The film Shawshank Redemption had several different aspects from the book, about which many people seemed really enthusiastic. However, my opinions differ. I think that the book had much more advantages compared to the book.
The first advantage that truly stood out was the tone of voice. Sure, Red in the film spoke lines exactly resembling those in the book, but the book's continuous tone of story-telling style was much better in conveying Red's voice. It is hard not to admit that one of the book's most conspicuous aspect was Red's voice, but the movie ruined that to a big extent.
The second advantage the book had (and the film ruined) was the length. One of the book's strongest points, I believe, is the length; the emotion and the depth of theme (freedom) is emphasized most effectively in the book's short length. Nonetheless, the film adaptation has become quite a long (142 min.) piece.
For these two reasons, I believe the film was not so better than the book. Too bad I couldn't say anything in the film-or-death air of the class.
We are all entitled to our own opinions, and while you are in the minority I do think you have some good points. Voice-over narrative is considered a bit cliche within films, and at film school students are always warned against it, because it is thought to be an easy way of exposition. Instead of showing the audience, we are telling them what to think etc. But Shawshank, in my opinion, is a rare case where it works, and the story needs that element. Morgan Freeman is the kind of actor that can achieve it. Film-or-die? Really? @@
답글삭제