Click on "__" comments at the bottom of this post to publish your comments. Under "Choose an Identity" select "Name/URL" and enter your name. First initial and last name are best. Sign your post with your real name. I cannot give credit if I do not know who you are.
Posting requirements are listed on my wiki where you likely found this link.
Due:
4th - Wednesday, Sept. 21 before 11 PM
3rd - Thursday, Sept. 22 before 11 PM
25 comments:
Lord of the Flies
The movie did a good job at adapting the meeting in the book to the movie. You could see more that the kids were more childish, like what you'd expect them to be. In the book they were a little more perceived as human beings. The characters and the dialogue was translated well. They had the same personalities and speech as they did in the book.
The scene was well played out and the characters looked the age they had to play. The character Piggy was fat and Ralph had fair hair. In the scene you got more of the feeling that there were a lot of kids in that scene. In the book, it's harder to imagine a big group of kids talking once due to the fact that the dialogue is written individually. Meaning one character speaks at a time. The scene in the movie definitely gives the same essence the book does with the "First Group Meeting."
Peter Brook did a good job in directing “Lord of the flies”, into a movie. In terms of using lines, place and exact setting he got everything right. Few movies that were written as a novel and then made into a movie can have a reader actually reading along with the movie. The movie itself was an exact replica of the book, but that doesn’t always make it good.
The one problem that I did have with the movie is its overall slowness. I think that a book version of anything can leave a lot for the reader to play with an imagine. What I usually look for in in movies is excitement and I didn’t get that from the movie. I also think that the joy in making any movie is to bring it to life for a visual aspect. Even though in the book it describes the boys as calm and relaxed, realistically I don't believe that after a plane crash a group of 6 year olds could be in such an orderly fashion. Even while introducing their names, the boys sounded dead. I feel that this book is a better read then a movie. If the movie was made into a realistic story, you would not be able to call it lord of the flies anymore.
Peter Brook did a good job in directing “Lord of the flies”, into a movie. In terms of using lines, place and exact setting he got everything right. Few movies that were written as a novel and then made into a movie can have a reader actually reading along with the movie. The movie itself was an exact replica of the book, but that doesn’t always make it good.
The one problem that I did have with the movie is its overall slowness. I think that a book version of anything can leave a lot for the reader to play with an imagine. What I usually look for in in movies is excitement and I didn’t get that from the movie. I also think that the joy in making any movie is to bring it to life for a visual aspect. Even though in the book it describes the boys as calm and relaxed, realistically I don't believe that after a plane crash a group of 6 year olds could be in such an orderly fashion. Even while introducing their names, the boys sounded dead. I feel that this book is a better read then a movie. If the movie was made into a realistic story, you would not be able to call it lord of the flies anymore.
Film director, Peter Brook, did a good job of adapting a scene from the well known novel, “Lord of the Flies” to the film. The film, I thought, did a good job of following the plot, reactions of characters, and tone, nicely. In the film, the audience now gets to see William Golding’s words in action. Actually seeing characters, rather than reading words on a sheet of paper may expose certain characters differently. Readers are seeing the words come to life.
As the film progresses, it does include the fact that Ralph introduces his “old friend” as Piggy. On the surface, readers see that this hurts Piggy, as he specifically requested not to be called “Piggy” by anyone but Ralph, although, as we dig deeper we discover that Ralph is actually defending Piggy and only introducing him as what he knows his name to be. An important plot point continued from the book to the film is picking a chief to lead the boys. Still, a hesitant Piggy slowly raises his hand when it comes to voting for Ralph. Ralph is voted chief by his peers. The chorus did not applaud this win, however they are still appointed the “Hunters.” The clip of the film that we saw, ends the same way with Piggy, eager to tag along, but immediately shot down by Jack, saying “Three’s enough.”
-Samantha Panozzo
Peter Brook did a very great job in adapting the first chapter of the book into a scene. Characters like piggy was exactly like how I imagined them. For example piggy seemed very insecure and seemed really sensitive like when jack made fun him because his name was piggy and this was how it was also portrayed in the book. The movies whole scripts was almost identical to the novel which was also another great thing
I was really disappointed when I saw Ralph in the scene because the book portrayed him as a natural leader. But when I saw him in the scene he seemed exactly identical to all the other kids (he didn’t stand out.) Another thing was that I was expecting Jack and his choir to be a little more intimidating but they just looked like little kids in robes.
Omar Alzein
English 2
Blog LOTF
The film director did a great job presenting the immaturity and mindlessness of the children stranded on the island. However there where faults made with the speed at which events occur.
The childish energy and the witless decision-making is perfectly portrayed in the film through continuous chattering in the background and repetitive, pointless interruptions. The children would constantly raise their voice while others where speaking, just as I imagined while reading. Also the empty beach in the background amplifies the lonely feeling of the island.
Despite the great depictions of childish behavior and scenery, the speed at which events occur was far too fast for the mood to build up. The book leads into each event either with dialogue or by creating suspicion of a problem, but in the clip events happened at a pace that was difficult to follow. The piece moves quickly from blowing the conch to the introduction of the children; it led me to thinking that there where parts from the book that had been skipped.
The film director did a good job adapting the scene from the novel to the film. He did this by showing how Piggy is mistreated and not appreciated for his ideas. Also he depicts the characters Ralph, Jack, Piggy well.
Peter Brook shows how Ralph is a natural born leader by the way he has him act throughout the scene by the way he acts towards everyone. The part that really stood out with Ralph was when he was standing up for Piggy when Jack called him "Fatty". That part in the novel was showed in detail in the movie. Also the scene in the movie when Jack first shows up is showed the same way as in the movie, how Jack walks in and is being an aggressive leader with his chorus. Piggy's character is also showed well when he is trying to give ideas and suggestions and Jack is shutting all of Piggy's ideas down was also showed well in the movie.
Though the directing could have improved, in terms of adaptation this scene is the perfect mirror image of the boys’ meeting in the book. Everything was factually correct, with names and lines all being accurate. But what really was impressive was how Peter Brook captured each character’s personality and the boys’ relationships with one another. The vibe of excitement among the boys that William Golding had hinted at in the book was obvious in the movie’s scene. The boys had raised their hands and begged to tag along with Jack and Ralph to scout the island. It was apparent that they had never experienced such an exhilarating scenario in their lives. The movie also did a great job showing the character of the boys. The choir, like they were in the book, was always obedient to Jack and followed his orders. Ralph seemed like the same leader we read about, and Piggy acted as jealous and upset with Ralph as we expected him to be. All in all, the scene that Peter Brook made of the boys’ first meeting in William Golding’s "Lord of The Flies" was as close to the actual scene than any film adaptation of a story could be.
peter brook adapted the scene "first group meeting" from the novel to the movie very well. when reading that passage in the book, i imagined it just as the movie portrayed it. i really enjoyed the way in the film, they focused on key reactions of the characters. the filming method wasnt the way normal movies are shot, it seemed the camera was placed at a childs level. making them appear to be regular height, where as in adult movies kids are portrayed as being so much more infintile.
i liked that if you hadnt read that particular scene before, you would still have a good grasp on what was going on. he portrayed jack exactly how i thought he acted in the book, making he seem very king like and someone that hardly anyone was fond of. piggy seemed to be more of a leader in them film assposed to the movie, which i had no problem with because i really wanted him to be that way in the book, but he wasnt quite to that point yet. finally ralph, i wasnt appealed by him in the movie as much as i was in the book, he seemed like a bossy little boy in the film; more or less. however i didnt think brook really portrayed ralph as golding did in the novel. over all, the flim was a good adaptation of the novel "Lord of the Flies".
He did a pretty good job considering it was a movie, of course for a movie your going to leave out small scenes that are less important. For example the director left out the scene with Johnny, the boy who emerges from the palm trees while Ralph is sounding the conch. The scene with Johnny is obviously not as important as the emergence of Jack and the choir. Also, the director left the part of the scene where the three go out to explore the island and Jack and Ralph put Simon in the middle to talk over his head.
I think he didn't do a good job of portraying the chatacters as they were in the book. For example in tmhe book Jack and Ralph seemed like the oldest and most mature however in the movie the director depicts Jack as significantly more mature and older than Ralph. I also didn't feel he didn't grasp their leadership characteristics, like for Ralph he seemed like a real honest person and for the group. Jack was extremely and fet he was entitled to be leader.
Overall, the director grasped the main scenes of this section but lacked significant little details that really set the scene for the rest of the story for the readers.
Peter Brook did a decent job DIRECTING the scene, but did not do well in casting. From the glimpse of the movie i saw, Ralph's casting was off. The actor didn't have that special sense of leadership, to me. He didn't have the natural take charge kind of personality or any charisma or maybe hidden depths the book portrays him to have
The director, Peter Brook did a good job adapting the scene, “The First Meeting” from the book, “The Lord of the Flies.” He showed the scene well, and kept the basic facts of the story consistent with the book, unlike like many movies based off of books. The way he portrayed Ralph, Jack, and Piggy was what I found most interesting.
Ralph seemed much more immature and like a real kid would have been than how he was described in the book. This really put into perspective the situation, it wasn’t just anyone stranded on an island: it was a group of kids. Jack was also shown as a kid who was very confident in himself, but also had an air of arrogance. In the movie, Piggy had less of a presence in the scene. In the book, he seemed more like another possible leader because he was there with Ralph when everyone gathered, and he was the one taking the initiative to go around and learn everyone's names. In the movie, he was a quieter character. He didn’t seem as important when everyone gathered, and his attempts at finding all the boys‘ names seemed less successful and relevant.
The movie varied slightly from the book, but the basic ideas and events of the scene stayed in tact, and the things that were changed gave the scene a different dynamic and viewpoint than what the book described. The characters mannerisms in the scene really put the situation in perspective. It helped make the idea that a bunch of boys of the ages 12 or younger were stranded on an island and are going to have to learn to fend for themselves.
Julie Wiegel
Although the movie may not be of the best quality or acting, Peter Brook presents a nearly flawless portrayal of Golding’s Lord of the Flies. Brook created the scene where the children hold their first meeting, capturing the emotion and spirit of each individual character. Brook accurately scripted the novel’s dialogue and all character’s names were identical. The setting of the scene was perfect, as it followed Golding’s descriptions as being very tropical and hot. It was obvious that Ralph and Jack were the leaders, and there was a clear sense of tension between them. As for Piggy, he was just as described in the book, as a smart yet self-conscious child. He acted the most mature and showed his aggravation with Ralph. Generally, the adaptation that Peter Brook did of this scene was nearly identical to that of the book, and very little can be changed to improve the scene.
When Peter Brooke did the first scene from the novel lord of the Flies he did a good job at adapting the book into a movie formate. Although there were differences much of it was the same.
First of all I think he did a very good job at giving us a visual by trying to show us what the characters looked like. Although the book did a better job at describing the characters feelings he did the best he could while putting it in the movie formate. He also exaggerated some points in the book while putting it into a scene.
Over all he did a good first scene by trying to turn a book into a movie. He made it a little more interesting by exaggerating the funny and dramatic points in the first scene.
I don’t think the director of the film “Lord of the Flies” did a good job portraying the first group meeting. This is for many different reasons. One is because he did a bad job portraying Ralph. He didn’t seem to have as big of a leadership role as he did in the book. He came across more childish and less powerful in the movie. This is because in the movie he seemed to have given in to others ideas more easily.
Another reason why I think this was a bad portrayal of the book is because the character Piggy was also not as he was in the book. In the book the author emphasizes the fact that Piggy is bigger than the other boys on the island. However, in the movie there wasn’t that big of a difference. He was bigger than the rest but the difference wasn’t great enough to capture the idea the book had.
The last reason why I thought it was a bad portrayal of the book is because the character of Jack didn’t seem as authoritative. He didn’t seem as controlling and demanding as he came across in the book. They left out some of the reasons why he wanted to be leader, and in the book he seemed more self-absorbed.
-Olivia Arnold, 4th period.
(I realize this is late I thought we had to have it in by tonight at 11.)
I feel as if Peter Brook did an okay job with adapting his film to the book. But, as the scene progressed, the scene went from high budget to Disney film gone awry. At the beginning of the scene, Brook portrayed the two characters Ralph and Piggy well, but as soon as that conch was blown, it all went downhill from there.
While Brook portrays the characters well in his adaptation, his characters lack in depth. Ralph and Piggy are true to their characters in the book, but the choir boys and the rest of the children seriously lack any character and individuality.
I think the film director express the "lord of flies" pretty well at the movie. The movie makes easier to understand the whole story. And it helps to remind the details of the story. For example, in the movie, there were cloaks that choir wore. But when I read the book, I can't noticed that and just pass that part. So I think Peter Brook did a good job in adapting the scene. Also we can watch the face of each characters and it is a help to understand the content.
Peter Brook did a good job in showing that first scene of the movie. Movie scenes are usually different from books such as with names and the way things happen, but Brook made it so they were the same thing. In the first scene the characters had the same actions as in the book. The only difference I noticed was that the choir entered off the beach instead of from the hill. For being a movie, the director made it extremely close and that one difference doesn't make that much of a difference.
Peter Brook made the movie as close to a book as I have ever seen. He changed one small detail but for a movie you have to because its all about what looks best on camera. I give props to Brooks for making a movie in the same view as William Golding. I wish I could have seen more of the movie to see if Brooks kept to keeping it in the same view or if he changed it so it will off of his ideas.
Peter Brook's representation of Lord of the Flies was very good because it captured the true essence of what children did in their situation. The children were very noisy and disorganized. He also portrayed the other children's dislike of Piggy very well by having nobody listening to him. The beginning is usually the most accurate part of the movie so until we see more of the movie, who can say how accurate it is.
- Anthony Zaniolo
Yes the director did a good job with that because he showed that these group of boys can be whoever they want to be. In the film everyone gathere around and people decided who was going to the cheif on the island. Also the group of boys wore robes to prepare for the group meeting.
Peter Brook had an interest to have the beginning of the movie similar to the book. I believe by the book being fictional gives off a vibe of some of the movie being strange. For example, the boys were in a plane crash where the plane was in the water but yet their clothes were still dry.
My opinion of Peter Brook doing a good job of adapting the first scene, is pretty well. He made the scene the same as the book but gave his own creativity. I have a feeling the movie will be similar to the book.
In my opinion, the film director is not adapting good in the scene we saw in the film from the novel.
The first shot we saw was about Ralph picked up the shell.(It seems that we are not start at the beginning of the story) So everything start here, and camera turned to Mr. Piggy and Ralph. Because I didn't understand the meaning of 'fair boy' at first so I don't have a accurate impression of Ralph’s appearance, but the Piggy was so much thinner than My imagination. And the voice of the actor was bad， Piggy was not cheerful at all as he should before others laugh at him.
What's more, when those kids came together, they were like line up neatly, you can hardly see any dirt and nervous on them. they are so shy and 'well prepared'. When they took turn and said their name out loud, they were speaking with a obvious interval, it's like when the kid actor realized that the camera was turned to him and he started to said the words. It is even worse than the show in opera.
Totally it was a bad film, at least for me, may be it is good in 30 years ago.
The movie did a good job of interpreting the scene of the first meeting. It shows that they are very childish and not ready to come together an become a team. The kids are very stubborn and they do not want to make a main person but finally they are convinced to make a leader and the movie shows how hard it really was.
The way that the characters acted and looked were very similar to the way that I saw them in my head. They talked the same as I pictured too. The kids had the exact personalities as I thought because the average 12 year old was immature but when you look at ralph you could tell that he was a leader that was in progress because he stood and took order and he stayed more clm than all of the other kids.
(Alternate assignment due to absence).
I began the novel thinking that the purpose was to show how a society ran by children would fail. I held this opinion for less than a chapter, however, and realized that what the author was trying to convey was much different-and a bit harder to fathom. “The Lord of the Flies” isn’t so much criticizing children, but human beings in general. I think the book suggests that if humans were not bound by the tight rules of society, our integrity and sense of morals and ethics would disintegrate. The novel exemplified this-already we have begun to see that the hierarchy of sorts that the children came up with is starting to become conflicted-in fact, it was conflicted from the beginning, and the power struggle can only get worse from here on out.
I had a conversation with a Hindu friend once about religion, and I immediately drifted back to it while realizing the deeper purpose of the novel. I believe the book we were reading was Ishmael at the time-an extremely biblical piece of literature, so much so that our teacher kept a bible next to her desk that month. But I was curious to know how much her religion differed from Christianity, and after listening for a while, I realized it all boiled down to two opposite core concepts. In Hinduism, as she states, the philosophy is that all humans are good on the inside. Comparing that to Christianity; in the Bible, it states that all humans are born sinful. All humans are evil by nature and if Jesus hadn’t paid for our sins, we would end up in hell as opposed to the Hindu concept of reincarnation, a second chance.
“The Lord of the Flies” is obviously Christianity in that relationship. Without being carefully monitored and bound by rules and a strict society, we would all become savages. Our inner “evil” would be awakened-the evil that is inevitably at the core of our being. I think that if Goldein where writing from a Hindu perspective, the boys would be working together in peace and harmony because society is the true evil that corrupts the pure human heart. I am beginning to see how religion plays a very great symbolic role in this book-the very theme relates to various religious concepts, most profoundly Christianity.
Peter Brooke did a very good job portraying the part of the book in his movie. Every thing was spot on. The only thing i didnt like was the music while the boys were walking in.
It would have been better if they were just chanting. Yes, music does enhance the scene, but they had no source of music while they were stranded so why include it in the movie.
Post a Comment