In the clip of Smoke
Signals (link here), it shows Thomas Builds-the-Fire and Victor on their
way to Phoenix, Arizona, and this movie was based on the stories from the book This Is What It Means To Say Phoenix,
Arizona and A Drug Called Tradition.
Based on that story and that specific clip they had similarities and
differences in regards to Victor, Thomas, and what it means to be Indian.
Some
of the comparisons between the film clip and story, in my opinion, are obvious.
In the movie clip, Victor and Thomas discuss what it means to be an Indian.
Victor was very open and willing to tell him his opinion on how Thomas’ style
was anti-Indian and that he needed to stop being strange. And in the story, one
part in particular on page 69, when Victor and Thomas were discussing what
Thomas remembered about his dad. Even though the tone of each conversation is
completely different, but the fact that they were both listening and attentive
made it similar (I’ll discuss the contrast of this same topic later on).
Another comparison is from the story “A Drug Called Tradition,” Victor and
other friends were making fun of Thomas and his stories while they were high
(pg 14). In the clip, Victor also mocks his stories comparing them to the movie
“Dances With Wolves.” Victor, especially when they were younger, in many
stories throughout the book would always make fun Thomas up because of his
stories and visions. In my viewpoint there, in comparisons to these stories,
there isn’t many similarities to the clip.
The
contrasts to the clip and these two stories are a ton. In both stories, Victor,
even when he’s being mean to Thomas, he isn’t a complete, excuse my language,
butt face. He’s so rude in this clip. What makes him think that he is the know
it all of Indian culture and how an Indian should act/dress. In these two
stories that I’m discussing in this post, Victor may have had some douche
moments but you still compassion and understanding. An example of this is
towards the end of the story “This Is What It Means To Say Phoenix, Arizona” on
page 74, when Thomas was telling Victor how he was planning to spread Victor’s
dad’s ashes. Victor completely understood and agreed. He even “smiled,” as it
stated in the book. Since I haven’t seen the entire movie, I can’t say that the
whole movie didn’t do a good job of representing the personalities of both
characters, but from this clip they really didn’t. Thomas in this clip seemed
like Karen of Mean Girls. He wasn’t
sure of himself and gave in really easily when Victor told him to change. In the
book as a whole, we all know Thomas didn’t care what everyone else thought of
him. When they called him crazy or weird, he still stayed true to whom he was.
That was shown on page 21, he didn’t tolerate other people telling him stuff,
he just left them alone and continued living life the way he wanted to live
without caring what other people thought, that is shown on page 73, “Thomas Builds-the-Fire told his
stories to all those that would stop and listen. He kept telling them long
after people stopped listening.” Besides the character contrasts, the clip
version of “what it means to be Indian” is different to what I interpreted to
be the books version of what it meant to be Indian. There isn’t a particular
part that says what I’m about to discuss in these two stories, but in Alexie’s
book he doesn’t represent what it means to be Indian in that way that it’s
represented in the clip. In the clip, Victor tells Thomas that he has to have a
warrior-like demeanor to show the white people that they can’t walk over
Indians. He also tells him that he was to let his hair free, and get rid of his
suit. In the book, he didn’t represent what meant to be Indians in that way. I
feel like yes, he called some people in his story warriors, but never stated
that they were warriors so whites would take them seriously.
In
conclusion, the contrasts and similarities’ between the clip of Smoke Signals and This Is What It Means To Say Phoenix, Arizona and A Drug Called Tradition, both from the
novel The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fist
Fight in Heaven are very noticeable, especially in regards to the
characterization of Victor and Thomas, and how Alexie viewed what it meant to
be Indian.
Works Cited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_Signals_(film)
Chantal, great job in providing textual evidence of both the similarities and differences from the book and movie. Unfortunately, I missed the opportunity to watch "Smoke Signals" so I am relatively clueless on what happens. However, after watching the short clip and listening to everyone talk about the movie, I feel I have a sense of the main point. One question that I keep trying to answer is if Sherman Alexie played a part in developing and making Smoke signals, why did he change the way his characters acted? I guess you could say that he wanted to show a different side of each character that was similar to the book yet unexpected in the movie. The book came out in 1993 and the movie in 1998. Maybe Sherman wanted to change the way he depicted the characters or maybe this is how the main characters were supposed to be like and it was difficult to explain in the short stories. What do you guys think?
ReplyDeleteJake, I wonder if it is simply the idea that different medians require different character development to be compelling. Without inner monologue some actions would be construed very differently. Particularly the scene where Victor decides to take Thomas, would his actions and words in the book be confusing without his thoughts to explain them?
DeleteErik, I'm gonna answer your question by comparing it to the Hunger Games book and the movie adaptation. (I'm sorry, but this is just fresh in my mind) In the book, the narrator is Katniss, but in the movie isn't narrated by anyone. So for a person that hasn't ever read the book, may not understand some scenes without Katniss' thoughts. Now relating this back to this, I agree. That without the thoughts of Victor, we (as readers) would be so lost as to why he would take Thomas, a person that he found annoying and crazy, in a long drive and flight to pick up his dad's ashes.
DeleteI agree with you there Chantal when you talk about having the thoughts of the character in the back of your mind. In the short stories, we read about the thoughts and feelings that the characters are experiencing and only share with themselves. In the movies, it is through the facial expressions and other human attributes that we, the readers, form our own assumptions about how the character feels. Even if the characters are feeling that way at all.
DeleteErik, I don't feel that different medians require different character development to be compelling, but maybe different medians cause the readers to project a certain image of a character that could be different then what was intended or thought of from other readers.
I think it's interesting that you bring up projection in film. Another reason why people react so differently to Victor in the movie compared to the novel is the differing levels of empathy that different mediums provide.
DeleteReading a novel is a much more intimate experience and makes it very difficult to not relate to the protagonist. Films are trickier, though, and a couple of mistakes can lead to the audience routing for the "bad guy" despite the best intentions of the creators.
I haven't seen the entire film (only a few clips) so I could be completely wrong about this but I think part of the reason Victor is far less rude in the novel is because he had assaulted Thomas when they were fifteen and felt a lot of guilt for it, "Victor got really drunk and beat up Thomas for no reason at all," (65). In the clip they seem more friendly, like they used to be in the novel, "'I haven't hardly talked to you in years. We're not really friends anymore.' 'I didn't say we were friends...'" (62), and it's almost like they never had a huge falling out. Victor's comments are harsh but they resemble teasing from a friend more than verbal abuse or something similar.
ReplyDeleteThere's another clip after this scene where they get back on the bus and two white men take their seats and send Victor and Thomas to the back. As an act of retribution they start chanting and singing about John Wayne's teeth to piss of the other people on the bus. It's a funny scene and I think it shows pretty well how close the two are in the movie as opposed to the book (if anyone wants a link to it just ask).
That scene also does a good job of showing how much more prideful he is in the film. When he asks the white men to move you almost think a fight will break out without Thomas's intervention. I think this pride is part of why Victor acts more pompous while criticizing Thomas, who in the film he sees as an embarrassing. There aren't any places in the book that I can think of where he shows the same kind of pride...?
Essentially I think the reasons for why Victor seems like a jerk in the film is because of the differences with character's relationship to Thomas and his pride for his culture. I think this comment got a little out of hand haha please ask if I need to clear anything up.
Jake, to answer your question, Alexie actually wrote the screenplay.
ReplyDeleteLaura, I only saw that one clip, but from what you said their relationship is different than the novel. The only thing I don't understand is why he changed their relationship? What was he trying to achieve?
I think Jake put it well when he said that "different mediums require different character development to be compelling." You can't write movies the same way you write books and in the novel Sherman uses several different characters and stories all together to portray Victor and Thomas through that aren't available for him to use in a movie. The film chose to focus on only two of several short stories from the book and while making it fit a roughly 2 hour period the pacing and character development would differ drastically from the book. I don't think Alexie was trying to achieve anything other than simply writing the characters/story to fit the medium better and possibly portray the characters in a different light. If I have time tomorrow I'm going to search around for an interview with him and see if he's spoken about the changes, I'd really like to hear it from the horse's mouth so to speak.
DeleteYou and Jake both are right about the "different mediums require different character development to be compelling." It's like all the books that are turned into a movie--they're never going to be exactly, or in some cases at all, like the books. Granted, I have yet to see the whole movie, but I really wish Alexie had kept the characters the same. He knows what he was doing, since this is his story and he wrote the screenplay.
DeleteI agree with you guys in saying its tough to fit a whole story in detail and with exact senarios into a 2 hour film. I just feel that the book and movie could havce been a little more similar but then again, books and movies apeal to different audiences and I think Alexie knew that so thats why he changed things up a bit to reachout more to the movie wathing community who usually look for more drama and things like that.
DeleteI like the way you talked about different audiences in relation to the different media that is used with both the short story and movie. I think that the use of different media played a major role in the decision of how Alexie chose to portray each character. Also like I said in my original comment, the time difference could have also played a part in the decision as well.
DeleteI myself never got a chance to see the whole movie, but from the clip I totally agree with you Chantal, in the book victor was way more caring and mindful of Thomas's situation, and in the clip victor is being kind of a jerk to thomas telling him how to live his life and stuff. I dont get why the clip and the actual book are so different. You where right in saying "What makes him think that he is the know it all of Indian culture and how an Indian should act/dress." No one person can know the right way to be anything because there is always more than one right way to do something, I know some movies and books dont match up quite so well but this was way off. Maybe it was just that clip, im not sure, anyone who has seen the whole movie notice if the differences where so extreme throughout the entirety of the film?
ReplyDeleteWell I think Victory must be a jerk in the clip to portray how he is using Thomas. Without his monologue I don't see how he could no be a jerk. I don't think it is way off just a different telling of the same story. Plus changing it up keeps viewers interested more than a verbatim retelling of the book. Don't you think?
Delete