening at some points because you didn't have time to think, the movie kept going. Another thing is the transition from one scene of her life to the next. In the book it says the title of what you are going to read about next, and you had time to think about waht previously happened. The movie sort of jumped around from this scene to the next scene so fast that I was confused as to what was actually going on. While watching the movie I was thinking, wait did this happen first in the book, or are they just speeing the movie up?
Overall, I did like the movie, besides the fact that we didn't get to watch all of it;). I think that not a lot was taken away from the book because they were set up the same way. Unlike other movies where they change the characters apperances, dialogue, and other things to make it more dramatic. I like how this movei did not do that at all. Therefore, the book and movie are simillar and do not contrast too much as to where it takes away the actual message.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Exercise Ch.1
1)
a. A number of scientists' experiments suggest that there are dangerous levels of Chemical X in the Ohio groundwater.
b. It is often said that this novel is boring.
c. Americans today tend to believe that football is boring.
d. Common sense seems to dictate that male students often dominate class discussions.
e. Conventional wisdon has it that the film is really about the problems of romantic relationships.
f. Many people assume that templates like the ones in this book will stifle their creativity.
2)If there was an idea about comics it was that they do not relate to real life, and there is no importance for there existance except to amuse children. Isn't that just stereotyping all comics though? Whatever happened to the hidden meanings and subliminal messages in comics. There are plenty of political cartoons that seem to find their way in the monrning paper to give people a laugh. I happen to sympathize with adult comic book readers, though, perhaps because there are comics out there that do relate to real life. Not all comic books are meant to be for only children to enjoy. Obivously because all the comics are being made into movies, and they are a little too inappropriate or violent for children to watch.
a. A number of scientists' experiments suggest that there are dangerous levels of Chemical X in the Ohio groundwater.
b. It is often said that this novel is boring.
c. Americans today tend to believe that football is boring.
d. Common sense seems to dictate that male students often dominate class discussions.
e. Conventional wisdon has it that the film is really about the problems of romantic relationships.
f. Many people assume that templates like the ones in this book will stifle their creativity.
2)If there was an idea about comics it was that they do not relate to real life, and there is no importance for there existance except to amuse children. Isn't that just stereotyping all comics though? Whatever happened to the hidden meanings and subliminal messages in comics. There are plenty of political cartoons that seem to find their way in the monrning paper to give people a laugh. I happen to sympathize with adult comic book readers, though, perhaps because there are comics out there that do relate to real life. Not all comic books are meant to be for only children to enjoy. Obivously because all the comics are being made into movies, and they are a little too inappropriate or violent for children to watch.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Eisner & McCloud
This comic strip about comics was actually really interesting to me. There were a lot of things that I would never even thought of like what the word comic means. It was obvious that you cannot put a broad definition on it because comics present many different stories.
I really liked chapter two where the whole "This is Not a Pipe" was going on. Then many different icons on the next page had things under it like "This is not my voice or This is not the law." That part kept me interested the most, and it actually made alot of sense.
The "Closure" section was interesting because it was showing how comics do not show every part of what is happeneing, but you yourself fill in the blanks automatically. Like the part where the guy is about to be killed, and then we just assume that he got killed with an axe because in the previous panel that is what it showed. This comic strip had me thinking a lot about things that we ourselves to subconsciously.
I really liked chapter two where the whole "This is Not a Pipe" was going on. Then many different icons on the next page had things under it like "This is not my voice or This is not the law." That part kept me interested the most, and it actually made alot of sense.
The "Closure" section was interesting because it was showing how comics do not show every part of what is happeneing, but you yourself fill in the blanks automatically. Like the part where the guy is about to be killed, and then we just assume that he got killed with an axe because in the previous panel that is what it showed. This comic strip had me thinking a lot about things that we ourselves to subconsciously.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
