Thursday, February 28, 2013
Glass Menagerie film
Now that you have viewed The Glass Menagerie and you have also read the play prior to this, what is your reaction? Do you believe the play is much easier to follow after having read the play? Would the film be boring without having read the play first? Do you think Tennessee Williams was represented well enough as to how the film was directed and how all the choreography came into play? Think about the lighting, the music, and the narration. Was there as much narration in the film as in the written play? Provide your full feedback please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Glass Menagerie was an interesting playwright. As my overall reaction and opinion of this literary work, I thought that the play was well written and performed. I found reading the play provided me with a better understanding towards watching the movie. Without reading the play ahead of time, I believe that I would not understand what was going on. Also I would not have recognized the key elements and symbolism used in the production. The stage directions provided in the “script” seem to bring emotion into the play. Along with stage directions the “script” contained background information about Tennessee Williams and his characters in the play.
ReplyDeleteHowever there was a noticeable difference between the movie and the playwright. In the “script” of the play, the stage was dimly lit to reflect a memory, while in the movie the lighting was regular. Also unlike the play, the movie did not use a screen device to flash images reflecting the scene. In both the movie and play Tom is the narrator, but Tom’s role as a narrator is more prominent in the movie. In my opinion some of the characters portrayed in the movie were different than my perception. For example I thought that Amanda was older than I pictured her in the movie, but she was still extremely annoying and CRAZY!! Also in my opinion Tom’s relationship with Amanda was much stronger in the movie than it was in the play. In addition I thought that Jim was more outgoing in the movie than in the play.
In comparison there were similar events and ideas portrayed in both the movie and the play. The overall plot of the play and movie were the same. The key symbol of the play is still prominent in both works. Another similar element used in both in the play and movie was the use of background music. Music was used to emphasize emotions and events during the plot. Laura is extremely shy and this is well portrayed in the movie. Also Tom’s love for his sister is strong in both the movie and play.
Overall I liked both the movie and the play. Some of my fellow students discovered their acting talent when reading the play version! Haha
Marla, I agree with you when you say the play was easier to understand because we read the book. I think we wouldn't of bad as much knowledge of the meaning behind some things without reading the book first. I also agree I wouldn't have been able to find the symbolism in the production without reading the book. Some people may not have seen the similarities between Williams' works and his life without reading the book because they wouldn't of had as much background on him. I forgot that in the book there were other elements on screens used to display things that weren't happening on stage. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I think that in a few places you could have added a few more details, but other than that you did a very nice job!
DeleteMarla, I agree with your description of the book and movie. I think that the movie did do a good job of putting the music in the appropriate places. I think that Amanda was just as annoying in the movie as she was in the play and she was protrayed really well. I felt that the movie was a lot easier to follow because we had read the book, especially because this movie seemed like an exact replic of the book. I think that you descriped the music very well. The director put the music in very emotional scenes, which also helped to bring the play to life. I feel that this effect might have been lost if the book had not been read before watching the movie. Good job on comparing the book and the movie Marla!
DeleteAfter reading the book The Glass Menagerie, the play was much easier to follow. I think without reading it I wouldn't have been able to get the full effect, which I think is true for most movies or plays after the book. I think that one thing that usually happens to me is that when I'm reading a book, I picture characters differently than what they are shown in the play or movie. I pictured Laura to be a lot more crippled than what she was made out to be. Without Amanda and Tom I wouldn't have even noticed that Laura was crippled. They didn't make it known at all. Another thing about Laura that I didn't notice in the book about her was the fact that she is so very shy. In the book it talked about her being so shy it made her sick, but I never really pictured Laura through this shyness. In the movie Laura was just embarrassingly shy. When I watched her around Jim I was embarrassed for her. For me when I read the book it was hard to picture what Laura actually looked like while dealing with her terrible shyness. I have never met anyone who was as shy as Laura was, so when I watched her I was just in awe. She couldn't even function because of her shyness. I think this just hard for anyone to picture without seeing it for themselves. I also pictured Jim to be more normal. In the movie he seemed a little strange and all over the place;something I wasn't expecting.
ReplyDeleteWithout reading the book first, I think the play would be very boring. There isn't a lot of action in it and there are many parts where I just feel very awkward. The only action that was really in this this play was when Tom and Amanda got into arguments. Other than that the play was pretty dull. I think Laura's shyness was one reason why there wasn't a lot of play action. One part where I really felt awkward was the part where Tom came home drunk and Laura let him in the house. They were getting a lot closer than normal brothers and sisters do and it just didn't seem right to me.
I think that the play very closely resembled what Tennessee Williams wrote on The Glass Menagerie. There were lines that I recognized to be the exact lines that we read in class. This is good because a lot of times when books are transformed into movies or plays the words and actions gets switched. I think that Tennessee Williams must have had some role in the development of the play because of how close the play and the book are.
There was definitely not as much narration in the play compared to the movie. I think this is due to the fact that a lot of narration in the play was feeling and stage directions. This is something that the actors do instead of having someone read them allowed. Even without these though, I still feel as though there wasn't as much narration. I don't think there wasn't as much emphasis on lighting as there was in the book. The only time I found it really obvious was at the end when Laura blew the candles out to end the play.
Rachel, I really enjoyed reading your blog this week. It seems like you put a lot of thought into it and you have a very detailed description of your thoughts. I agree with what you said about Laura being more crippled in the book. Tom and Amanda made a big deal about how it has affected her life, but in the movie she seemed fine to me. I agree with what you said about Jim. He seemed like a very sweet man in the book, but the movie kind of protrayed him as being this really out going guy who was a bit weird at times. I think that Tom and Laura were really close as brother and sister; and the movie really helped to protray how close they really were. The lighting wasn't as good in the movie because there seemed to be too much of it. I also like your sentence about how Tennessee Williams playing a part in the making of the movie. I think that it is very possible for him to have helped with writing the script for the movie. Nice job Rachel.
DeleteRachel, I also could not notice at all that Laura was crippled. I was a little confused by that because the book made it seem like something major, but the movie only mentioned it once. I was also embarrassed for her the way she looked at Jim when he was around her. She would just sit there speechless and if Jim asked her a question then she just simply nod her head. She did a little more comfortable as the day went on, but when Jim kissed her, the look on her face suggested that she was shocked and embarrassed. We had many of the same thoughts pertaining the story and the book. Good job on your blog Rachel.
DeleteWhen I read the Introduction to the Glass Menagerie I didn’t think that I was going to like the book. I thought that it was going to be hard to understand, but it was the exact opposite. The book was very easy to understand and the movie was very easy to follow after reading the book. I think that the movie would have been confusing if I wouldn’t have read the book before watching the movie because it seemed a little boring. I think that Tom was the person that created the most action in the film. He was always shouting or picking a fight with his mother. However, he did seem closer to Amanda in the movie than in the book. I was a little surprised by that because the book made it seem that Tom hated her. This might have been one of the few changes that were made to the movie though. Tennessee Williams would be proud of the movie because it followed his script almost exactly. Tom starts to narrate the play in the beginning and then at the end again. He narrates more in the book, but sometimes it’s hard to have a narrator in movies. It seemed that the lines were exactly from the book and the actors did a good job of playing their roles. I didn’t picture Laura as being quite as shy in the movie. It seemed very awkward with her on the screen sometimes because she didn’t know what to say half the time. I also think that she was described as being crippled in the book, but the movie didn’t really portray that aspect of her. She was extremely shy when Jim came into the movie. I think that Jim was very well portrayed because the book describes him as this outgoing man who tries to find the good in everybody. The movie gives the audience that exact feeling. The music to me symbolized Laura. Whenever somebody mentioned Laura or the Glass Menagerie the music got louder and seemed like it was pointing out the importance of the scene. The lighting was something that bothered me a little bit. The movie seemed too bright for the type of play it was, and when the lights when out only three candles lit the whole house. The candles were too bright and it felt that the lights had never gone out. I think that the end of the play should have been a little darker and that would have fit the book a little bit better. The best part of the entire movie was the end. Tom said his speech exactly like in the book and he told Laura to blow out her candles. The final scene was Laura blowing out the three candles that were lit and I don’t think that the movie could have ended any other way.
ReplyDeleteCamille, you have many of the same thoughts about how the book and movie related. It is very interesting that you said the music symbolizes Laura. I really did not notice whether or not the music was louder, but now that you mentioned it, it did get much louder. I thought the exact same way about the lighting. When they lit the candles because of the power outage, you couldn't even tell that there was a power outage because the room looked brightly lit. There is no way that three candles can light a whole house. I was a little disappointed by that. Overall, a good job Camille on your blog.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCamille I agree that reading the book before watching the movie was beneficial. The book provided background information necessary to understand the plot and the characters. In the book however the narrator was read as a different person. In the movie production I liked the fact that Tom was the narrator. However I disagree with you about the music resembling Laura. The glass unicorn in the glass menagerie resembled Laura not the music. The music was used to emphasize emotions throughout the movie. I also agree that the lighting in the play was different in the movie. In my opinion the lighting in the movie resembled as though the it took place in the present time, when it actually is a memory. I loved the ending of the movie. "Blow out your candles Laura." -The Glass Menagerie by Tennessee Williams
DeleteWhen people read books, they usually are not extremely similar to the movie version. “The Glass Menagerie” was extremely similar to the movie. This characteristic makes the play even more interesting and exciting. I did think that the play was easier to follow having read the book weeks before. I imagined what the characters would look like when reading the book, and my thoughts were similar. There were some differences in comparing the story to the movie, but mainly there many similarities. The movie impressed me as it kept my attention all the way through the movie.
ReplyDeleteMainly the differences from the movie to the book were what happened backstage. It wasn’t the dialogue that was changed, it was the information that the book said was going on to the stage that was difference. They did not have screen devices to flash images at the watcher. Also, I did not picture the music to sound like it did; I imagined it to be more intense and louder. I also thought that Tom and Laura had a weird relationship as brother and sister. In one scene, they were extremely close to each other and touching each other’s faces and some other stuff that normally someone does not see a brother and sister do. I also pictured the glass figures to be much larger in the movie, but they were actually small and skinny.
There were mostly many similarities. Many of the lines that they said in the movie were exactly the same as the book. People usually never see that, so it was shocking when I realized that it was exactly the same. The personality of the characters was also the same. Tom and his mother did not get along at all, and Laura was shy and relating to the title again. I did notice that when music started to play, emotions would rise and there would be an argument. These characteristics of the movie and the book made it very intriguing on how they related to each other.
Andy, I agree that the movie and the playwrights were extremely similar. The script read the same lines which appeased my expectations. However casting was different than I expected. Amanda seemed older than what I would have pictured. Also the bond between Laura and Tom, in my opinion, was too strong, but at the same time it showed how caring Tom's character was. The overall comparison of the play to the movie was interesting to see. I believe reading the play version before watching the movie was helpful in many aspects including background information. Good job.
DeleteAndy, I also agree the movie and the play were very similar. This is something that I mentioned in my blog. I thought the characters were going to be a lot different than what they turned out to be. Laura was more shy than I expected her to be, and her relationship with Tom was extremely weird and way too strong. I think Amanda was a lot older than what they explained in the book. Jim was also a character that I was disappointed with. He seemed really odd compared to in the book. Other than these characters the play and the boom were almost identical which is something that isn't seen very often in book to play or movie translations. Reading the boom before watching it was definitely helpful. Nice job!
DeleteMany of you guys know that i m not much of a reader. I would much rather watch a movie before I read the book. However, for the Glass Menagerie that was not the case. I liked the play a lot better then the film. One thing that i liked about the play was that the characters did not seem as annoying as they were in the film. In the book I seemed to pay attention more to the scene and all the music going on in the back ground compared to the film. When i watched the film i was to focused on the characters to pay attention to those details. I feel like i would of not been very interested in the play if I didn't read the book first. One of the reasons would of been because of how old the movie was. I don't always find those movies interesting. Also I would have heard the moms voice and got annoyed very quickly! Tennessee Williams did a good job on writing the play. He made you understand what was going on and when. He made you feel like you were there in a way. I think why it stood out in the play was because you had to read what was going on with the music. In the play you have to kinda watch out for those things and they don't jump out as well as they do in the book. Also in the book I feel like their personalities were difference then in the play. I feel like that was one thing I noticed. I liked this blog a lot because it let us really tell about what we thought about the play and film.
ReplyDeleteConsidering how you described how you normally feel about movies against books, it is odd that you enjoyed the play more than the movie. I will agree with you on some of the characters being annoying, especially Amanda. Her voice combined with how much she talks is what got to me. I will also agree with how Williams wrote the play. Having everything described makes picturing the scene much easier.
DeleteHayley, I think that, even though her voice was annoying, the actress that played Amanda did a wonderful job of portraying the Amanda that Tennessee wrote. I found it harder to pay attention to the play when we were reading it, but that's only because I hate to listen to other people read. I think that the film gave us a better understanding of the music because it was actually there. Titles of songs just don't give me that aspect of understanding.
DeleteAfter reading the play, The Glass Menagerie, I wasn't very interested in it. i felt it was quite boring at times. The most interesting part was probably how all the symbolism of the glass figure and Laura related, but after a saw the play as a movie, I liked it so much more. Tennessee Williams book was a lot like the movie. Therefore, I thought it was ten times better after I watched the play as a movie.
ReplyDeleteAs the book, The Glass Menagerie, my interest in it really went down. Many times during the play I could visualize what was going on inside Tom and Amanda's house during many of the scenes. The interpretation and narrations of what was going on during the play wasn't enough for me to visualize. t almost had me confused at times. When I watched the movie;however, I really had a great view of what really happened. Many of the lines in William's book were pretty much the exact lines that were said in the play. Also the characters of the play in the movie were brought up as almost identical to those in the book.; however, Laura was the only one that I felt could have been made up as more crippled like she was described as in the book.
There was one part of the movie that I feel was not a part of the book. When Tom accidentally broke a glass figure at the beginning of the play, Im almost positive that it didn't take place in the play. Therefore, I feel that the movie was a great interpretation of the play. It really helped me understand what really happened in the play. I also feel that Williams works were really well put into the movie. In conclusion, the movie really allowed me the better appreciate the play that Tennessee Williams wrote.
I have the same feeling about the movie and the play. I felt that the movie helped to explain what was happening in the play. Your inability to fully interpret what Tennessee Williams was trying to explain is not a real major issue. Some people can better visualize a book than others, and it also depends on how interested a person is in what they are reading. Tom breaking a glass figure did not happen in the play. I think that is the only real noticeable difference that happened in the movie , but no the play.
DeleteEmma, I after reading your blog I do understand how you found it boring! I thought that the movie and the play was the exact same thing! It went straight from the book. I had the different feeling. I liked the play better then the movie. That is something that I think is different. I think that part were Tom broke the glass was in the book. At least I'm pretty sure that it was in the play. You did right a very good blog this week!
DeleteEmma, I had to comment on you blog, I'm glad someone else thought reading the play was boring at times! I also liked the play better after we watched it. I liked the play better because I could see the lighting and hear the music and it made more sense than trying to make it up in my head. I think that Laura's crippled leg was supposed to be more in her head than anything else. You know what I mean? I think that the scene between her and Jim when they were talking about how she had to clomp in front of everyone made more sense when we really didn't see anythign wrong with her.
DeleteWhen we first started to watch "The Glass Menagerie," I was not completely sure of what to expect. I did find myself enjoying the movie. I was actually very surprised by how closely the movie followed the original play. Normally when books are made into a movie, there are discrepancies between the two. This is because the director is capable of making changes that are to improve the movie. I believe these changes are called creative liberties. How close the movies was to the play made understanding everything much easier. The play was already very easy to understand since the entire scenario was explained in detail. Actually seeing how everything happened helps to visualize the play. We read the book in class, which was fun, but we did not do everything that was done in the movie to help the viewers understand what is happening.
ReplyDeleteAs for the movie itself, the movie stayed close to the play. Even the dialogue was close to the original's script. Staying close to the original play was probably very easy since "The Glass Menagerie" was written as a play rather than a novel. Since "The glass Menagerie" was written to be acted out, rather than simply read, the movie could follow it with no problem. The only real difference I noticed was the some of Tom's monologues were not in the movie, such as the one that would be at the beginning. In the play, the lighting was described as being unrealistic. In the movie, this was shown with the worlds brightest candles that were used in the final scene. The three candles managed to light up almost the entire room they were in. For music, the small piano piece that started playing whenever Laura's glass menagerie became notable. The movie kept close to what Tennessee Williams had intended with his play. Even the elements that would not be very noticeable if we did not read the play before watching the movie. The movie was, in my opinion, something that was worth watching.
Tyler, I also had the same feeling that you had when we first started watching the movie. I was also very suprises at how close the movie followed the film. Sometimes I don't like when the book and the movie don't match up. It was a very easy play like you said to understand. The movie was even easier because we had already read the book. Another thing that I agree with is how you said you liked reading tho book in class. I think that it made it more interesting! I think Tennessee Williams would of liked the movie as well. I think that you did a good job on the blog this week.
DeleteTyler, I too have the same thoughts on the movie as you did. The play write was almost identical to the book. Im pretty sure that a lot of the lines said were steaight out of the book practically. The movie really made me get a deeper perspective of the book on what took place and the emotional perspective of things. I alao feel that the lighting of the movie was also much like the book described. Therefore, you had the same thoughts as I did about the relationship between the book and the movie! Good job!
DeleteTyler, the play and the book were very identical. I agree with you, I didn't know what to expect either. I didn't even know what a glass menagerie was to begin with. A lot of times movies are made differently from the books, but this one wasn't any different besides Tom running away in the movie, but not in the book. I also like how you mentioned the lighting, because it really had a lot to do with the mood and emotion of the play.
DeleteI’m one of those people that prefers to see a movie and then read the book. Then, I’m never disappointed in either of them. For The Glass Menagerie I enjoyed the play as we read it and I found the movie to be very similar. After all, a play is much harder to ruin than a book! I liked the movie for the fact that we got to hear the music. It’s so hard to imagine the songs as they were said to be playing as we read. I think that watching the movie gave us a better picture of the emotions at play by being able to see the lighting and hearing the music. I don’t think that the play was an easier to follow after reading the play and then watching it. I thought that the movie was very well done in comparison to the book. I don’t think the play would have been boring to watch without having read the play first. That would be like saying a school play was better in the script than it was acted out. Everything gets better when it’s given life.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Tennessee Williams’ play was well represented. Tennessee injected his own personal troubles into his plays and the movies made those troubles even more relevant. The movies used the lighting and music to display the turmoil of each of the characters. There wasn’t as much narration in the movie as there was in the book. I believe that there were a few major sections that were left out, however, I think the movie did its job in portraying the play.
As for the characters in the movie I felt that they represented the characters well. Tom’s character was well displayed and the book character was much like the movie actor. Laura was even more fragile in the movie. Her extreme shyness was shown, but her limp was seemingly forgotten. In a way I think they left it so unnoticeable on purpose. In the play, it wasn’t said to be an obvious defect. I think that it was more about how Laura built it up in her head. I think Amanda’s character was given a more caring personality in the movie. In the book Amanda didn’t seem as caring as she was in the movie. I think that making her more human was better for the play. It portrayed the family aspect of the play better.
Maddie, you're right; it is a lot easier to not screw up a play as compared to a book, when it comes to converting it into a motion picture. I am glad that I was not the only one who was curious as to how the music would be portrayed. "The Glass Menagerie" music that played at important times in the play was important to the symbolism and illusion of the play, so am glad that it was included in the movie. I also agree that the actors did a very good job portraying their characters, however, I imagined Jim and Laura a little different. Good job!
DeleteMaddie, I never even thought about the music. I also think that watching the movie really emphasized the music of the glass menagerie. But I disagree on how you said all of the character really resembled the ones in book because I feel that Laura wasnt as crippled as the book portrayed her to be. So I feel that they should have done a better job of showing the character of Laura. But good job buddy!
ReplyDeleteI believe that the actual play was much, much easier to understand because you saw what the stage directions were. The stage directions showed how the actors were supposed to say things or how they would show their emotions. When you actually watch it, you have to assume that you are judging what the people are feeling correctly, as it is in the majority of movies.
ReplyDeleteWhile narration was used somewhat in the movie version, it was not used nearly as much as it was in the written version. In the written version, Tom narrated many of the different things, and different emotions were written above their heads to help show you the feel of the scene. In the movie however, the actors did an amazing job of demonstrating the emotions without them being told to us.
The movie was almost an exact portrayal of the play, other than the end where Tom just left. Originally, it was that Tom left once he was actually fired instead of him leaving right after the fight with Amanda. It is very difficult to find good interpretations of many books, but because this was written as a play, I'm sure it was much easier to follow Tennessee Williams' original vision for his play.
Once I saw the movie, I understood the play better because originally, I wasn't exactly sure what the music would sound like or the lighting would look like, but seeing it acted out made it clearer and helped express the mood of the scene. Overall, this book/play was very good and I couldn't really say which I actually liked better.
Tori, I never thought about how Tom left until you just mentioned it, and you're completely right. I honestly do not think I would have remembered that. Also, I agree with you that having the stage directions really helped me when reading the book. I also wasn't entirely sure how the lighting and music would be portrayed in the movie, but I thought it was well done. I agree with you that I would have liked to see more of Tom narrating in the movie, but I still enjoyed both versions anyway. Good job!
DeleteI agree with you that the play was easier to understand. The stage directions were portrayed very well. They picked good actors and actresses to show the emotions. I completely forgot that Tom was fired in the book and that's when he left. I think that was the only major difference. Good job for pointing that out! They also did a good job with the music and lighting.
DeleteAfter watching the Glass Menagerie as film, and also reading the play prior to this, I found it a lot easier to interpret. There is a huge difference between reading something and watching it; for me, reading is when I get to be the director in my own mind, so when we began watching the film, I was a little concerned for my little imaginary world. But, needless to say, I was not disappointed. The Glass Menagerie as a movie was nearly identical as to how I imagined it.
ReplyDeleteIf I had not read the play prior to the movie, I doubt I would find it boring. The actors did a very good job of bring Tennessee William’s play to life. While I did enjoy the movie, there were a few things missing from the original script and stage directions that we previously read. For instance, there were no screen images in the movie, and also the original play had much more narration from Tom, which I would have liked to see. In scene one in the play, I wish they would have kept Tom’s introduction and little speech as narrator. Also, as for characters, I pictured Laura and Jim a little different; for one thing, I never imagined Jim so gooney as he was in the movie, and I imagined Laura to be a little younger.
Over all, I thought the directors really took William’s stage notes on the lighting, sets, and true essence of the characters’ personalities into consideration. I thought they positively reflected Tennessee work in the film, especially the music. When reading the play, I had trouble imagining what the “Glass Menagerie music” was going to sound like, if they included it at all, but I was happy with it.
I like how you brought up the screen image. I didn't even think about that when we were watching the film. I also pictured all of the characters to be a little bit younger. Overall, I agree with you. I did enjoy the movie and it helped me picture everything better. I also agree that I wish they would have put Tom's introduction in the film.
DeleteMaria, I completely relate to how you said you create a little "imaginary world" inside of your mind when reading. I too was pleasantly suprised to find that my ideas matched the movie adaptation very well. The Glass Menagerie music that was played even matched up to a sort of idea that I placed inside of my mind. I did not even think about all of the screen images that were provided in the play and not the movie. That was the main difference that changed up some ideas. And I agree that even though Tom did have a small speech at the beginning of the movie, he could have extended his words like that of the play.
DeleteI was not sure what to expect when we first started watching the movie. I did not really find any major differences between the book and the movie. After watching the movie, it really helped me understand the book better. The actors did a very good job with showing the emotions that the characters had in the play. I do think that the film would have been sort of boring if we did not read the book. However, I am the kind of person that always likes to read the book first and then watch the movie.
ReplyDeleteI think that Tennessee Williams did a good job with this play. He really represented himself and how he felt. All of his stories really show that he felt different than everyone else and that he probably had a hard time growing up with everyone judging him. I think that the actors and actresses did a good job with showing this. They acted like a real family would. They had their arguments, but they also had strong points.
The lighting and music really helped give me a better feeling of the emotion that was going on. It had a big impact in the film because we could actually see it and hear it. When we were reading the book, I didn't really know what the glass menagerie music would sound like. In the movie, the lighting was a key symbol. It even ended the play when Laura blew out the candles. There was more narration in the written book. We got a better feel of what the characters were thinking in the book. Overall, I enjoyed both and the film followed closely along with the book.
Larissa, I completely agree with your entire first paragraph. I think that reading the book before watching the movie helped with the understanding of all of the concepts that were portrayed inside of the story and that I also like to read the books before watching the movies. I also agree that the movie would be boring without getting to read the book first. I like the emphasis that you put onto the life of Tennessee Williams and how the story is a true reflection of his life. He reflected his life struggles through the struggles of another family with relatable problems. Good job!
DeleteI was also not quite sure what the movie was going to be like. Many movies add in extra things to the original story (like the new Hobbit movie that came out). Although this does not always diminish how enjoyable the movie is, I always like to see movies loyal to the book or play they were created on. This movie mirrored the book almost exactly. The only exception to this, I think, was the narration. Much of the narration was cut out, but I think it was not needed as the situation could be "seen" by the viewer. This made so much narration unnecessary. I also agree that the movie followed the book well, it was well made. Nice job on this blog Larissa.
DeleteI was very excited to learn that the play, "The Glass Menagerie", had been adapted into a film. The film let me see a director's interpretations of the play from his own point of view while still staying true to the script. When we were reading the novel, I was able to put my own twist on the line and come up with different scenarios and scenes that took place within the novel. When the play switched into film, I was able to see which of my ideas added up to that of the directors ideas and which ideas were different from person to person. I was able to imagine my own ideas about what rooms looked like, what the lighting did to that particular room, what the characters utilized in that room, etc. The movie put my ideas into real life and interpreted ideas of a director who probably had his own vision the entire time he read the play.
ReplyDeleteI think that the play would have actually been a little boring to watch if we had not read the play before watching the scenes. I feel like the movie did not have the narration that was necessary to present all of the characters. The written play also provided the ability to think of flashbacks to the times the scenes the characters speak of, instead of being left with a story being told and no picture to resemble the stories. I think if I would not have read the play before watching the movie, I would have found the movie very awkward and uncomfortable for how some of the characters acted, mingled, and talked with one another. Some scenes could have been taken in many different ways, and I don't think I would have understood the true intentions behind each of the characters' actions. One scene in particular was when the drunk Tom was greeted at home by Laura. They seemed almost too close to be brother and sister in that scene. Another awkward scene was the interaction between Laura and Jim. To me, she appeared almost as a stalker with how she presented her lines in the movie adaptation.
I feel that Tennessee Williams was represented very well throughout the entire film. His play was quoted almost word for word perfectly throughout the entire production. There were scenes where I could identify the exact quotes that were taken from the play and placed within the movie. One of the only instances of difference that I noticed was the change in Amanda's dress color. I think that Williams played a major role in the movie and helped create a piece of work that would live up to what he originally wrote. There was definitely not as much narration in the movie as in the play. The play was completely laid out to understand it fully, leaving no questions going unasked. I think that the two pieces of work match up very well and were completed very precisely.
I was also quite excited when I learned that The Glass Menagerie was also a movie. It gives a chance to see how someone else envisioned the characters, and I envisioned them much the same as the movie makers did. Although I did not like knowing the ending of the movie, it was important to see the narration from the written play beforehand. It gave in depth details about the characters which really helped when watching the movie. The movie certainly did represent Tennessee Williams well. They kept much of the same moods and behaviors, and lines, that the characters used in the original. This movie was well done.
DeleteI completely agree with you when you say that you were excited that the book had also been put into a play. It was a chance to see ever hint that was read. The fact that the movie complimented the book fully was a big plus, making it easy to remember what had been read. You did a very good job of putting this together, especially pointing out that Amanda's dress color had been changed. Good job, Carli.
DeleteThe Glass Menagerie was an interesting story, and the movie represented the book well. My first impression of the movie was that the makers tried to keep the same feelings as the original play had. In the movie, they kept the same *memory* feeling. Also, they captured the feelings and behavior of the characters, just as they were in the book. Amanda was the same loud overbearing character, and Laura was the same retiring, shy, and self conscious person. The actors who played Amanda and Laura did an especially good job at mirroring the feelings of the characters in the original play.
ReplyDeleteI think reading the play helped to understand the movie better. The play and movie were not much different. Reading the play made a big difference in the way I understood the movie. Overall, the movie was done well. It seemed to reflect every mood of every single character and scene, just as the original play did. This all fit together nicely in the movie.
I think that the main points of narration were kept, but the rest taken out. Since the viewers can see the action in the movie, so much narration was not needed, but the main points of narration are kept. The most important pieces of narration were retained, as they made a big difference in the feeling that the play conveys. One of the most important narrations was at the end of the play, where Tom explains how he left.
All-in-all, the movie was a great reflection of the play. It held nearly all the important parts of the original play, and was a great reflection of Tennessee Williams. Reading the play before hand made the movie a little boring, but that is only because I knew what was going to happen in the end. There was no suspense like when I read the original play. Other than that, the movie was a great make out of the original play by Tennessee Williams.
Jess, I agree that reading the play did help help to understand the movie, they weren't very different but the play helped to get better detail to help founder stand the movie. The movie did have all the important parts of the play. Of course the play was longer and the movie didn't cover as much, but the movie covered all of the most important aspects. It jut didn't cover it in detail.
Delete*understand
DeleteI think that the play was a lot easier to understand the characters in "The Glass Menagerie". I actually pictured the movie very similar to what was shown in class. The reason the play was easier to read was because the narrator told exactly what was going on the whole time. The narrator also helped us to see emotions of the characters. We knew by the way the character Laura was portrayed in the play that she was very shy as shown in the movie. She easily let people control her life, especially her mother. Amanda had many lines in the book. If someone were to read Amanda's part they would pretty much be reading the entire time. This made her come off as somewhat annoying and bossy. This was exactly how she was in the movie. She was constantly talking and nagging her children. She wouldn't shut up and it was really annoying but I guess that's what I was expecting from her so it wasn't a surprise. Her voice was also really annoying also which is what I was expecting too from the way she talked in the book. Tom was alike in both the play and the movie except for in the movie he runs away and he didn't do this is the play. I was a little confused with the plot of the play in the book, though, but once I watched the movie it really helped me understand the plot. I'm not really a good reader, so I'd say that I enjoyed the movie better and it was easier to understand the plot, but understood the play better character wise.
ReplyDeleteLeah, I really enjoyed reading your blog because it is practically everything I was thinking, I also feel as when I was reading the book, Amanda was the one who everyone found annoying and she honestly took up most of the play. The movie helped me as well. For me, it's hard to read a play because elf the back and forth of characters and then the narration. It was much easier to follow in the movie. Good job I with your blog, Leah!
DeleteLeah, I agree with what you stated about Amanda. In both the movie and the book, she was very overbearing and annoying. She was always worried about what she wanted for her children and never took into account the things that they wanted for themselves. I, however, enjoyed the play much more than the movie. It happens a lot to me, but I enjoy picturing the characters in my own way and always seem to be let down in some way whenever I watch the movie and the characters are not how I pictured them to be.
DeleteI believe that I would not have enjoyed watching the play if I hadn't read the book of it first. The movie is one that I would not have picked to watch, but since I had read the book I really wanted to watch it. It allowed me to understand Amanda, and how overprotective and crazy she is. She was almost the entire book, because she talks so much. I had read the first three scenes aloud in class and felt as though I was the only one talking since I had Amanda's parts. It was hard to listen to Amanda talk in the movie, because her voice is so high pitch and annoying. Laura was awkward the whole time, which made me feel uncomfortable. In reading the play, it explains her awkward shyness but in the movie, you could actually see it whereas in the reading it was only stated in the narration. Watching the movie was pretty much seeing what I visioned in my head on the television screen. It surprises me that Tom stuck around for so long, because in a house like that, I think I'd go crazy. He really cared about Laura, and the ending of the movie was my favorite part. It really showed that he cared for her.
ReplyDeleteNicole, I also think that I would not have enjoyed watching the movie if we hadn't read the book first. It wasn't necessarily boring, but it was not the type of thing that I would pick to watch. It showed the characters and the way that they were in the book decently well. I liked Laura more in the book than I did in the movie. She seemed equally awkward in the book as in the movie. At some points in the movie, I actually had second hand embarrassment for Laura and the way that she acted. It was much more awkward to actually be able to watch her and the way that she acted than to read about the way that she acted because it was portrayed better in the movie than in the book.
DeleteNicole, I totally understand what you mean about Laura. In the book you think, oh maybe she's a little shy and awkward, but when you watch you, you see it differently. She says things that are actually really creepy, but she must think are perfectly normal because she doesn't actually talk to people outside of her family. She wandered the city every day, but she never seemed to talk to people. She seems to be highly introverted and she lives in the world of her glass figures, especially when you see how much she identifies with her unicorn figure.
DeleteI don't think that the play would have necessarily been hard to follow had we not read it first, but I do know that I would have been extremely bored with the movie. I enjoyed reading the play much more that I enjoyed watching it. It helped in some ways, for example, whenever I was able to hear the music instead of just reading in the narrator section that there was music playing. I didn't picture a lot of the scenes in the play how they acted them out in the movie. I didn't much care for the characters that had played in the movie, either. Laura, for example didn't really seem to have that much of a disability at anything and I did not picture Amanda to be as old as she was. I also did not picture Tom and Laura's relationship the was it was portrayed in the movie. Tom seemed like he cared about Laura in the book, but he also seemed that he didn't really care for her at times too. In the movie, it seemed that Tom's love for Laura was almost overwhelming. The relationship between Amanda and Tom however was spot on to what i pictured whenever reading The Glass Menagerie.
ReplyDeleteMorgan, I agree with you that I did picture Amanda as much younger. Almost the entire book, I kept thinking why wouldn't Amanda just get married if she was so charming and attractive if they needed someone to take care of them. She continually talked about all of her gentleman callers and her southern charms, so why couldn't she use some of them? When we saw the movie, however, it made me understand that Amanda wasn't completely the way that I had pictured her. While she may have been pretty or even beautiful in her younger years, she was now an older woman who was simply clinging desperately to a past that was better than her present.
Delete