Compare & contrast: the novel and movie “Forrest Gump”

The movie Forrest Gump, produced by Robert Zemeckis in 1994, is an adaptation of the original novel written by Winston Groom. Though the movie and the novel share the same name and the same plot, many differences exist between the two. These differences derive from the basic features of each media.

First of all, many scenes from the novel are omitted through the adaptation. In the novel, Forrest becomes a professional wrestler, a skilled chess player, and even a runner for the US Senate. He also spends some time in the mental hospital, and once saves Mao-Tse-Tung from drowning. However, the movie includes none of these events. This is basically because of the relatively short length of the movie. While people could read novels for several hours and even go over the previous contents if they want to, it is difficult for the movie directors to convey much plot in a couple of hours. The difference can also be attributed to the amount of information each medium conveys at a time. While the movie is a combination of visual and auditory information, the novel only contains letters, and leaves the readers to imagine and fill the gaps. Because not much information is conveyed through the novel, novel writers are relatively free to include complicated plots, as the readers wouldn’t be as confused as the moviegoers who have encountered the similarly complex story.

Moreover, there are differences in how each medium depicts the main characters as well. While in the novel, Forrest is not so innocent, uses profanity, and loses virginity to a person other than Jenny, the movie portrays Forrest as a more morally conscious and caring person, losing virginity to Jenny. There is a lack of closure in the novel, after Forrest finds out about his son; but in the movie, a stereotypical happy ending appears, as Forrest gets to be with his son. The novel and movie also differs in how they describe Jenny Curran. While in the novel, Jenny is not so present and is more of a free-spirited, mysterious being, the movie focuses more on her childhood, and emphasizes her affectionate relationship with Forrest. These differences also derive from the distinct characteristics of the novel and the movie. Compared to novels, movies generally tend to focus more on gathering more people and earning more profit. In order for the movie to be profitable, it has to satisfy people’s desires by including love story, the success of an ordinary person, and a happy ending. The movie director would probably have taken the risk of changing much of the original story, because he knew that such components of the movie could more effectively bring the moviegoers and drive him to success.

Reflection on Cuckoo's Nest

I remember laughing and cheering whenever I saw Tom & Jerry. It was always fun to watch Jerry win over Tom. Now a high school student, though, I am beginning to see things differently. Now I pity Tom who is always weak and suffering, rather than childishly enjoying simply what is shown. I think this is how one grows up - being able to see things differently.

While watching the movie, I suddenly found myself childishly laughing along with McMurphy and his mentally disordered fellows. The recognition allowed me to try to think in a different perspective. The author may have tried to write the novel in favor of the inmates in order to criticize how a society institutionalizes people, just like the writer of Tom & Jerry tried to stand in favor of Jerry, who represented the working class. However, a ward is a ward, and the mentally disordered are the mentally disordered. The patients there were definitely locked up for a reason.

Therefore, my initial delight of seeing how McMurphy challenges authority and brings joy to the ward now seems like a sign that I still haven't grown up completely. The mentally disordered people in the ward resembles the students in KMLA, who are not mentally mature in a similar way, and who are therefore limited freedom and instructed by others.

I have received lots of penalty points in this school. And I still think that most of them were too harsh for what I have actually done. Sometimes I even thought I don't deserve the points at all. Why do I have to be punished for not cleaning my own room? Why do I have to be punished for eating what I want to eat? Maybe this is why I was so delighted at McMurphy's action of punching the black men or stealing the key. But eventually, things have actually gone worse when he violated the rules that might feel a little "unreasonable".

The film gives us a notion that nobody would ever get out even after they get better, as the institution is too authoritative and restrictive. But to me, no one seems to deserve getting out. They really need to learn how to control themselves for the sake of others. I could confidently say this because I did learn from the rules and restrictions that at first seemed unreasonable. Breaking one or two minor rules seemed convenient at first, but I recognized that freedom cannot be handled so easily - it was I myself who eventually was harmed by those actions. This is the lesson I learned from the film. Having learned how to control myself, now I feel I'm ready to leave the school and handle my freedom. You could be free only when you deserve it - this is the biggest lesson I learned out of the film.

Don't lose yourself

When people watch the movie, they are usually amazed at Andy Dufresne's courage to turn a classic music from the guard's office and keep the guards from coming in, or his intelligence that eventually made him an owner of a big library and a respected financial adviser. How is that possible? How could a person, locked in a confined environment full of violence, loneliness, and fear, stay so calm and happy? I think Shawshank was different because he had succeeded in keeping his identity.

A prison is the most unlikely place that an identity of a person could be maintained. Every prisoner lives in an identical cell and follows an identical schedule. They are no longer called by their names; they are assigned numbers. Of course, humans want to feel different and special all the time, and thus the prisoners in the movie try to establish their identity within the place. Sometimes a prisoner may try to win over others, like the one who tried to rape Andy. Sometimes a prisoner tries to make a friend, just like the one who had a pet bird. Sometimes a prisoner can't bear the struggle to establish a new one, and instead shouts a desperate cry, "I don't belong here!"

Most of the struggles fail, as the prisoners just can't distinguish one from others who wear the same, eat the same, and live the same. But Andy Dufresne remains so special - he is always special and he always inspires others. How was this possible? Just because he was exceptionally intelligent or bold? Those qualities would have contributed to Andy's difference, but the underlying is premise is that Andy succeeded in establishing a strong identity of his own: the only prisoner who is actually trying to escape the cell.

I don't think Andy would have lost his unique qualities if the process of digging a hole took much more: it is the process itself that made Andy special. The feeling that he is doing things that others would never think of. The feeling that he is not living his life in vain, but rather digging and digging every day for freedom. These are why Andy was able to spare his sleep and dig a hole every night for several years.

I also faced an identity crisis when I came to KMLA. It was not much of an identical life pattern that made me suffer. On the contrary, it was overwhelming freedom to choose that confined me. I didn't know what to do, and I felt like I was a silent, invisible being. What helped me go through that confusion was a simple act of throwing baseballs, just like Andy's repetitive digging. Though playing baseball didn't raise my GPAs or made me confident, at least it made my life feel special, and I could live with it. Having a unique identity was more important than I thought.

On Sanity, Silence, and Korean Red Craze

According to Chief Bromden's description, the ward doesn't seem at all like the place for the insane. Chief Bromden's mental state clearly proves against the ward peoples' accusations of insanity. Like Red in The Shawshank Redemption, a narrator could sometimes be unreliable, since he or she could reflect personal, sometimes biased, thoughts on his or her narration. But does subjectivity mean insanity? Chief Bromden's voice is certainly that of a normal person, though he might inaccurately depict the ward as a prison rather than a hospital. In fact, he is more than normal, if decades of being in a confined environment with mentally disordered didn't make him crazy.

Then why is Bromden pretending to be deaf and dumb throughout the story? I believe it is because silence is sometimes the best way to reveal the darkest aspects of human beings, and eventually to survive from them. Would the black boys have harassed him so much, if Bromden was able to accuse them? Would he have kept away from any problems for so long, if he wasn't staying quiet? I remember watching an American movie "Quiet," which definitely shows the power of silence. It is Dot, the main character who pretends to be deaf and dumb, that faces the hidden evil of human beings(because people think she can't hear or speak), contemplate deeply on it, and eventually breaks the cycle either by speaking out loud, or by murdering a pervert father. I haven't finished the book, but Bromden's huge body as a symbol implies that Bromden's silence will not merely remain as a sign of subordination. He has power because he is silent.

So I believe that this book is not an accurate description of a real ward for the mentally diseased, but an effective tool to criticize how people so easily create prejudices and isolate the minority. To me, the black boys who seem to really enjoy the violence itself, and the Big Nurse who is obsessed about artificial order, look more insane. At this point, accusations for insanity is not the matter of prescribing illness, but effective tools for power struggles. The story reminds me of South Korea's situation in the 1970s and 1980s. For people who supported Japan's colonization of Korea, Korea's liberation was a drastic fall from their wealthy and powerful status. Now they had to face accusations of "being traitors." In order to survive from hostilities, they needed to set new enemies - not pro-Japanese collaborators, but Communists. Sudden outbreak of the Korean War saved them, since they were no longer traitors, but the most vigorous leaders of anti-Communist movement. Anyone who had leftist thoughts or were somehow related to leftist organizations were simply termed as "the Red." They weren't even treated as mad people. They simply couldn't exist in South Korea.

I think silence, again, was the only possible way to survive the fever. But that doesn't mean that these silence would last forever. Just like McMurphy boldly declared how he cannot be insane, Koreans with leftist philosophy are beginning to express their thoughts in an increasingly democratized society. North Korean Communism is definitely a wrong, inhumane ideology. But I wish that South Korean public can be more tolerable to the "McMurphys" who boldly express their "insane" philosophies. This world is not a ward, and we are not Big Nurses.

What the movie missed

(Honestly, I wasn’t able to finish reading the book. So I’ll compare the movie and the book here, and write another journal about the movie instead of the book.)

I actually watched the movie long ago, so I was able to picture the main characters that appear in the movie in while reading the book. The biggest advantage that a movie has is, of course, the visual vividness. Despite the various features of characters a reader could recognize from the book – speaking habits, general appearances, personality, etc – just knowing how characters look in the movie really helps my reading. As most of the students in class agreed after watching the movie, the movie was better to enjoy in a light manner.

But there was one important thing that the movie missed – the voice of Red. There must be a reason why Stephen King used a person other than the main character Andy Dufresne for his novel. Just because an outside perspective depicts the main character more objectively and accurately? We already know that Red, uneducated and confined in a very small world, cannot be a reliable narrator. No, the author didn’t intend that.

Readers tend to empathize with the main characters. And sometimes, sharing hero’s emotions and thoughts may not be helpful. Let’s imagine that the author wrote Andy’s story in his own voice. The most important lesson the readers could get is to maintain courage and endurance all the time to eventually break out of the cell. For the readers, the “cell” would be something other than the literal cell. But how effective is this message? Isn’t Andy to great for others to learn from? How different would this story be from other typical hero’s journey, such as Superman? Do we learn something from Superman? All we get is simple excitement, not real-life lessons.

Like Junho wrote in his journal, everyone has his or her own confinements or limitations that they’re locked in. Some might try to break them and a few might succeed, like Andy did in the novel. But this is not probably what King intended. Through the viewpoint of Red, who knows everything that goes in the prison, the readers see not only a person who broke out of the cell, but one who tries to enjoy life in cell, one who is so institutionalized that he commits suicide after being set free, and like Red, one who waits patiently, learns valuable lessons, and finally getting out. Andy’s case is not the only way to succeed in one’s life. Andy gained his freedom, but he would have suffered so much in the prison because he missed the outside world. For some people, simply trying to accept one’s limitations, or waiting patiently for opportunities to break them come would be better solutions. Without Red’s narrative, these messages couldn’t have been conveyed. And the movie failed to keep Red’s presence.

The Hero's Journey - Spiderman

Group 1

Our Film : Spiderman

Why we choose it : We believe that the film fits quite well to the stage of the hero's journey and everyone has watched the movie.

ACT I

Ordinary World:

Peter Parker is an ordinary student who works as a photographer for school newspaper. Peter is a secret admirer of Mary Jane (MJ). One day, students including Peter and MJ get a chance to visit a biology lab.

Call to Adventure:

In the lab, students see the fifteen genetically designed super spiders. However, there are only fourteen of them. While taking a picture of MJ, peter is bitten by the missed spider. Peter then discovers that he has earned many superpowers from the bite. With the given abilities and his uncle saying “with great power comes great responsibility”, he starts thinking about his supernatural abilities.

Refusal:

However, rather than using his power with responsibility, Peter goes to wrestling match to win money. He finally wins the match but later finds out that he was cheated by the owner of the venue, so that he cannot receive the prize money. Peter gets mad and decides not to stop a robber who has stolen the owner’s money. All in all, Peter uses his powers only to benefit himself in this part of the story.

Meeting with the Mentor:

With an extremely low possibility, Peter’s uncle is murdered by the robber he let go. Meeting with the mentor (his uncle), Peter realizes that he should use his powers for others and have more responsibility for his actions.

Crossing the Threshold:

After Peter realizes that he could have saved his uncle from death, his inner guilt makes him use his supernatural powers to help others in danger and become a super hero.

ACT II

Tests, Allies, Enemies:

Peter begins to save citizens in danger and he earns a good reputation as Spiderman. Citizens and media gets interested about Spiderman and this led to the negative description of him by the local newspaper.

Approach to the Innermost Cave :

Despite the critical articles portraying him as a villain rather than a hero, Spiderman continues to save and help people of the town.

Ordeal:

A new villain named the Green Goblin appears in town. He claims to destroy Spiderman and take over the city. It is the fate of Spiderman to fight against this fatal enemy on his hero journey.

ACT III

The Road Back :

Peter Parker feels guilty after his friend, Harry, decides to revenge Spider-man whom Harry wrongly believes to have killed his father. Harry doesn't know Peter is Spider Man, so he tells his plan of revenge to Peter, making Peter feel guilty.

Resurrection:

Despite what had happened, Peter decides to leave as the hero and flies through the city, catching criminal and working as the hero.

Return With the Elixir:

Peter is able to keep the peace of the city - at least for this story.

Points of Contention

1. We had a contention on how to view Peter's uncle as a mentor. While some regarded uncle's previous advice(with great power comes great responsibility) as the real lesson, some thought that it is only after uncle's death that Peter's uncle finally becomes Peter's real mentor.

2. Most of us agreed that Spiderman approaches the innermost cave by rescuing people's lives, as he decides to become a hero. But some argued that Spiderman faces real challenge when he meets the Green Goblin, and that this stage must be the approach to the innermost cave

3. Spiderman doesn't return to ordinary life, so there were some disagreements on which is the stage of "the Road Back." Some pointed out guiltness of killing his friend's father as the trigger of Peter's inner struggle, while some thought the relationship with MJ was the key factor.