Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
truth Big fish and TTTC
The affects of telling a story with only facts leaves the story dry and boring, but with adding your own opinion and twist to a story the story can become much more entertaining and enjoyable. Both the movie Big Fish and The Things The Carried have taken the truth to make a story as great as it can be told.
The movie Big fish uses stories that can clearly be seen to stretch the truth, the witch was clearly an example of how far the truth can be stretched. If he had shown a plain old lady who had caught him it would be just like every other story, boring, but instead the story takes a twist. He goes up straight to the witch knocks on her door and says “can I see your eye please”. Instead of the plain truth that could have been he sneaked into the lady’s house and he got caught. By making the lady show her eye the story seems more interesting as to how he dies and such. Also during the circus act of the movie he agrees to work only for information, clearly the jobs that he has to do such as cleaning elephant excretion and washing someone’s back are not something most if not all people would put up for, for just one piece of information every day, especially for a girl that you have not met nor knows you exist nonetheless. By putting him trough all of this in the movie it shows the viewer a much interesting time, it takes the love of the character and stretches it so far that it shows how determined he is to prove his love. Then as he went to war his way of getting back home he describes it as “ a whaling ship to Russia, a barge to Cuba and a small dirty canoe to Miami” his description and word choice stretches the truth of the story even more. By putting this in he makes the journey seem so much harder than it was, it could have just been one simple boat ride to another but the description on the trip keeps the viewer on their seats begging for more of what is to come.
The book the Things The Carried also uses the advantage of stretching the truth in order to tell its story. For example, as the chapter ends with the necklace of tongues around Linda it seems as is the truth was highly stretched there, instead of saying she has a beaded necklace, Tim O’Brien uses tongues which shows how much he was willing to use this body parts to make this part of the story give the reader a sensation of being disturbed. If not he could have used something less disturbing such as a finger. Also by using the strongest part of the human body it could represent her strength to fight and much more emphasis that she is just as strong as the males in the book, if not stronger.
Unlike the movie Big Fish the book The things they carried uses the way of stretching the truth to not only enhance the experience of the journey but to try and use it in order to make to reflect on a war that was just as bad. For example during the Vietnam war thousands of children were killed, in the book Tim O’Brien describes the boy he kills in the most gruesome way he thought of possible, he uses this to show the reader that the time was not fun and games it was death everywhere, when describing the boy he never referred to him as man once . By calling the corps “boy” Tim O’Brien shows that the war children and women were also getting hurt. While the movie Big Fish uses the ability of stretching the truth to only tell a great story. As the story is not based off of an event but a man with extreme determination to get what he wants when he wants it and to feel invincible just because he saw in an eye he will not die trough cancer.
As both the Things The Carried and Big Fish takes the facts and put their own spin onto it leaving the reader and viewer wanting more and begging. If this was not done the book and movie would be so boring no one would want to read it. But the ways of stretching the truth can be very different. There is a difference in stretching the truth just for a good story like Big Fish and stretching the truth for a much more accurate and here is a difference in stretching the truth just for a good story like Big Fish and stretching the truth for a much more accurate reflecting the time it was happening. However if sacrificing the facts for a good story really worth the price?
The movie Big fish uses stories that can clearly be seen to stretch the truth, the witch was clearly an example of how far the truth can be stretched. If he had shown a plain old lady who had caught him it would be just like every other story, boring, but instead the story takes a twist. He goes up straight to the witch knocks on her door and says “can I see your eye please”. Instead of the plain truth that could have been he sneaked into the lady’s house and he got caught. By making the lady show her eye the story seems more interesting as to how he dies and such. Also during the circus act of the movie he agrees to work only for information, clearly the jobs that he has to do such as cleaning elephant excretion and washing someone’s back are not something most if not all people would put up for, for just one piece of information every day, especially for a girl that you have not met nor knows you exist nonetheless. By putting him trough all of this in the movie it shows the viewer a much interesting time, it takes the love of the character and stretches it so far that it shows how determined he is to prove his love. Then as he went to war his way of getting back home he describes it as “ a whaling ship to Russia, a barge to Cuba and a small dirty canoe to Miami” his description and word choice stretches the truth of the story even more. By putting this in he makes the journey seem so much harder than it was, it could have just been one simple boat ride to another but the description on the trip keeps the viewer on their seats begging for more of what is to come.
The book the Things The Carried also uses the advantage of stretching the truth in order to tell its story. For example, as the chapter ends with the necklace of tongues around Linda it seems as is the truth was highly stretched there, instead of saying she has a beaded necklace, Tim O’Brien uses tongues which shows how much he was willing to use this body parts to make this part of the story give the reader a sensation of being disturbed. If not he could have used something less disturbing such as a finger. Also by using the strongest part of the human body it could represent her strength to fight and much more emphasis that she is just as strong as the males in the book, if not stronger.
Unlike the movie Big Fish the book The things they carried uses the way of stretching the truth to not only enhance the experience of the journey but to try and use it in order to make to reflect on a war that was just as bad. For example during the Vietnam war thousands of children were killed, in the book Tim O’Brien describes the boy he kills in the most gruesome way he thought of possible, he uses this to show the reader that the time was not fun and games it was death everywhere, when describing the boy he never referred to him as man once . By calling the corps “boy” Tim O’Brien shows that the war children and women were also getting hurt. While the movie Big Fish uses the ability of stretching the truth to only tell a great story. As the story is not based off of an event but a man with extreme determination to get what he wants when he wants it and to feel invincible just because he saw in an eye he will not die trough cancer.
As both the Things The Carried and Big Fish takes the facts and put their own spin onto it leaving the reader and viewer wanting more and begging. If this was not done the book and movie would be so boring no one would want to read it. But the ways of stretching the truth can be very different. There is a difference in stretching the truth just for a good story like Big Fish and stretching the truth for a much more accurate and here is a difference in stretching the truth just for a good story like Big Fish and stretching the truth for a much more accurate reflecting the time it was happening. However if sacrificing the facts for a good story really worth the price?
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
on the road pt. 3
on the road seems to have slowed down the characters are finding out what they want in life and how they want to achieve it. they are also learning about the horrid side of nature and how it takes a strong effect on how they are to live their lives. by the cop writing them a speeding tickit it shows that they are not going to get anywhere in life by just running from one place to another. The characters figure this out around this point of the book. Sal however seems to be behind his friends like dean in the pursuit of the answer at to what he wants. Dean starts to understand religion and its basic meaning, he finds something he can rely on while sal is trying to figure out how he is going to get money. Lee also helps to show them how life is, their friend carol marx is another friend whom found what he wanted in life and is trying to help his friends, he helps dean by telling him that leaving his family behind was wrong.
the book is much better than the grapes of wrath to me the details is perfect i can imagine the whole story in my head instead of meaniingless details, however there are parts of the book where he rambles on but then the good parts of the book makes up for it. the mind of the author is twisted and seems to be a great way as to why the books take its weird turns.
the book is much better than the grapes of wrath to me the details is perfect i can imagine the whole story in my head instead of meaniingless details, however there are parts of the book where he rambles on but then the good parts of the book makes up for it. the mind of the author is twisted and seems to be a great way as to why the books take its weird turns.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
on the road pt. 2
the book is great. THe use of detail he uses is much more simple and straight to the point unlike grapes, the book seems much more up beat and in a faster pace. the time period of the book has also influenced my feelings of the book . The grapes of wrath was during the depression and it left a nasty feeling in my mind, while on the road was about the time after the depression it seems to be much more awaken. Also the places the characters were from influenced my feeling toward the two book. THe JOad family being from the west, it felt dreary as if it was going on and on like the country side, but on the road it had given me a feeling of the city, there were twist and turns and moved at a fast pace.
Sal reminds me of siddartha he is always on the move and does not know what he wants. he seems to be looking for his way of life and what the point of life really is. Sal however seems not to be able to find it, he seems to be all about sex and stealing it does not seem like he will ever be able to understand what he wants in life. The people he meets seem to be the kind of people decent people will not associate with but he does and it seems like it will be the fall down of him.
Sal reminds me of siddartha he is always on the move and does not know what he wants. he seems to be looking for his way of life and what the point of life really is. Sal however seems not to be able to find it, he seems to be all about sex and stealing it does not seem like he will ever be able to understand what he wants in life. The people he meets seem to be the kind of people decent people will not associate with but he does and it seems like it will be the fall down of him.
Monday, March 15, 2010
grapes of wrath 26-end
The book gave a great ending, it was completly unpredicatable. The idea of killing the baby, and allowing the mother showed reality. Insted of letting everythign become happy and they make it, Stinebeck showed the reality of the time. He stuck to the theme of reality. Out of everything i think the ending was the greatest. Stinebeck deserves credit for writing it, he did not only portray reality he showed the nature of a family duing the time and how curroppted captialism can make society.
However my feelings about the detail still stands the same. The book had way too much detail, it couold have been shorter and keep the reader turning much faster insted of dragging on about one topic. The way he writes the book was genious he dumb down the characters dialect, and by doing this he makes the character seem much more realistic.
THe book follows a theme of sticking to gether. but at the end there are only six of them left. Ma had to let go, but why? Is she just being storng and not showing her feeling? if so is she going to break soon? Is she giving up? does she belife, and still have hope?
The secne of Rose of Sharon losing her child symbloizes that the future of the family was diminished. THe family has no other family member everyone seem as if they will die. The rain seems to symbloize their hopes drowning. While rose Of Sharon feed the grown man it showed how currupted the world was and forced people to stoop to desperate measures.
However my feelings about the detail still stands the same. The book had way too much detail, it couold have been shorter and keep the reader turning much faster insted of dragging on about one topic. The way he writes the book was genious he dumb down the characters dialect, and by doing this he makes the character seem much more realistic.
THe book follows a theme of sticking to gether. but at the end there are only six of them left. Ma had to let go, but why? Is she just being storng and not showing her feeling? if so is she going to break soon? Is she giving up? does she belife, and still have hope?
The secne of Rose of Sharon losing her child symbloizes that the future of the family was diminished. THe family has no other family member everyone seem as if they will die. The rain seems to symbloize their hopes drowning. While rose Of Sharon feed the grown man it showed how currupted the world was and forced people to stoop to desperate measures.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The grapes of wrafth chapter 17-20
At this point the boo0k seems to be gettin much more dramatic. It takes time to explain the hardships of the calfornia life. Chapter 19 seems to catch my attention alot because it describes americans stealing land from the mexicans then americans are stealing it from them selves which makes no sense towards the author. I think the author realizes this and uses the chapter to show how harsh life really is in california. THe death of grand ma was a really dramatic ending, it was so predicatable i thought it was not going to happen. I thogught that Stinebeck would show women strenght and dependience on family in order to live. But she does not i think this shows taht no matter how strong someone look anything that hurts mentally can break them. The disrespect taht was given because of the lack of money seems much more harsh than california. Also in the next chapter the family seems to be breaking up. The unity be the joad family and the Wilson family has broken up. Now im left to think will they even make it to california? They seem to have been snapped back to reality. In chapter 20 the joad family arrived tin California. They have a conversation with a man who decided to go back because he cannot deal with life in california. HE talks about the black list and how farmers (okies) cannot revolt because if they did they would be arrested and put on the blacklist so they would never be able to find jobs. The thing that suprises me the most in this section of the book is the idea that the Joad family is not discorage. Tey have went trought so much losing their family members and still they want to go to california. They belive in god and look out for each other. Cassy, for example tells Tom that he will take the heat for for him because he just had paroll and leaving the state was illegeal . But there times when the family is not able to stay together, but again tey still do not lose hope. I wonder how many of them will be lost? Will they ever be happy wit the losses they have?
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Grapes of wrath chapter10-16
These chapters talked about the struggle taken by the family to get to California. THe first two chapters talked about them allowing Casy to come along with them even though they really dont think they have the space. They soon run into problems before they start their journey. One can only inferr that this mean their journey is goin to be much more hard. Their grandpa did not want to leave, he wanted to stay on the land and fend for him self, but they drugged him and forced him alone. I think from this they will regret it. If he dies on the road they would probally start to think what if we did leave him can would he have lived longer?. As the book countinue we fine out Grandpa dies because of a stroke. From this i think they are starting to think what if he was left back home would he have gotten a stroke? if so who he have gotten help? The book talks about the joad family being affected by the economy but then it brings in the Wilson family. This does not seem realistic to myself. The families are both heading to California, people have told me time and time again there are not enough jobs their they should not be going. But yet these two families get together and go. What do they expect to happen when they reach California? From the issue with money they have thought ahead, but when it comes to this subject they do not, why not? Also the death of the dog, what has that proven? The turtle was almost purposely killed, and did not die, the dog however did. Why? Is the dog a representation of just the family in the west while the turtle showed the whole US?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)