You might consider comparing the film to the book; in my experience, the film is more faithful to the book than almost any other adaptation of a book that I've seen. You might analyze the content of the story (abstracted from the book or film version) and critically analyze the changes that were made, why they were made, and what they contribute or remove from the story. You might also question what the most essential...
You might consider comparing the film to the book; in my experience, the film is more faithful to the book than almost any other adaptation of a book that I've seen. You might analyze the content of the story (abstracted from the book or film version) and critically analyze the changes that were made, why they were made, and what they contribute or remove from the story. You might also question what the most essential elements of the story are, and whether the film adaptation, by leaving very little out, represents a 100% "essentialism", suggesting that the story is largely bereft of unnecessary elements.
One significant element that was left out was Llewelyn's "relationship" (a non-sexual one) with a teenage hitchhiker. This probably represented temptation, which Llewelyn denied - he stayed faithful to his wife, but he was killed anyway. By contrast, in the film, the girl is left out, and essentially replaced by an anonymous woman in a hotel that invites Llewelyn in for beers, under what are probably less than wholesome intentions. This, at least to me, portrays the film version of Llewelyn as a distinctly more fallible and corruptible person than he is in the novel.
A common and relatively easy topic for "No Country For Old Men" is the idea of evil being essential, omnipresent or all-powerful, and that the individual is often powerless to stop it. You could address this prompt by discussing whether Chigurh is a real person who simply makes strong ideological arguments, or whether he is a sort of personification of death or some other force of nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment