Sunday, September 30, 2012

Phase 1 Prompt 2


         Sherman Alexie’s movie “Smoke Signals” supports the themes of his book, “The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven.”  However, the movie and book have major differences to get across similar ideas.  Some of these differences include how the movie was made, how the characters behave in both movie and book, and what Alexie’s motives were in making the film.
Despite Alexie writing both the script for the film and the story it was based on, there are still noticeable differences.  Some of that can be contributed to the production of movie.  The difficulty of turning a short story into film is understandable.  According to the director/producer, Chris Eyre, the film’s budget was a measly $1.7 million and was shot in 22 days.  Also, this was Eyre’s first movie to direct or produce.  Eyre approached Alexie about making a movie, so Alexie adapted a screenplay from his story, “This Is What It Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona” (Hofstede).  Still other things were changed as well, such as the characters.
In the movie clip, Victor is more aggressive and brooding than he is in the text. The movie version seems more emotional than the book’s version.  In the book, when Victor and Thomas interact at the trading post, Victor uses phrases like “Let me think about it,” and “We’re not really friends anymore” (Alexie 62).  In the movie, Victor says things like “just get away from me.”  The Youtube clip focuses on Victor’s view of mimicking stereotypical Indians or being a “real Indian.” Victor says, “Get stoic,” which is mostly an apathetic appearance in the presence of pain or hardship.  Victor describes how he believes an Indian should be.  They should appear mean so that people will not mess with them.  They should seem like warriors just back from the hunt.  The reason why he so determined to perpetuate the ideal Indian is unclear, but he believes it is more accepted than Thomas’s style.  (Some other clips from the movie show Victor’s father as abusive, so maybe his desire to be a good stereotypical Indian evolved from his desire not to be his father.)
         From the movie clip, Thomas’s character appears nerdy, clean, and smiles constantly.  The text describes him as having “ratty old braids and broken teeth” (66).  The major difference I see between the Thomas of the story and the Thomas of the film is his attempt to make a change.  He tries taking Victor’s advice on his hair and smile.  He even makes the “stoic face” Victor is looking for.  In the story, the two boys are on a plane when Thomas wants to ask a question to another passenger. Victor quickly tells him not to, but despite this, Thomas asks anyway (66).  This shows Thomas as more comfortable being himself and independent.  He seems more insane than peculiar in the text.  In the trading post, Thomas is seen “talking to himself.  Like he always did” (61). 
The movie does do a better job of contrasting the two characters.  While Victor is more stoic and dark, Thomas is more traditional and optimistic.  The way they interact with one another is more dramatic in the movie because you can feel more tension from their differences. I believe that Alexie chose that story because it is a better example of the theme in his book, “the sons of this book really love and hate their fathers.” (xxii). 
                

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

David Hofstede.  “Director Chris Eyre: 10 years after Smoke Signals.” Cowboys & Indians. Sept. 2009. Web. 29 Spet. 2012. < http://www.cowboysindians.com/Cowboys-Indians/September-2009/Director-Chris-Eyre-10-years-after-Smoke-Signals/>

Smoke Signals.  Dir. Chris Eyre. Perf. Adam Beach, Evan Adams, Irene Bedard, Gary Farmer and Tantoo Cardinal. Miramax, 1989. Film. 

8 comments:

  1. Erik- fantastic job on your post. It was very informational. I appreciated the timeline you provided as well as the interesting statistics. I think that filming in 22 days is crazy! How on earth can you adapt a short story to film in 22 days? When you are looking at the differences between the film and the movie, do you think Alexie abbreviated the right scenes? I really need to watch this movie! Do you think you would have added anything to the characters that the movie left out? I know that Brandi’s post mentioned that Thomas was changed dramatically in the film. Would you add anything differently to the characters?

    ReplyDelete
  2. We seem to have done a lot of the same research! So obviously I agree with your phase in almost every aspect. Although, I did not find out that the film was filmed in 22 days! That explains a lot! That explains why they are on a train instead of a plane. I think that is also why they made Thomas so "nerdy" in the film! They didn't have the time to introduce us to his character in detail like they did in the book. So, that is why they made him so different! If we did not know who Thomas was, and we just saw a film with 2 indians (who look a lot alike) arguing about stories, we would not understand the relationship between the characters. I hope that makes sense. In the novel, Alexie is able to inform us all about Thomas, who he is, what he is like, how people ignore him, his history with stories, etc. But in the movie they simply do not have enough time to explain all of that to us. So they decide to make the tension between the characters and the differences between them stand out more so that we understand. They made Victor more aggressive and Thomas very nerdy and gullible. Do you guys agree? Or why do you think that he changed the characters so drastically?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, I believe Victor and Thomas were made more agressive and nerdy to emphasize their character roles. The movie lacks sufficient time to thoroughly introduce the charcaters as they appear in the book. Maybe Alexie wanted to appeal to a gretaer audience and thought that making Victor so aggressive and Thomas nerdy would do so.

      Delete
    2. I honestly have no clue as to why Alexie changed the characters. I feel that it would have been more impactful if he had kept the characters the same. The message of the book would've been felt, instead of stereotyping native americans in a way. The way Thomas was in the book, he stayed true to his ways, never giving a hoot what people said about him. I don't know, I just really dislike the changes.

      Delete
    3. I agree that it would have been more beneficial if the characters could have been introduced better to stay truer to the book, but I think they still achieved who Thomas is, that's different. In the text Thomas is seen as the "traditional" Indian with his constant stories, but nobody wants to here them so he is viewed as different from them. In the movie clip you can see the difference in Victor and Thomas in their attitude, mannerisms, and appearance.

      Delete
  3. I think it is always easier to truly display a character in text rather than in film. In the short stories we were able to go inside the minds and thoughts of some of our characters. In a movie you only get to see how a character is, based on what we see on the outside. This is because you only get to judge them based on their actions and how they interact with others. We would lose a lot of insight and emotion from the short stories if we were not able to have a front row seat to their thoughts. I think Alexie changed the characters so drastically in Smoke Signals because it was easier to magnify their personalities rather than try to display to the audience the internal thoughts and feelings they were having.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if I necessarily agree that it's easier to display a person in text over a movie. When reading a book it is simply words. The words don't give us an idea of what kind emotion is being used with those words. Therefore if we read the book in a context that we view it as, it might not be the context the author had intended for the reader. A movie directly sets the context so it can allow to show much more emotion, context, and allow the character to have a visual impact on how we perceive them. Seeing the lack of budget and rushed production I can agree that I'm sure that Alexie would have wished to develop the characters further in the movie. Just my own opinion on text and how I perceive things much further visually.

      Delete
  4. Great post, Erik! I agree with Michelle that it is a lot easier to display a character in text rather than film. Due to the short filming period and low budget, Alexie had to magnify his character's outside appearances in order to still create the tension and give the viewers an understanding of what his character's are feeling and have been through. Do you think that if Alexie had more time and a larger budget for the film he would have changed as much? I think that it would be interesting to see a higher budget version of the film where Alexie discovered a different way of portraying his characters as they are in the books to the audience of the film. It almost seems as though Alexie took the easy way out by changing his character's appearances so dramatically, but is understandable under the circumstances. If Erik hadn't mentioned the low budget and time aspect, I would have lost much more respect for Alexie as a writer staying true to his original work and assumed he had sold himself out and only made a movie for the money.

    ReplyDelete