I think the most important thing a film translation of the book must require is a consistency of the plot. Along with the plot, a clear relationship should be apparent in the characters and conflicts of the story. A film translation should definitely contain the same themes or messages found in the original text. In the case of The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the cinematography will determine how successful this movie is. The story takes place in a fantasy world with magical characters and a supernatural plot. Even with our technology, to create something as detailed and exquisite as Narnia is not an easy task. The fantasy of this book is what makes it appealing to both children and adults. The children are attracted to the magic, the characters, and the fact that the main characterse in this book are three young children. Children are fascinated by the make-believe, fairytale like stories. They see Edmund, Peter, Susan and Lucy and think maybe one day it could be them. This is why the characters and fantasy of this story are vital in keeping the children interested. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe contains scenes of danger, fighting, and of course the evilness of the White Witch. I think this is what attracts the adults the most. Behind the child-heros and the happy endings, there's that bit of violence and evil. Adults can also appreciate the intricate details of the settings and character that come from intense descriptions in the book.

This is the second time in this class that someone has turned a boring, dreadful book into an interesting, clever movie. I found this movie to be much more intriguing and likable than the book. Not only did the screenwriters make the film more interesting, but they did so with maintaining the intergrity of the text. This film clearly is a radical translation to the Charles Dickens' book. Most of the changes were in changing the plot and conflicts to be more appealing to modern times. Because the book was written in the 1800s, it makes it difficult for current readers to relate to. The most evident change was Pip's goal in life. In the book, Pip is set up to become a gentlemen in London. This contradicts with the movie because Fin (Pip's new name) travels to New York to become an aspiring artist. This is more modern because people do not train to be gentlemen or cannot make an occupation out of that. The screenwriters also changed the settings of the story. Instead of taking place in a small town in Europe and London, Fin grows up in Florida and travels to New York City. The screenwriters also left some characters and scenes out which I found to only help make the story less confusing.

Translating a book to a movie can be a very difficult, tedious task. I think the three most important things in a successful translation is the consistency of plot, tone, and characters. Since the movie is based upon a previous written book, the plot should follow the same course as the story. Perhaps the author is telling a true story which is truly meaningful to them, or maybe just trying to teach the lesson. It was written a certain way for a reason and their story should be altered as little as possible. Within the plot the theme and tone are also developed. The second evaluative criteria would be the translation of the tone. The filmmaker should use appropriate stage directions to set the tone. This can be done by use of lighting, music, scenery, and dialogue. The tone is important in interpreting the message and plot of the story. The final evaluative criteria is the development of characters. Characters are the single most important thing in a story. A minor character have the same impact as a well-devleoped protagonist. Authors spend a lot of time providing appropriate description of each character. This is important because it allows the reader to visualize the character as imagined. The words written by an author leave room for interpretation, unlike movies. The translation is given the character description and their only task is to find an appropriate actor/actress who portrays the character the best.

I know how pessimistic and close-minded I can be towards things, but when I'm wrong, I say I'm wrong. I was wrong about the movie Adaptation, but my feelings remain strongly against the book Orchid Thief. The screenplay was interesting, unexpected and clever. Charlie Kaufman faced a very difficult task by taking on the role to write this script but he did so in his original way. He knew the book was boring and that's why he put a spin to the ending and making it appealing to a bigger audience. By incorporating drugs and violence, Kaufman made the story much more interesting. Also by writing himself into the script as a character he showed the difficulties he encountered portraying the themes and lessons in the book, something that often goes unnoticed. The transitions between the character's individual plots were obvious and easy to follow. Susan Orleans had written a powerful, although extremely boring novel about John Laroche and his orchids. I would not have assigned this book, or even a 10 page summary, to a class of high school students. Unless you're like Hillary and enjoy read the dictionary for fun, most students would have a similar reaction to mine.