Thursday, September 27, 2012

Phase 1 Prompt 2



    The differences between the novel “The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven” and the movie “Smoke Signals” are very recognizable. The characters in the film seem extremely different than those in the book. For example, the Thomas in the book does not even compare to the Thomas is “Smoke Signals”. The biggest similarity between the stories is that both show how passionate the characters are about being a “true Native American”. It is important to understand the similarities and differences in “The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist Fight in Heaven” and “Smoke Signals”, but it is also important to understand why those similarities and differences exist.
    In the Smoke Signals, the character Thomas is depicted as nerdy, eccentric, and very smiley.  Where in the book he still seems odd, but also very wise and noble. The film seems to capture the character of Victor a lot better. He still seems annoyed and a little angry with Thomas much like in the books. He also has the very classic Native American look that is described multiple times in the novel. Sherman Alexie states, “every dang Indian in this book is described as being identically dark skinned with the same long black hair”(xxii). Yet the film goes out of its way to make Thomas very different. He is dressed in a nice suit (which is not too surprising because we know from page 13 that Thomas received money from The Washington Water Power), he also where giant glasses, and has his hair in 2 perfect braids. Victor in the film tells Thomas that he needs to “get stoic” in order to be a “better “ Indian. The definition of stoic is, “a person who can endure pain or hardship without showing their feelings or complaining” (dictionary.com).  That is exactly what Thomas is in “The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven”.  When Thomas and Victor was 15 “Victor was really drunk and beat up Thomas for no reason at all” and “the beating might have gone on till Thomas was dead” is someone hadn’t stepped in and stopped the fight (65). Thomas endured that pain and hardship without ever being hateful or complaining about Victor. While on the trip to Arizona Victor finally felt guilty enough to apologize to Thomas. Thomas had forgiven him long before that moment, but replied on with, “Oh it was nothing, we were kids and you were drunk” (67). Bottom line is that the movie clip has Victor telling Thomas to be stoic, when in the novel Thomas was nothing but stoic. People shut him out because of who he was, and never complained once.
     Even though the clips are very different, the overall theme of being a true Native American in the modern times is an important theme in both film and book. In both of the storylines the characters seem to be living the lifestyle of Indians we all know from history, books, and movies. Victor’s explanation of what it means to be Indian is very different in the film than in the book. In the movie, he considers Indians to never smile, dress in worn down clothing, and to embrace the messy hair look. This scene in the film is completely absent in the novel. But the idea of what it means to be an Indian is incorporated throughout the book as well. But in the book you just basically have to be uneducated, unemployed, addicted to alcohol and basketball, and have some serious family issues. The Indians in the novel are not against laughter. In fact, in that very same scene in the book, “This is what it Means to say Phoenix, Arizona,” Thomas tried to pull his leg up like the Olympic gymnast on the plane and, “Victor laughed”(66).  But in the movie clip Victor tells Thomas, “Indians are not suppose to smile like that”. The Victor in the film is almost too serious. We know that in the chapter “A Drug Called Tradition” Victor is anything but serious and against laughter. Junior and Victor pick up Thomas, drive to Benjamin Lake, and embark on a journey of laughter and fun with the help of a new drug they all decide to take (14). This Victor sounds very different than the one in the film who seems uptight and tells Thomas to stop smiling.  
     One thing that surprised me was that I found that Sherman Alexie actually wrote the script for the novel. So, I decided to find out why he would make so many changes. For example, in the clip Thomas and Victor seem to be on a rain or a bus instead of a plane like in the book. What I discovered was the movie budget was only 2 million dollars. I thought that sounded like a lot until I found out that the average movie budget is about 15 million dollars. I think that Alexie had to work with what little materials he had in order to make this movie. That is the perfect example of why the book is ALWAYS better than the movie! 

References:
Alexie, Sherman. The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven. New York: Atlantic Monthly, 1993. Print

"Q&A Categories." What Is the Average Movie Budget for a Hollywood Movie? N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. <http://hollywood-movies.yoexpert.com/movies/what-is-the-average-movie-budget-for-a-hollywood-m-1403.html>.

"Smoke Signals (film)." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 09 Sept. 2012. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_Signals_(film)>.


"Smoke Signals (3/12) Movie CLIP - How to Be a Real Indian (1998) HD." YouTube. YouTube, 29 Sept. 2011. Web. 28 Sept. 2012. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwcJaUaVfR0>.


8 comments:

  1. Just a fun fact!The actor who plays Thomas in the film is Evan Adams. He is now a medical doctor helping indigenous tribes in Brittish Columbia. :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Brandi- that was a wonderful post. You did a fantastic job. I really enjoyed how you provided that additional fact about the doctor! That is just so cool. I also found your last paragraph interesting too. I wonder if Alexie made changes to the movie due to the criticism that he received because of the book? I have not had a change to see the movie yet, but I see what you are saying about the differences between the books and the movies. You are right in your statement that the book is always better than the movie. If you were writing the screenplay what would you change about the book? If anything?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Personally Brianna, I would try to keep the movie as close to the book as possible. Sometimes the small changes in the films really irritate me! That thought "that wasn't even in the book", can seriously frustrate me! Obviously I understand that sometimes it is just to expensive or impossible to do it exactly like the book. But I do no understand why the changed Thomas' character so much. That has nothing to do with the budget. It doest cost them more to throw on a flannel shirt, untie the braids, and change his personality. They did that on purpose. I wish I really knew what that purpose was! I did a lot of research on that, and came up with nothing. Maybe it is because of the criticism Alexie got from the novel. Maybe he thought it would make more people accept the storyline if they change a few characters and scenes. It would be really cool to have the chance to ask him. Why do you think he made Thomas the way he is in the film and not like the Thomas in the book?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I truly believe that the character was changed and adapted to be accepted more. At the time the novel was published the character must have received backlash. When the movie was published, they might have been trying to be able to relate to the audience in a different way, but also I think they tried to avoid the negative reviews. I would like to know the real reasons. This is just what I can gather from your post and from a quick google search. I also think that changing the book for a movie is silly. Keeping the movie as accurate as possible would be my goal as a screen write, producer, and director. Again, you did a great job!

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's interesting that you bring up the movie's budget was only $2 million. Maybe the low budget limited Alexie the freedom to do the movie the way he wanted to; thus, the several differnces between the book and the film. Do you think the movie's low budget played a role in the way it was?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brandi I agree. Changing the demeanor of a character doesn't cost anything! I find it odd that Alexie purposefully changed Thomas so much. Maybe he wanted the movie to have a certain feel that his new personality brought to the table, or maybe he wanted to portray a different side of Indian personalities. Honestly I am surprised that Alexie agreed to turn this into a movie in the first place. To me a collection of short stories would be to difficult to turn into a successful script. From chapter to chapter I wasn't always clear on who it was about. Not to mention the stories were not in chronological order.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Great post, Brandi! In response to Jarrett's question, I think that the movie's low budget did play a role in the way it was filmed. I think that Alexie chose to change Thomas in the movie because what made Thomas so different in the book was when we were inside his mind or reading about his visions. With a low budget film, those visions and stories are harder to recreate and define Thomas' individuality. By changing his mannerisms and dress in the movie, it clearly marks that character's difference from the rest of the reservation. If there was a higher budget, I believe Alexie would have not have made the changes he did to Thomas in the movie and rather let the portrayal of his stories define who Thomas really is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree that the changes made to Thomas are hard to understand, and very frustrating. In the book Thomas is very ragged in his appearance, but is most likely one of the most "put together" individuals on the reservation. Alexie can't bring that out in "Smoke Signals" because of the time/budget restriction, so he gives Thomas the appearance that he has it together. The big smile and suit would be indicators that he doesn't struggle with some of the things that Victor does, if he did he handles it much better than Victor. I really don't think Alexie would make changes to Thomas in the movie regardless of budget or time, because visually Thomas represents something different than the stereotypical Native American. Do you think Alexie would have done it differently? Why?

    ReplyDelete