It's somehow that the book's style leads to its story (rather than the usual reversal, which would be a marker of realism). That is, we know that we are reading when we are reading (it's in contrast to cinema's invisible style, it seems). What might be the cinematic equivalent of this literary style?
Monday, April 13, 2009
Feeling kinda Moody
We will be talking about the relationship between the verbal dexterity of Moody's novel and the ways that Lee handles such in his film. That is, the use of a guiding voice throughout the novel is easy to identify in the voice-over of the film, but the complications and differences extend well beyond this overt narrational difference. How might the narrational choices affect our relationship to the texts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The film had a very difficult task: to capture the feel of a novel that gained its strength from the mental tangents and various deep-seeded neuroses of the characters. Moody doesn’t lead the reader from one plot point to another, really, but circles back on the narrative itself, overlapping and giving more vertical depth. This then fills in the other points of view much more completely and actually adds meaning to what we already have read.
ReplyDeleteA more literal transfer from the book to film would create a cinematic narrative more along the lines of Kubrick’s “The Killing” or Tarantino’s “Jackie Brown.” In these films, the story doubles back on itself in order provide the other perspectives that one character did not have access to. This is exactly what Moody does.
The movie would have been much different if director Ang Lee did something similar. Instead, he focuses more on slowly building tension across the board as the ice storm continues to worsen. The short scene where Mike creeps out onto the extremely icy diving board sets the tone for the rest of the film, visually suggesting the peril that both families are in. Regardless of the style in the book, you can feel the tension building toward something dark and terrible. The film manages to do this as well even while using a much more traditional invisible style.
The novel is told and uses third person point of view, while the film uses more of first person P.O.V. Paul is used as the narrator and his character’s point of view is used as the third person view of the story. His voice is mainly heard in the beginning and end of the film, but it is interspersed through the film at random points, at least the points seem to be at random increments to me but its most likely Ang Lee chose specific moments when Paul’s voice comes in as the narrator.
ReplyDeleteIn the film I could follow the characters and who was who easier. I think I’m more of a visual person, so having a face to each of the characters was helpful to follow the specific characters and keep track of the character’s relationships to each other. I think the narrative style of the novel that Moody used is interesting and overall I liked it. But as a visual person and someone who is a slightly slower reader or doesn’t pick up on specific details in a book it was hard to follow. I also thought it was interesting that Moody called the men by their last name but the other characters were called by their first names. As the novel continued, especially near the end of the novel he shifted from using their last names to their first names.
I don’t know what else to say or how to describe the narrational choices Moody and Lee used. It is hard to describe or put into words my opinion or interpretation of their choices. Even though it is the end of semester and I have been writing film papers since Film 1010 I still have trouble making word choices to describe what I am thinking about the novel or film. I guess as a student writing a blog or response I have to make my own narrational choices to describe a film or compare/contrast a film with a novel, whether an adaptation of the novel or an entirely separate novel and film.
The film and the novel tell essentially the same story, just in different ways (obviously). In the novel, we get inside the heads of the chracters and can see who they are and how they got that way. The only way the film would really be able to accomplish this would be through voice, which it does occasionally. But the voice over does not narrate the entire movie. However, I don't feel like the characters are any less complex just becasue we aren't inside their heads. Also, the film is able to visually show the detoriation of the families through the ice storm. As the tension in the story builds and characters in the story become more and more desperate, the ice storm happens. WHen everything is frozen, and at standstill (like the train) then everything is at its breaking point and we can see that. The book cannot do this in the same way. Rather than compare the two, I would say the film and novel compliment each other. Both adding to the other.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dave, in that Moody seems to be less interested with the plot of the story than in the careful dissection of his characters. Where the film rolls in a linear pattern of plot events (albeit through a flashback), the novel stumbles forward as it slowly reveals plot while often side stepping to allow additional context of the characters and their condition. The main feeling I received from the narration in the novel was one of openness. The narrator tells all, yet for the most part he does not judge. This contrasts with the judgment the characters like Mr. Hood have of themselves (whom constantly swallows his own self hatred). Another example of this being the description of Jim Williams where we are told of his many faults, yet the passage ends with the conclusion "Jim Williams. A good guy."
ReplyDeleteThe question as to which films use a style to convey story is something I find rather interesting. After convincing myself of a few films and then rethinking them, I came to two shaky examples: "Memento" and "Crank". "Memento" might be too easy an example as the way the film is cut and dissected forces the audiences to be aware they are being actively engaged in the film. The fast cuts and constantly moving camera give the film style that conveys the paranoid, memory gaffed thoughts of main character. "Crank" (go ahead and laugh- i am bringing it up) I believe also works in this context because the style of the camerawork used really supports the story. The film uses multiple effects as the main character entertains different forms of adrenaline inducing behavior (cars, sex, drugs) and the effect is shown on screen via cuts and special effects. It works in a way that the audience also experiences what the character has, and allows the style of film to lead to the story.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the film and novel revolve around the same plot of the two families... they are very much different. I read the novel before viewing the film, and in the novel I felt like the characters were more developed. The story is told through the characters in the novel, and the novel really allows the reader to learn who the characters REALLY are. It takes the readers in their mind, and shows the characters real feelings. In contrast, the film was a bit more empty to me.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a big fan of watching films after reading a good novel because it always seems that the film is never as good as the novel. In this film there is a narrator, but he does not really tell the entire story. We are introduced to characters in the film, but unlike the novel, we do not really get to see how the characters developed in to the way that they are. What I did like about the film was visually being able to see how the families began to fall apart.
I definitely agree with Beth... the novel and film are different but in a way in seems that they both work. Moody's writing is brilliant and the way Lee captures and sets the mood of the film is brilliant. The film and novel definitely compliment each other.
The film and novel both essentially tell the same story but in different styles with alteration in the way the narrative is told. Obviously the book will always be more powerful but it's one thing to read something and then to visually see the collapse of this family.
ReplyDeleteThe only bug I had about the film was that there was a GREAT monologue setting up the time period in the novel which I felt should have been utilized in the film. I was glad that they kept the comic book references in the film however because I think even something that seems minor like that is actually a really big deal. It was the comic books that Paul is able to escape into and use to make sense of his world, but at the end of the novel he is no longer able to accept it as a truth anymore.
I really wish some of the powerful dialogue at the end was translated into the film but I also think it was more than appropriate to cut the film at the car scene.
In reading "The Ice Storm," the reader has a sense of both a first and third person narrative. "So let me dish you this comedy about a family I knew when I was growing up," the novel's first line, introduces to our narrator, who we later find out is Paul Hood, but for the most part, the novel is narrated in the third person. The narrator calls the book a comedy, and makes links between comedy and comic books. This awareness of the narrator that he is telling the audience a story is much different than most fictional novels. He says "This congruency—between Paul and his dad—is sort of like the congruency between me, the narrator of this story, the imaginer of all these consciousnesses of the past, and God." He keeps himself mostly detached throughout the novel, not revealing himself until the end of the book. In the film, the narrator is introduced in the beginning, but disappears as a character until the end of the film when we see him again on the bus. The narrator is much more omniscient in the film because of film's invisible style that allows the pictures to tell us the story rather than a voice as in a novel.
ReplyDeleteThe Ice Storm has the first and third person narration in the novel, but in the film, it was just only Paul's first person narration. In contrast, the film is way more interesting than the novel in my opinion. Lee completely delivers the vision of Rick Moody and add the creativity to the plot in terms of narrative structure and cinematic element. In terms of cinematic element, there are parallel editing, mirror effect, flashback, and flash forward sequence. It also uses the narrative structure to express the meaning of Mikey’s farewell and Paul’s reunion. In addition, the film is practically silent in last fifteen minutes, because the body language and facial expression are enough to tell the audience what is going on.
ReplyDelete