This week, I’ll be comparing the book and the movie of The Devil Wears Prada by Lauren Weisburger. The book was released in 2003 and the movie, directed by David Frankel was released in 2006.

The book is about a young woman named Andy Sachs, who recently graduated Brown University and moved to New York City in hopes of landing a job in the publishing industry. However, Andy instead gets a job as the junior personal assistant for Miranda Priestly. Miranda is the editor-in-chief of Runway magazine, a leading posh fashion magazine. She is also highly demanding and dictatorial, she is the nightmare boss. Initially, Andy is hesitant to take the job, considering she knows nothing of high fashion and this does not really help her out in getting her dream job (writing for the New Yorker.) Andy decides to take the job after being told that if she can survive being Miranda’s personal assistant for a year, she can have her pick of any job in the magazine industry. However, working for Miranda is not going to be easy considering Miranda’s impossible demands and lack of empathy, combined with Andy’s lack of knowledge about the fashion world in general. Andy also has to deal with the senior personal assistant Emily Charlton, who dislikes Andy almost immediately. Andy’s long work hours, constant stress, and semi-unpredicatable schedule really complicate her relationship with her boyfriend Alex and her friend/roommate Lily. Miranda often makes Andy sacrifice her commitments to friends and family for the sake of the magazine. Ultimately, Andy has to decide what is more important: having control of her life or getting ahead and making money.

The 2006 movie starred Anne Hathaway as Andy, Meryl Streep as Miranda, and Emily Blunt as Emily. The movie was a surprise box-office success, making more than $300 million. The movie was also a huge success with critics and moviegoers. Meryl Streep earned widespread acclaim for her portrayal of Miranda Priestly. She was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress.

There are differences between the book and the movie, but they are more in the details rather than in the plot. In the book, Andy is specifically mentioned numerous times as being blonde. Yet in the movie, Anne Hathaway has brown hair. In the book, Miranda is British and Emily is an American. In the movie, Miranda is American and Emily is British. The explanation given to this is that Meryl Streep purposely wanting to differentiate the character Miranda Priestly from the British Vogue Magazine editor-in-chief Anna Wintour. In the book, Andy graduates from Brown University while in the movie Andy graduates from Northwestern University. Also, in the book her boyfriend is Alex Fineman and he works as a teacher in the Bronx while in the movie her boyfriend is Nate Cooper and he is a chef. In the book, the boyfriend breaks up with Andy for good and they do not reconcile. In the movie, Andy breaks up with the boyfriend and it is hinted that they may get back together although he has recently taken a job at a restaurant in Boston. In the book, Andy finally has enough of Miranda controlling her life and curses Miranda out to her face. Andy is then subsequently fired. In the movie, this is all much less dramatic and all we see is Andy throw her cell phone out in a fountain. We never see Miranda fire her.

I liked both the book and the movie. I think that Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway both did an amazing job with their roles. I think that the movie explored the sometimes cutthroat world of the fashion industry where everyone is image conscious and trying to get a ahead. The important thing to understand is that the movie and the book focus on different things. The movie focused on the fashion industry and what it is like to work at a fashion magazine, whereas the book focused more on Andy’s story and her personal growth. I think that they can be enjoyed independently of each other. I don’t think that anyone who loves the book will be terribly disappointed with the movie, but like I mentioned the movie does have a different focus and the viewer should be prepared for that.

Fun Fact:

1. It is thought that Anna Wintour, the editor-in-chief of Vogue Magazine, was the inspiration for the character of Miranda. Anna Wintour went to the premiere of the movie wearing Prada.

2. The movie was filmed in New York and Paris

This week, I’ll be blogging about Into The Wild by Jon Krakauer. The book is a work of non-fiction that was published in 1996. The movie was released in 2007 and was directed by Sean Penn.

The book is told from the perspective of Jon Krakauer as he tells the true story of a man named Christopher McCandless who essentially left civilization for a path more unknown, to live a simple life in solitude. McCandless wanted to have adventures outdoors and explore the unknown. In 1990, he graduated with honors from Emory University, where he majored in history and anthropology. He donated most of the money he had to charity and stopped talking to his family. McCandless, never having been attached to possessions, wanted to live a simple, nomadic lifestyle. A lifestyle that was very different than the norm for a college grad in 1990. He traveled the Western United States after he graduated Emory. He often worked odd jobs under aliases. He was a nomad, never staying in one place for long. His goal was to go on a sort of “Alaskan Odyssey.” He wanted to eventually live completely on his own in the wilderness of Alaska. McCandless did eventually make it to Alaska, where he survived for a approximately 112 days. He was found dead on September 6, 1992 in an abandoned bus in the woods of Alaska. He was 24 years old. Although there have been debates as to exactly how his death occurred, it has generally been believed that he died of starvation. He was only 66 pounds when found. It’s important to note that Jon Karkauer has this own theory as to how McCandless died and that it is discussed at the end of the book. In preparation for this book, Krakauer retraced McCandless’s journey across the West Coast and interviewed anyone who had met him. Krakauer also visited the scene where McCandless died.

The 2007 movie starred Emilie Hirsch as Chris McCandless, Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt as the parents, and Vince Vaughn as Wayne Westerburg, a man for whom McCandless had worked for while planning his Alaskan adventure. The film was well-received critically, with Roger Ebert calling Hirsch’s performance “hypnotic” and the film “spell-binding.”

There are many differences between the book and the movie. While the book is narrated by Jon Krakauer (he does extensively quote those whom he interviews), the movie is narrated by the sister. Jon Krakauer and his observations are not in the movie at all. In the book, the reader learns a lot about McCandless’s childhood years, high school years, and college experience. The movie starts with college graduation and goes from there. There is more of a love story in the movie with McCandless and a character named Tracy. In the book, Tracy is briefly mentioned as a crush. He has no girlfriends or romantic relationships. Chris McCandless comes across as a nice, easy-going guy in the movie. He is just a man on an adventure. In the book, he’s more argumentative. He has a strong opinion toward authority and the human condition. He has opinions and voices disproval at how people can live their lives in such a predetermined fashion.

It is hard to say which I liked more. I can completely understand why the movie focused solely on the story of Chris McCandless. However, I was really disappointed by the addition of Tracy in the movie because it creates a different type of Chris McCandless. I had to read the book for school, otherwise I probably would never have read it. I love the writing style of Jon Krakauer so it would be difficult for any movie to measure up to that. Consquently, I think I’ll always like the book more. But the movie is well-done overall and I would recommend watching it and enjoying it as a work of it’s own.

This week I am going to be blogging about The Help. In 2011,  the movie directed by Tate Taylor was released following the success of the 2009 book written by Kathryn Stockett.

The Help is set during the early 1960’s in Jackson, Mississippi (the segregated South). I’m finding it a bit more challenging to summarize this book, but here it goes. The book tells the stories of three different; Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minny. Eugenia “Skeeter” Phelan is a young white woman who just recently graduated college and defies the social expectations of the time by going to work instead of getting married. After her beloved maid mysteriously leaves, Skeeter begins to notice the differences in how black workers are treated in comparison to white workers. She becomes aware of, and eventually extremely disheartened, by racial inequality. Aibileen is an African American woman that has been a nanny to white families for many years. She is wise and well-respected in the African American community, she knows not to challenge her employers or call them out on their racism. However, her outlook changes after the death of her son. Minny is a fiery African American woman who has no problem standing up to her white bosses. As a result, Minny cannot keep a job for very long. Skeeter decides to write a book (titled “The Help”) to show what it’s really like being a colored maid in Mississippi. This is no easy task because the maids are going to be reluctant to share stories that could possibly get them in trouble. Eventually, Skeeter does become friends  with the maids, earning their trust and learning more about herself in the process. Once released, the book becomes a best-seller, but no one is prepared to tackle the issues it raises. The main antagonist of the movie is Hilly Holbrook, a domineering white woman who makes it her duty to keep the African American maids “in their place.”

The film stars Emma Stone as Skeeter, Viola Davis as Aibileen, Octavia Spencer as Minny, and Bryce Dallas Howard as Hilly. The film was a box office success as well as a critical success. The performances of Davis and Spencer in particular were praised. The movie was nominated and won many awards. In general, the movie was agreed to have done a good job of staying true to the book and focusing in one the racial issues of the time period.

There are a lot of differences between the book and the movie, but most of these are minor. The difference that I had a the most issue with was the portrayal of Hilly as purely evil. In the book, she is a caring and doting mother. In the movie, she comes across as the most racist character and her relationships with her children and husband are barely explored. Hilly certainly is the “bad guy” of the novel, but not to the polar extreme the book makes her out to be. A major plot point in both the book and the movie is the firing of Skeeter’s beloved maid Constantine. The book and movie deal with this differently. In the movie, Constantine and her daughter Rachel are treated like family by Skeeter’s family. Constantine is permitted to work, even though she is aging. One night, Ms. Phelan is having  a meeting with other wealthy white women in the town, when Rachel interrupts. The woman are horrified and confused about the Phelan’s familiarity with the help. To save face, Ms. Phelan fires Constantine and later deeply regrets it. In the book, the Phelan’s do not know about Rachel (who is half-white and illegitimate). Rachel is slightly older and tries to enter white society. This makes Ms. Phelan furious and she fires Constantine (in private) and does not regret her decision at all.

The biggest difference is that the movie has Skeeter as the main character. She is undoubtedly the protagonist. While in the book, the story is divided up into parts told by Skeeter, Aibilene, and Minny. It would be wrong to call Skeeter the main character.

I saw the movie first, but I had always planned to read the book. I liked them both equally, even though they told the story differently. The movie does do a good job of making you feel the emotions and struggles of each character. It is condensed, but not to the point of missing important character development.

Fun Facts:

1. It took Kathryn Stockett 5 years to complete the book

2. The book was rejected by more than 50 literary agents

3. Octavia Spencer won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress

This week, I’m going to blog about a classic novel being adapted into a film in the 21st century. In 2005, British director Joe Wright adapted the classic Jane Austen novel Pride & Prejudice  into a movie. The film is one of the many adaptions of Pride & Prejudice, including  a 1940 American adaption, an Italian television miniseries, and several British miniseries.

Pride & Prejudice was written by British author Jane Austen and published in 1813. The main character is Elizabeth Bennett and the story follows Elizabeth and her family as they deal with issues such as marriage, social class, and misunderstandings. The Bennett family consists of Elizabeth, her mother, her father, and her four unmarried sisters. The Bennett family is of the landed gentry, they have money but are not insanely rich. The novel is also a love story between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy, although they initially dislike each other when they meet. They get off on the wrong foot, Elizabeth’s pride keeps her from seeing Mr. Darcy as anything except the negative first impression she initially had of him. While Mr. Darcy’s prejudice towards Elizabeth’s lower social class blinds  him to her many good qualities. Other plotlines include Mr. Bingley (mr. Darcy’s good friend) wanting to marry Elizabeth’s older sister Jane, but encountering obstacles because of differences in social class and her younThe book has family, friendship, and an unconventional love story. This is probably Austen’s most famous novel and is considered to be a classic.

The 2005 movie starred Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett and Matthew Macfadyen. The movie was filmed in England and was marketed towards a mainstream audience. Originally, the movie was going to be very true to the book. All the dialogue was kept the same and almost the entire movie was going to be from the perspective of Elizabeth (like the book). In the end, the dialogue in the film varied between being exactly the same as the book in some scenes, while most scenes had altered dialogue. This was done to help a modern audience better connect with the movie and the characters. The movie also features scenes from the perspective of Mr. Darcy, these are additional and not in the book. This was done to show Darcy as more human as well as to show the genuine closeness of his friendship with the character of Mr. Bingley. The movie was well-received by critics, with Keira Knightley being nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress and was a success at the box office. Austen fans and British viewers of the film had divided opinions.

The movie has other differences than just the dialogue. In the movie, Elizabeth keeps secrets from her family and grows apart from her older sister Jane. This is different from the book, while Elizabeth does become frustrated with events related to her family, she never keeps secrets from them. She also confides in her sister after difficult events, they never grow apart. The movie also portrays Mr. Bennett as a warmer, more sympathetic father than he is in the book. His role in the family misfortunes, caused by him spending money on the wrong things, is downplayed. His relationship with his wife is much more loving in the movie. However, the movie also makes the Bennetts look poorer than they were in the book. Elizabeth also comes across as much more bold and impatient in the movie, she never yells at her parents in the book.

I’ve read the book twice, both times for classes in high school, and I like it. It’s not my favorite book in the world, but I did enjoy it and found it enjoyable to read. I saw the movie after I had read the book, and I liked the movie also. Weirdly enough, I just knew the movie would be different from the book. I was expecting it. I’ve just noticed that whenever classics are adapted to the big screen, they tend to be circumvented. There is less attention to detail, sideplots, and character development. I’m not quite sure why that is, I think it’s mostly for the sake of time and to make the movies more relatable to a modern audience.

The 1999 popular coming of age novel The Perks of Being a Wallflower was recently adapted into a movie. The 2012 movie starred Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, and Paul Rudd. The novel is critically-accalaimed and very popular amongst teenagers.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky is about a freshman in high school named Charlie. Charlie is really intelligent but is also really shy. He is the titular “Wallflower”, he prefers to observe rather than take actions. The novel is told by Charlie writing letters to an anonymous stranger (they’re pretty much like diary entries) as he goes through his freshman year, including his newfound friendships with Patrick and Patrick’s stepsister Sam, his experiences with drugs and alcohol, and his journey to find his place in this world while also trying to deal with his past. Charlie is dealing with the suicide of his friend Michael the previous year along with the death of his aunt when he was a child. The novel is set in a suburb of Pittsburgh in the 1990’s.

The 2012 film starred Logan Lerman as the protagonist, Emma Watson as Sam, Ezra Miller as Patrick, and Paul Rudd as Mr. Anderson. Mr. Anderson is Charlie’s English teacher who becomes a mentor figure for him. The film was well-received by critics, particularly the performances of the three main actors. The Perks of Being a Wallflower fandom reacted well to the movie. In my own group of friends, people liked the movie or thought that it did an adequate job with the book. There weren’t any huge glaring errors, but it’s not one of those must-see movies of the year and there is a general agreement that the movie did not do the book justice. To be fair, I think that the Perks of Being a Wallflower movie was highly anticipated and the fans of the book had high expectations for the movie (similar to the effect of The Hunger Games)

There are some noticeable differences between the movie in the book. In my opinion, the most noticeable one is how little the movie pays attention to the list of books that Mr. Anderson gives Charlie to read. Books like  Peter Pan and Catcher in The Rye change Charlie’s perspective on the world and people around him, it was kind of frustrating to me that we didn’t really see that in the movie. Charlie’s sister is not as major of a character in the movie and her subplots are minimized (the same is true of Charlie’s older brother). His family in the movie is fiercely Catholic, whereas they are not religious in the book. The book mentions the suicide of Michael almost immediately, whereas it is not mentioned in the film until Charlie tells Sam at a party. All in all, the movie stayed very loyal to the book. The author of the book actually directed the movie, so perhaps any differences were done on purpose.

I read the book about two years before I saw the movie. I really liked the book, I loved the way it was written. It’s a page-turner and really easy to get through. I think that many people, teenagers especially can relate to the feeling of being lost and trying to find yourself. I’m content but not crazy about the movie. I really liked Emma Watson as Sam and I liked how the movie was directed by the author. I would recommend it to people, even if they have not read the book. I just did not connect as strongly with the movie as I did with the book. The book is a must-read, the movie is not a must-see. I was not wow-ed by the movie, it’s not the type of movie I want to watch a dozen times more. Did anyone else feel the same way?

Fun Fact:

The character Sam dreams of going to Penn State (movie only)

The movie was filmed mostly in Pittsburgh and the surrounding suburbs

The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald is the kind of book that’s required to be read, at least my high school required that I read it.  The 1925 novel is considered an American classic and is one of the most widely-read books in modern America. There have been several film versions of the novel, most recently a 2013 version that was directed by Baz Luhrmann.

The Great Gatsby  is narrated By Nick Carraway, telling the story of the famous and mysterious millionaire Jay Gatsby as he tries to win back the heart of his old love, the now married Daisy Buchanan and all the extravagance and drama that happened along with it. However, it’s important to note that the novel is much more than a simple love story. It’s main focus is exploring the decadence of the Roaring Twenties, the distinction between “old money” and “new money”, and the moral hollowness that wealth can bring. There is also a focus on the moral excesses of New York City specifically, although the characters reside in Long Island in the fictional towns of West Egg and East Egg.

Jay Gatsby came from modest roots and was able to amass a huge fortune, meanwhile Daisy Buchanan came from money. Gatsby and Daisy were separated after he had to go to war. When he found out she married someone wealthy, he did everything in his power to also become rich and win her back. The novel was not initially a huge success, it became more popular when it started being taught in schools.

The most recent movie adaption starred Tobey Macguire as Nick Carraway, Leonardo DiCaprio as Jay Gatsby, and Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan. This adaption was more flashy than previous ones. From the colors, to the effects, to the Jay-Z soundtrack; the movie certainly tried to capture the excess of the 1920’s but in a way that felt relatable to the modern viewer. This was the Great Gatsby but with a 21st century touch.

The film was met with mixed reviews; you either loved the 21st century touch or hated it. Some critics felt it was too fast paced and took away from the emotional aspect of the novel. That the film focused too much on the splendor found in the novel that the other themes in the novel were lost. Others felt that the characters were too diluted and one-dimensional as compared to the book. Fans were equally as mixed as critics; everyone agreed that reading the book and watching the film were two very different experiences.  Likewise, although the Great Gatsby soundtrack received positive reviews for the music itself, many felt that it was featured too often in the movie (in particular, the rap songs.) However, Lana Del Rey’s song “Young and Beautiful” was universally praised both for content and it’s role in the movie.

The film is pretty good about following the book, but there are some key differences. In the movie, Nick Carraway is telling about his experiences with Gatsby to a therapist, whereas in the novel he is simply talking to the reader. Nick’s romance with Jordan Baker is cut out of the movie, as a result her character, and arguably his character, is less developed. The climax of the movie, when Gatsby, Daisy, and her husband Tom are at the Plaza Hotel with Nick and Jordan, everything comes to a head. Gatsby tells Tom that he and Daisy are in love, that she never loved Tom and that they are going to be together. In the movie, Gatsby loses his temper and goes ballistic. This is never shown in the book. Daisy’s husband Tom is much more villainous in the film, he sets things in motion for Gatsby’s death. In the book, although Tom cheats on his wife and is not the most likeable character, he’s not pure evil.  Also, in my opinion the Daisy in the movie is much more likeable and easy to sympathize with than in the book.

I never read the book, so my first experience with Gatsby was with the movie. I really liked the movie. I thought it was entertaining and easy to follow, I liked the splendor and wanted to be at Gatsby’s parties. I also really liked the book. I completely agree that it is an American classic. I like what the movie did with the book, it’s a unique adaption. I can honestly in this instance, I’m not sure what was better the book or the movie. I think they can be enjoyed separately and together.

Fun Facts:

The movie was filmed in Australia, despite being set in New York City.

I’m from Long Island! I live near the towns that inspired West Egg (Great Neck) and East Egg (Manhasset)

F. Scott Fitzgerald died believing that The Great Gatsby was going to his most forgotten work

The Great Gatsby 

Forrest Gump is one of those movies that everyone has seen and pretty much everyone likes. It won Best Picture at the 67th Academy Awards, where Tom Hanks also won Best Actor for his portrayal of the titular character Forrest Gump. The film is also known for it’s many quotable line (Ex: “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get”)

But did you know that  the hit 1994 film was originally based off a book? I found this out over the last break and was pretty surprised that I hadn’t heard of it.  The book was written by Winston Groom and released in 1986. The book had sold about 30,000 copies before the release of the film. The book also has a sequel, released in 1995, called Gump and Co. The 1994 film stars Tom Hanks, Robin Wright, and Gary Sinise.

The synopsis of both the book and the movie are very similar. Many of the adventures are the same and Forrest has a low IQ in both. But many aspects about the character of Forest are noticeably changed. For example in the book, the character of Forrest does not require leg braces.  He does not run across the United States. In the book, Forrest is also a championship chess player, a professional wrestler, an astronaut, and a candidate in Senator elections. This was all omitted in the movie. One of the most iconic lines in the movie, “”Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get,” is not exactly in the book. In the book, the line is “Being an idiot is no box of chocolates.” The character Jenny has a normal childhood in the book, whereas she has an abusive and alcoholic father in the movie. Also, Forrest’s mother and Jenny do not die in the book. He isn’t as close with his mother in the book as he is in the movie.

I love the movie and I had seen it many times before I read the book. Therefore, I don’t think I can accurately say which I thought was better. I don’t think that either one is bad.  They both handle the character of Forrest Gump differently, but neither one is a bad interpretation. It was strange reading the book and noticing all of these differences. Whereas if I had read the book first I think that I would have been able to enjoy it for its own sake and not constantly compare the two in my head.

It’s a good book, not my absolute favorite but still worth reading. Like I said, I loved the movie so I would recommend both to people.

Recently, there has been a noticeable trend of books being adapted into movies. In the past ten years, everything from classics like The Great Gatsby to teen fiction like Perks of Being A Wallflower to have been adapted into movies. The results have generally been box office blockbusters. This trend is showing no sign of slowing down. In 2014, moviegoers can expect  many more movies based on books including: The Monuments Men,  Divergent, and    The Fault In Our Stars.

There is also the debate today, the question we inevitably ask after seeing any of these films, “Was the book better than the movie?” For this Passion Blog, I’m going to watch movies that have been based off of books. I will 1) Compare how faithful the movie was to the book, and 2) Say what I did and did not like about the film. What changes worked? What changes made the story lose some of it’s power? If you haven’t read the book or seen the movie, then don’t read any further because chances are I’ll be spoiling it. This week, I will be blogging about the Hunger Games.

The first Hunger Games book was released in 2008, the first film was released in March of 2012. By 2012, the book series was an enormous success and had a devoted fandom. The film, starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and Liam Hemsworth,  broke box office records.

For those who are unfamiliar with the series, the Hunger Games is set in a future, dystopian country called Panem. Panem is governed by a highly controlling and rebellion-fearing government. The Hunger Games are an annual event in which one boy and one girl aged 12–18, from each of the twelve districts of Panem, are selected by a lottery to compete in a televised battle to the death. The protagonist of the novel is a 16 year old girl from District 12 named Katniss Everdeen. She is one of the two chosen for her district, the other “tribute” is a 16 year old boy named Peeta Mallark, who becomes Katniss’s love interest.

The film received mostly positive reviews from critics, with many praising Jennifer Lawrence’s performance. However, fan reactions were more mixed. There are some differences between the book and the movie. For example, Peeta’s family is not shown at all.  In contrast, there is an emphasis put on Seneca Crane, the game maker. He is a minor character in the book, yet he is seen a lot in the movie. His end is not explained in the first book. However in the movie, he is taken to  a room with poisoned berries that he has to eat. In the book,it is repeatedly mentioned that Katniss and Peeta have olive skin and light eyes; in the movie, they both have light skin and Peeta has brown eyes. There are numerous examples of injuries being minimized; for example, Katniss does not go deaf in one ear like she did in the book.  Here is a more complete list of differences.

But it’s important to remember that the book is told in the first person (we see everything through the eyes of Katniss) and the movie is third person. Also, the makers of the movie wanted it to be PG-13. As a result, many aspects were made less gory; deaths were shown quickly and injuries made less severe.

All in all, I think the book was better than the movie. The book developed the character of Katniss and the world of Panem better. That does not mean that the movie was all bad. I think the movie was good, in that did capture the excitement and anxiety of the Hunger Games. Definitely see read the Hunger Games; if you want to see a good movie and like Jennifer Lawrence, go see the movie.