The first thing we nee dot establish, are we imitating them as writers, are we going to imitate them in public, or just over the Internet?
Let’s see I guess there’s only one author I could see myself posing at, no wait (takes a sip of beer), there’s at least two, I think. First I think Mark Twain, or Samuel Clemens would be a blast. I get to write about America and be old and cranky. I could spend time in the south. I just really like most of the things he’s written and most everyone in America has read at least a part of a book by him, and since he’s dead, I think imitating him would be pretty easy. Just get my pipe, some scotch on the rocks, and wear a nice white suit with a monocle, I could pull this off, even in public, maybe.
Besides Mark Twain I could pose as Stephen King. Let’s see he’s been writing horror and fantasy books for at least the last 20 years or so. The plots and monsters in his books have started to slide downhill a bit. I’m sure I could come up with something like his that would be pretty authentic. There’s even an episode of “Family Guy” that makes fun of him, as he pitches the next idea of his book to his publisher. It’s about a lamp monster and the publisher just tells Stephen King that’s he no longer trying is he. So I’m sure I could write as bad as he does. And since I wear glasses and have dark hair this one would be easy in public as well.
And who can forget Ernest Hemingway, a drunk by nature. I’m almost sure he wrote most of his stories while inebriated, now that would be a fun way to write. Just toss back some booze and beers and start writing, and since you’ll be so drunk at the time, no one will be able to read what you wrote not even yourself. Let’s see I would have to work on my classical English a bit, look up some hunting information in the 19th century, but I think I could pull off a decent imitation of him, maybe on the Internet.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Persepolis, movie vs graphic novel
It's long post beware, ditch the 6 pack and go for the 18!
Persepolis
I went and saw Persepolis at the Kenworthy Theater in Moscow, on Friday. I was one of the only ones in the theater and I’m almost certain I was the guy by myself from WSU. Well the film was similar to the graphic novel, but almost right away there were some noticeable differences. I felt the graphic novel focused on the happiness in the times of tragedy, while the film seemed to focus on nothing but tragedy after tragedy, whether it was the revolution, Satrapi leaving, or other tragic incidents that took place.
As the film opened I noticed two differences right away. The beginning was in color versus the graphic novel we read was all in black and white. All the voice acting was in French with English subtitles while, what we read was in English. Also the film opened with Satrapi being a young woman returning to Iran. Furthermore in the beginning of the film, we see some of Satrapi as a little girl and her visits with her uncle and the talk of her becoming a prophet, but this moves rapidly away versus the graphic novel which focused on her growing up as a whole and the idea of becoming a prophet is emphasized a lot more.
The biggest difference between the film and the graphic novel was after about halfway through the film, the film moved away from what we had read as Persepolis and in the 2nd graphic novel which was about the time Satrapi spent in Europe drifting from place to place trying to find herself. She fell in love, got her heart broke at least 2 times, became a beautiful women, but she felt guilty. She felt guilty because here she was enjoying life in Europe while her family and friends were suffering in Iran under the new government and the war with Iraq. Eventually she returns to Iran and gets married and it seems that things will work out despite a divorce and her depression.
But the first part of the film I felt highlighted some of the important issues the graphic novel covered. There were plenty of scenes in the film about the oppression of the Iranian people under the Shah, which was oddly portrayed in the film as a miniature satire/play with mocking puppets of the Shah and the western powers. There was also a lot about the actual rebellion portrayed in the film such as the overthrow of the government, the protesting, and the drastic changes Iran underwent. There was a slow over emphasized bit about her Uncle Anoosh in the film meeting her, getting imprisoned following the revolution, and then being executed. With her uncle, the film focused heavily on this while the graphic novel moved away from this.
Two parts of the graphic novel I remember fondly were when her parents visited Turkey and brought back the posters, this was missing from the film. Another part from the comic that was missing in the film was when her and her friends follow the non-conformist guys to a street where teenagers can hang out and act like normal teenagers. But the film did make use of Satrapi' s love of Iron Maiden repeatedly, including when she went down and bought the tape and being confronted by those who worked for the Shah about her style of dress, and her jacket, which read, “Punk is not Ded.” Also the film showed Satrapi rocking out multiple times to Iron Maiden in her room and in the living room, something I felt the graphic novel semi-ignored.
Other parts of the film that tied directly into the graphic novel included when Satrapi stands up against her teacher. In the film her parents get the phone call after her uprising at school but the film doesn’t talk about how she had to transfer schools. The other two issues, which were portrayed extensively, were when the Iranian government was handing young boys keys and telling them they would die as martyrs while virgins and gold awaited them in heaven. Furthermore the secret party lifestyle resulting from the Iranian government crack down was over exaggerated. Just like the novel, everyone has to keep things a secret and in the film. Satrapi and her family get pulled over and they have to run home after being followed by the guards to dispose of all the booze.
Overall there were a few parts of the film and the graphic novel, which received the same amount of attention. These included Satrapi’s rebellion, the changes in the Iranian government, and how she grew up in the process. Now, if we had read the second part of Persepolis we might have seen more similarities.
The question here is, why were some parts of the film different? Well primarily there is only a limited time frame for a film and some of the issues the director and/or the producer may have felt were redundant. For example, the parts about her getting into Iron Maiden, including the posters, the director may have felt it was repetitive and not crucial to the story. Whereas the parts about her uncle and her family going to these illegal parties were stressed because one of the important themes to the novel I felt was the importance of family, and their support of each other in the time of hardship. Also from my perspective it felt as the director and the film producer wanted to focus on her growing up, her relationship with her family, and the conflict in Iran. Why? Well conflict and war intertwined with struggle make interesting films that sell well to the masses even if they have never heard of the graphic novel.
If I were the director I would have used more of the first novel, and less of the second. I would have kept it in black and white and started the film with her growing up. I would have used less of her parents and showed more of the ways she was rebelling against the oppressive Iranian culture.
Persepolis
I went and saw Persepolis at the Kenworthy Theater in Moscow, on Friday. I was one of the only ones in the theater and I’m almost certain I was the guy by myself from WSU. Well the film was similar to the graphic novel, but almost right away there were some noticeable differences. I felt the graphic novel focused on the happiness in the times of tragedy, while the film seemed to focus on nothing but tragedy after tragedy, whether it was the revolution, Satrapi leaving, or other tragic incidents that took place.
As the film opened I noticed two differences right away. The beginning was in color versus the graphic novel we read was all in black and white. All the voice acting was in French with English subtitles while, what we read was in English. Also the film opened with Satrapi being a young woman returning to Iran. Furthermore in the beginning of the film, we see some of Satrapi as a little girl and her visits with her uncle and the talk of her becoming a prophet, but this moves rapidly away versus the graphic novel which focused on her growing up as a whole and the idea of becoming a prophet is emphasized a lot more.
The biggest difference between the film and the graphic novel was after about halfway through the film, the film moved away from what we had read as Persepolis and in the 2nd graphic novel which was about the time Satrapi spent in Europe drifting from place to place trying to find herself. She fell in love, got her heart broke at least 2 times, became a beautiful women, but she felt guilty. She felt guilty because here she was enjoying life in Europe while her family and friends were suffering in Iran under the new government and the war with Iraq. Eventually she returns to Iran and gets married and it seems that things will work out despite a divorce and her depression.
But the first part of the film I felt highlighted some of the important issues the graphic novel covered. There were plenty of scenes in the film about the oppression of the Iranian people under the Shah, which was oddly portrayed in the film as a miniature satire/play with mocking puppets of the Shah and the western powers. There was also a lot about the actual rebellion portrayed in the film such as the overthrow of the government, the protesting, and the drastic changes Iran underwent. There was a slow over emphasized bit about her Uncle Anoosh in the film meeting her, getting imprisoned following the revolution, and then being executed. With her uncle, the film focused heavily on this while the graphic novel moved away from this.
Two parts of the graphic novel I remember fondly were when her parents visited Turkey and brought back the posters, this was missing from the film. Another part from the comic that was missing in the film was when her and her friends follow the non-conformist guys to a street where teenagers can hang out and act like normal teenagers. But the film did make use of Satrapi' s love of Iron Maiden repeatedly, including when she went down and bought the tape and being confronted by those who worked for the Shah about her style of dress, and her jacket, which read, “Punk is not Ded.” Also the film showed Satrapi rocking out multiple times to Iron Maiden in her room and in the living room, something I felt the graphic novel semi-ignored.
Other parts of the film that tied directly into the graphic novel included when Satrapi stands up against her teacher. In the film her parents get the phone call after her uprising at school but the film doesn’t talk about how she had to transfer schools. The other two issues, which were portrayed extensively, were when the Iranian government was handing young boys keys and telling them they would die as martyrs while virgins and gold awaited them in heaven. Furthermore the secret party lifestyle resulting from the Iranian government crack down was over exaggerated. Just like the novel, everyone has to keep things a secret and in the film. Satrapi and her family get pulled over and they have to run home after being followed by the guards to dispose of all the booze.
Overall there were a few parts of the film and the graphic novel, which received the same amount of attention. These included Satrapi’s rebellion, the changes in the Iranian government, and how she grew up in the process. Now, if we had read the second part of Persepolis we might have seen more similarities.
The question here is, why were some parts of the film different? Well primarily there is only a limited time frame for a film and some of the issues the director and/or the producer may have felt were redundant. For example, the parts about her getting into Iron Maiden, including the posters, the director may have felt it was repetitive and not crucial to the story. Whereas the parts about her uncle and her family going to these illegal parties were stressed because one of the important themes to the novel I felt was the importance of family, and their support of each other in the time of hardship. Also from my perspective it felt as the director and the film producer wanted to focus on her growing up, her relationship with her family, and the conflict in Iran. Why? Well conflict and war intertwined with struggle make interesting films that sell well to the masses even if they have never heard of the graphic novel.
If I were the director I would have used more of the first novel, and less of the second. I would have kept it in black and white and started the film with her growing up. I would have used less of her parents and showed more of the ways she was rebelling against the oppressive Iranian culture.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Chuck Palahniuk
I liked reading Chuck Palahniuk’s stuff it was interesting and straightforward. No holds barred for anyone or anything. Kinda of when someone gets drunk at the bar and tells that girl next to the door what they really think of her. I thought to myself, okay I could read some more of this guy. To the bookstore! Or better yet just ask Brian (Carney) if he has any of his stuff and would loan it to me. He does, but once again he forgets it at his house in Spokane.
Then we watched the clip of him. And I thought, “Wow, not only is he trying to promote himself, he seems like a tool.” I wouldn’t pay to see him; I might go to one of his readings if there was free refreshments or free beer.
As for the feeling of the need to prove yourself, that was something we talked about in class. As a writer you need to be new, or something different, or well I can’t remember the last option. If as a writer if you are not new or different you end up being on the shelf in grocery stores falling under the genre of crap. By that I mean the genre of generic horror, thrillers, romance, sex and the city chick lit, Tom Clancy-ish , all books which have been done over and over again.
I’ll sit there in the store buying my six pack of Coors, wondering if it will get me drunk enough and stare at the covers of these books designed to sucker people into buying them based solely on their artwork. I’ll also be wondering why anyone would buy them and low and behold, a middle-aged housewife comes up and gets a romance novel for herself and a Tom Clancy for her husband.
In other words Chuck is new and falls under the category of transgressive fiction. He looks at sex, crime, drugs and rock and roll. Out the door is everything he or we knows about conventional fiction. He is new and different, and doesn’t deserve a place next to crappy fiction and he is proving himself by doing something different.
Then we watched the clip of him. And I thought, “Wow, not only is he trying to promote himself, he seems like a tool.” I wouldn’t pay to see him; I might go to one of his readings if there was free refreshments or free beer.
As for the feeling of the need to prove yourself, that was something we talked about in class. As a writer you need to be new, or something different, or well I can’t remember the last option. If as a writer if you are not new or different you end up being on the shelf in grocery stores falling under the genre of crap. By that I mean the genre of generic horror, thrillers, romance, sex and the city chick lit, Tom Clancy-ish , all books which have been done over and over again.
I’ll sit there in the store buying my six pack of Coors, wondering if it will get me drunk enough and stare at the covers of these books designed to sucker people into buying them based solely on their artwork. I’ll also be wondering why anyone would buy them and low and behold, a middle-aged housewife comes up and gets a romance novel for herself and a Tom Clancy for her husband.
In other words Chuck is new and falls under the category of transgressive fiction. He looks at sex, crime, drugs and rock and roll. Out the door is everything he or we knows about conventional fiction. He is new and different, and doesn’t deserve a place next to crappy fiction and he is proving himself by doing something different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)