"This is What it Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona"
In this story Thomas and Victor are older; their characters are more defined and not as likeable.
Thomas is described as a storyteller no one wants to listen to. In the film the girls and Suzy asked him for a story and seem to enjoy listening to him. The story Thomas told about the fire and Victor’s father saving him was also left out and I feel this took away from the discovery of the story that unfolded in the film.
In this version of the story Victor seems less self assured he says he wants to be a warrior, in the film he was all about what it took to be Indian, in his mind at least.
In the film version Victor and Thomas met Suzy, she was a vital part of the story filling in some of the missing pieces of the puzzle that was Victors life. In this story Victor is willing to go into the trailer and look through his fathers belongings, in the film this was a traumatic point for him, a struggle. Victor’s memories were bittersweet and kept him from moving forward.
In this story there is no fire, no saving of Thomas by Victor’s father and no retelling of Victor’s fathers leaving. For me there is no real connection between Victor and Thomas. These three main characters seemed flat, one dimensional at best. Film was, in my opinion, a much better medium for the telling of this story. The film ending was also different. The questions poised by Thomas and the emotions shared by Victor gave the story meaning and a sense of closure. I feel the film gave the story much more credibility and as an avid reader I usually feel print fills in the details that make a story more credible.
Hi BetteJo,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your writing. I commented in my blog about the girls wanting to hear Thomas's stories. They respected him for who he was unlike Victor. I also thought in the writing there was no real connection between Victor and Thomas. I enjoyed the movie much better. You do a great job with critical thinking. Thanks. Barb
Hi BetteJo,
ReplyDeleteI didn't really think about it but Victor and Thomas do seem less likable in the reading. I feel like the storyline in the movie was much more powerful than the reading. There were very meaningful parts left out of the reading that really changed the whole plot. I also felt that there was less of a connection between Victor and Thomas.
Deborah
Hi Bettejo,
ReplyDeleteI thought the movie was more heartfelt as well. And I also thought that Suzy was a vital part to the story as well for Victors' life. I think that when they wrote the story they took the life out of the whole thing. The movie was much better and the story to me showed shallowness.
Hi BetteJo,
ReplyDeleteI like your observation that Thomas is respected as a storyteller in the film, which we don't see in the short story.
His storytelling is a necessary part of the film's ending. We hear a monologue from Thomas discussing forgiveness and asking what's left after forgiveness. It's a brilliant ending because is gives us the closure we need, but it also opens the characters up to the future. We are left to wonder what will happen to them.
It's paradoxical that the film version emphasizes storytelling while the text version downplays it.
Thanks for your insights!
Lauren
Hi Bettyjo ,
ReplyDeleteI also like books over the movies but this story to me was not very good it left out way to much. I think it took away from the meaning of thier relationship.
Hi BetteJo,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your writing. I also felt the connection between Thomas and Victor was stronger in the film. It was what made the story compelling in my opinion. Without this and the back story of the fire the story didn't have as much power and strength as the movie.
Its interesting how the film provides more detail then the book does. Generally books have to make you visualize what is going on but in this case the movie provides more detail and background about the characters.
ReplyDeleteHi BetteJo,
ReplyDeleteThe movie does provide much more detail because it is an hour and a half long which allows the writers to jam it with many different scenes of the story. But with the short story the writer is only given limited space and must incorporate only the most important scenes of the story making it more powerful of a story then the movie.
Thanks, cody.
Hi BetteJo,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post because it was very detailed on why you like the movie better. I agree that the story seems a little flat and the characters not as interesting.
Hi BetteJo,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that print usually gives the details that make the story more credible, but this story was lacking them. I think that the characters are a lot less likeable because that story doesn't give us a chance to meet them. One of the things I liked about the film was the characters and how they showed events from the past which made them into the people they were when the film was shot. It's just too bad the short story didn't give us at least the same view of them as the film,
I agree the relationship and connection between Victor and Thomas was a lot stronger. Instead of just reading about it, we actually got to see it!
ReplyDelete