Name: 映画対小説。 何がそれらを異なるものにしているのか？ (Film vs. Novel: What Makes Them Different?)
Uploaded: 2021-01-14T08:04:14.000Z
Duration: 6 min 56 s
Description: VoiceTubeの動画で発音を聞きながら英語表現を覚えよう！学べる英語：

Lets say you think of an amazing three act story

程度の副詞

The first question you have to ask yourself is

Should your story be written as a movie or a novel?

It's a simple question, but the answer gets complicated

because of how often stories get retold in different artforms

The majority of highest grossing and most critically acclaimed movies

were adapted from novels and many unforgettable stories became famous

but each of these stories is presented differently depending on the medium used

so what's the difference between telling a story through a film and through a novel

What can a novel convey well that a film may have trouble with?

When I was in high school, I read "How to Write a Movie in 21 Days."

The first chapter of the book provides an interesting thought experiment

to consider the differences between a novel and a screenplay.

The experiment asks you to think of a scene and write that scene both as a novel and as a movie.

Consider a scene where a robber breaks into a home to steal something.

In a novel, we may get the inner thoughts of the robber before the robbery.

The robber and his predicament get described to us through various literary devices.

no other option and with the shaking
hand he lifted the hammer and smashed

the window shattering the glass in his
expectations for a quiet life free of

Where the novel stands out is its ability to put us in the thoughts and perspective of a character so smoothly.

Movies narrate, have voice-overs and even talk directly to the viewer

but the novel can transition from thought to action so seemlessly

to the point where the vast majority of some novels can take place completely within the mind of a character

and the story can remain gripping and moving.

In movies, action is more common than just thinking.

"Alright, you just need to calm down. We need to think for a second."

It's rare for a movie to spend the whole time narrating because it would get boring

Instead of showing a character, a novel completely inhabits the mind of a character in the world of the narrative.

Novels can tells us how a person is feeling, tell us what something looks like, or what something tastes like

"Catcher in the Rye" wouldn't work very well as a movie because movies are best at showing action and movement.

The vast majority of "Catcher in the Rye" takes place inside the mind of Holden, and little action occurs as Holden ponders.

So when a scene consists of nothing but Holden sitting on a train thinking,

the novel is the best method for bringing Holden's thoughts and character to life

While there are definitely good movies that showcase a character's thoughts,

In the adaptation of "The Hunger Games" from the novel to the big screen, the writers had to do away with a lot of what was going on inside Katniss's head

because it didn't transition well to screen.

In "The Hunger Games," Katniss has to fake a romance with Peeta to win affection from the viewers

and in the first two books, she constantly thinks about Gale back home and has an inner struggle about whether or not she likes Gale or Peeta

The movies almost entirely do away with this plotline in the earlier films because it's really awkward adding love triangle to a film that has no action associated with it.

Movies aren't good at thoughts. They're good at actions.

The "Great Gatsby" film adaptation has several differences with the novel and it capitalizes on what movies do better than books.

They show. To show Gatsby's anxiety towards seeing Daisy,

he orders a ridiculous amount of flowers for the house and hires dozens of servants to redecorate Nick's lawn.

The visuals show Gatsby's overpreparation and anxiety from seeing Daisy.

The scene of him waiting for Daisy has the ever-increasing volume of the time ticking in the background as we get closer and closer to the clock.

Along with DiCaprio's performance all the elements of the scene--the editing, sound, visuals and acting--convey the sense of anxiety Gatsby has.
The novel does it a little bit differently. The

novel has no flowers delivered and only
one of Gatsby servants comes to mow the

lawn. Instead of representing nerves
through big visuals we get told about

Gatsby's nerves through literary devices.

Both scenes are written very similarly with
almost the same dialogue and action but

the subtle differences between the
movie's visuals and the novel's

descriptions are how two different art
forms convey the same mood. The novel

tells us about his nerves through
description and the movie shows us his

nerves through editing, lighting, sound
and acting. So what would a robbery look like

as a movie? To play to the strengths of
film when it comes to conveying the

robber's hesitation and regret we would
show rather than tell. Maybe we get a

close-up of his trembling hand or sweat on his brow. Maybe he'd be dressed in

everyday attire instead of the typical
robber gear. The shots could be close ups

and point-of-view shots to place us into
his perspective and empathize with him

and the shots could be edited very quickly to up the pace and anxiety of the scene.

These visuals are what would make the
story powerful. For the novel, metaphors

tone, hyperbole and all the other
countless literary techniques are the

key to telling a story and lighting,
camera angle, actor placement and other

cinematic techniques are how movies
show a story. Different techniques with

different strengths and weaknesses.
Movies show. Novels tell. Many people on

the internet loathe movies that don't stay
true to the novel's they are based on.

There are a lot of reasons for the
changes from novel to screen like

fitting feature-length screen time and a
desire to appeal to a larger audience

but I think one key difference some
people miss is that movies can't always

replicate the mood of a novel because
movies have to present the story with

different techniques. Perhaps "The Great
Gatsby" wasn't a good adaptation because

it focused too heavily on the visuals of
the story and not the emotion behind it.

That moment is recreated
in the movie like this

"He seemed to be reaching towards
something out there in the dark."

The movie doesn't come close to capturing the moment correctly. In the novel, Gatsby can

be seen trembling even from a distance
with both arms stretched out. It's

obviously a very personal moment for Gatsby, where he looks extremely desperate

almost pathetic with such dramatic body
posture. In the movie he just does this.

No trembling. Just one arm. Not
embarrassing, not intimate. It's

completely casual and this is the whole
point of the scene. It's supposed to be a

very uncomfortable moment to see Gatsby's desperate and weak side but the

movie recreates this moment totally wrong. The movie's visuals made Gatsby look so

cool and his life so dazzling that we
miss how he's not just a cool rich guy

with a weakness for a girl. He's actually
an extremely empty, hollow failure that's

anything from great. The movie's visuals
along with the modern score made Gatsby's

character much less moving and pathetic
like the novel did. So sometimes the movie

字幕リスト動画再生

映画対小説。何がそれらを異なるものにしているのか？ (Film vs. Novel: What Makes Them Different?)

perspective

anxiety

extremely

majority

映画対小説。 何がそれらを異なるものにしているのか？ (Film vs. Novel: What Makes Them Different?)

perspective

anxiety

extremely

majority

映画対小説。何がそれらを異なるものにしているのか？ (Film vs. Novel: What Makes Them Different?)