Comments for Mr. Wilson's English Class http://bananamagic.wordpress.com This is the spot. Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:31:49 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Mahzans! Look here! by Malyanah http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/mahzans-look-here/#comment-225 Malyanah Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:31:49 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?page_id=1109#comment-225 Medium length answers 1. The relevance of the title “Where are you going, where have you been” is I think what has Connie done while her parents are away for the barbecue. Maybe they were worried about Connie. So, they want to know where have she been, and where is she going while they’re gone. 2. Connie’s action at the end was that she refuses to go with Arnold Friend, he forced and threatened her until she compelled to live with him. It ends with Connie leaves her front porch; her eventual fate is left ambiguous. Longer responses 3. Arnold Friend is portrayed as “a boy with shaggy black hair, in a convertible jalopy painted gold”, who notices Connie at a drive-in restaurant. He is the sweet-talking suitor, who appeared in front of Connie as a ‘familiar face’. He is also a potential rapist and murderer who used psychology manipulation to appeal to Connie. The critics also characterized him as the devil of this story. 4. At the beginning, Connie is a confusing 15 year old teenager who faced a lot of difficult transition from childhood to womanhood. She is rebellious and self-centered. Connie’s characters, includes a glimmer of hope beyond her own self-centeredness. At the end of this story, Oates points out that capable of unexpected gesture of heroism for believing her compliance with Arnold. Comparison 5. Smooth Talk- a 1985 motion picture by Joyce Chopra that based on Joyce Oates’ story “Where are you going, where have you been?” The main character of this picture is Connie Wyatt, a restless 15 year old who wants to experiment the pleasure of sexual awakening. It looks how Oates extends her stories with her character, Arnold Friend based on the real life of Charles Schmid (in Smooth Talk), who also picked out girls at a restaurant. It also shows how “Smooth Talk” change a bit of the story, like the ending is very different. Medium length answers
1. The relevance of the title “Where are you going, where have you been” is I think what has Connie done while her parents are away for the barbecue. Maybe they were worried about Connie. So, they want to know where have she been, and where is she going while they’re gone.
2. Connie’s action at the end was that she refuses to go with Arnold Friend, he forced and threatened her until she compelled to live with him. It ends with Connie leaves her front porch; her eventual fate is left ambiguous.
Longer responses
3. Arnold Friend is portrayed as “a boy with shaggy black hair, in a convertible jalopy painted gold”, who notices Connie at a drive-in restaurant. He is the sweet-talking suitor, who appeared in front of Connie as a ‘familiar face’. He is also a potential rapist and murderer who used psychology manipulation to appeal to Connie. The critics also characterized him as the devil of this story.
4. At the beginning, Connie is a confusing 15 year old teenager who faced a lot of difficult transition from childhood to womanhood. She is rebellious and self-centered. Connie’s characters, includes a glimmer of hope beyond her own self-centeredness. At the end of this story, Oates points out that capable of unexpected gesture of heroism for believing her compliance with Arnold.
Comparison
5. Smooth Talk- a 1985 motion picture by Joyce Chopra that based on Joyce Oates’ story “Where are you going, where have you been?” The main character of this picture is Connie Wyatt, a restless 15 year old who wants to experiment the pleasure of sexual awakening. It looks how Oates extends her stories with her character, Arnold Friend based on the real life of Charles Schmid (in Smooth Talk), who also picked out girls at a restaurant. It also shows how “Smooth Talk” change a bit of the story, like the ending is very different.

]]> Comment on Animal Farm on film: W.W.G.O.T. by Angela S. http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/animal-farm-on-film-w-w-g-o-t/#comment-223 Angela S. Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:45:00 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?p=835#comment-223 "Animal Farm" is an allegory. The story is a symbol about communism and Stalin's rule in the USSR. Just nine years after is publication and four years after the the author's George Orwell's death, a film was produced based on the book "Animal Farm". The assumption that it was used for propaganda during the Cold War is obvious and almost proven through the fact that the production was secretly receiving funds from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). However, this film and the original novel, unfortunately, have countless differences. The first glaring difference is the mistaken portrayal of some characters. Snowball is shown as a much more vicious character, Benjamin is reduced to Boxer’s clever companion, who much more willing to work than when showing his cynical and pessimistic side in the book. The film also reduces Moses the Raven into a scary background character who creates the scary, tense mood through, say, sweeping down from the barn roof and crowing. Mollie, who, in the book represents the ignorant aristocrats of Soviet Russia, does not even exist in the film. The second large difference between the novel and the film is that certain scenes were omitted or changed, most likely on purpose to better fit the purposes of the CIA. The easy example would be how the film ends in a new revolution to overthrow the pigs. However what may be a more disturbing change would be that certain facts in the film are changed from the original book. For example, Moses does not talk about Sugar Candy Mountain, only the pigs are able to speak, Mollie does not exist, and there is no relationship between the surrounding farms and Animal Farm. Finally, while the novel states clearly many times that Animal Farm was the only farm in England that was ruled entirely by animals, the film clearly states that the message of Animal Farm spread across the country and collected followers. It is strange and confusing that these animals from around the country come to “defeat” the pigs from around the country at the end of the film. It is true that the film "Animal farm" is not a exactly the mirror image of the original classic novel by George Orwell. One could scrutinize over the whole film for an entire day and still find countless more differences between the two works on the second day. What would the author of the original novel think about the animation if he were to watch it? Would he demand it be banned as being mistaken, conveying the wrong message? “How dare you use my literature to create such a thing?” Perhaps. But on the other hand, what was George Orwell's original purpose in writing the novel "Animal Farm"? To create an allegorical warning on Communism, the Soviet Union, and Stalin. The film "Animal Farm," is not the best representation of books by films. However, George Orwell may have thought that this more joyful, simple film, though disappointed that it does not carry the exact same message his own novel, could be a fellow tool to help abolish Communism and thus create and bring Democratic Socialism. For the whole reason that George Orwell wrote his famous "Animal Farm" was to appeal his political views, and not to have a film made which is identical to his novel. “Animal Farm” is an allegory. The story is a symbol about communism and Stalin’s rule in the USSR. Just nine years after is publication and four years after the the author’s George Orwell’s death, a film was produced based on the book “Animal Farm”. The assumption that it was used for propaganda during the Cold War is obvious and almost proven through the fact that the production was secretly receiving funds from the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). However, this film and the original novel, unfortunately, have countless differences.
The first glaring difference is the mistaken portrayal of some characters. Snowball is shown as a much more vicious character, Benjamin is reduced to Boxer’s clever companion, who much more willing to work than when showing his cynical and pessimistic side in the book. The film also reduces Moses the Raven into a scary background character who creates the scary, tense mood through, say, sweeping down from the barn roof and crowing. Mollie, who, in the book represents the ignorant aristocrats of Soviet Russia, does not even exist in the film.
The second large difference between the novel and the film is that certain scenes were omitted or changed, most likely on purpose to better fit the purposes of the CIA. The easy example would be how the film ends in a new revolution to overthrow the pigs. However what may be a more disturbing change would be that certain facts in the film are changed from the original book. For example, Moses does not talk about Sugar Candy Mountain, only the pigs are able to speak, Mollie does not exist, and there is no relationship between the surrounding farms and Animal Farm. Finally, while the novel states clearly many times that Animal Farm was the only farm in England that was ruled entirely by animals, the film clearly states that the message of Animal Farm spread across the country and collected followers. It is strange and confusing that these animals from around the country come to “defeat” the pigs from around the country at the end of the film.
It is true that the film “Animal farm” is not a exactly the mirror image of the original classic novel by George Orwell. One could scrutinize over the whole film for an entire day and still find countless more differences between the two works on the second day.
What would the author of the original novel think about the animation if he were to watch it? Would he demand it be banned as being mistaken, conveying the wrong message? “How dare you use my literature to create such a thing?” Perhaps. But on the other hand, what was George Orwell’s original purpose in writing the novel “Animal Farm”? To create an allegorical warning on Communism, the Soviet Union, and Stalin. The film “Animal Farm,” is not the best representation of books by films. However, George Orwell may have thought that this more joyful, simple film, though disappointed that it does not carry the exact same message his own novel, could be a fellow tool to help abolish Communism and thus create and bring Democratic Socialism. For the whole reason that George Orwell wrote his famous “Animal Farm” was to appeal his political views, and not to have a film made which is identical to his novel.

]]> Comment on Animal Farm on film: W.W.G.O.T. by Ha Rang Jeon http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/animal-farm-on-film-w-w-g-o-t/#comment-222 Ha Rang Jeon Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:30:13 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?p=835#comment-222 What would George Orwell Think? I think as a movie (cartoon) itself, George Orwell would praise the movie. The movie is well made, and even Miyazaki Hayao, the movie maker who made many animation such as Totoro, Spirited Away, and such was very eager to translate this movie into Japanese to introduce to the Japanese people. As a matter of fact, that was done recently, and this going to be in the Japanese movie soon. As a movie that shows the history of Stalin, and the problem of the world of Human, George Orwell would be satisfied. But, in more specific part such as symbolism, he would disagree in small part. In general, though, I don’t think George Orwell would mind much. There are two differences that would disturb George Orwell if there were one. One is the scene where we know that Snowball is killed, and the second is the last scene in which the animals start a revolution again. In the novel version, we do not know the fate of Snowball whether he died or survived. This makes it possible to let the reader think that Snowball may come back any time and break the rule of Napoleon. But in the movie (and in reality) we could guess in 90% sureness that Snowball is killed, and we know that revolution by another intelligent leader is impossible. This is not an idea that George Orwell likes to defend, but this is more a technique that George Orwell used to make the reader focused. In the last scene, Benjamin leads the revolution that breaks the rule of Napoleon. George Orwell would certainly not support this. George Orwell wanted to show in the novel that rule by dictator is eternal, and it would not change. The movie showed the revolution in the last because the CIA funded them. Because the government wanted to show to the people that this kind of rule could be overthrown, Napoleon is overthrown in the last. We would imagine the epilogue of the movie to be a peaceful and prosperous farm ruled by the animals. That is exactly the opposite George Orwell wanted to express. George Orwell would praise and enjoy the movie, until he reach the last. Because US wanted to overthrow Soviet Union, and George Orwell used it merely to show his idea, this change was made. George Orwell would be angry to see the last, but I think he would not mind the other changes. What would George Orwell Think?

I think as a movie (cartoon) itself, George Orwell would praise the movie. The movie is well made, and even Miyazaki Hayao, the movie maker who made many animation such as Totoro, Spirited Away, and such was very eager to translate this movie into Japanese to introduce to the Japanese people. As a matter of fact, that was done recently, and this going to be in the Japanese movie soon. As a movie that shows the history of Stalin, and the problem of the world of Human, George Orwell would be satisfied. But, in more specific part such as symbolism, he would disagree in small part. In general, though, I don’t think George Orwell would mind much.
There are two differences that would disturb George Orwell if there were one. One is the scene where we know that Snowball is killed, and the second is the last scene in which the animals start a revolution again.
In the novel version, we do not know the fate of Snowball whether he died or survived. This makes it possible to let the reader think that Snowball may come back any time and break the rule of Napoleon. But in the movie (and in reality) we could guess in 90% sureness that Snowball is killed, and we know that revolution by another intelligent leader is impossible. This is not an idea that George Orwell likes to defend, but this is more a technique that George Orwell used to make the reader focused.
In the last scene, Benjamin leads the revolution that breaks the rule of Napoleon. George Orwell would certainly not support this. George Orwell wanted to show in the novel that rule by dictator is eternal, and it would not change. The movie showed the revolution in the last because the CIA funded them. Because the government wanted to show to the people that this kind of rule could be overthrown, Napoleon is overthrown in the last. We would imagine the epilogue of the movie to be a peaceful and prosperous farm ruled by the animals. That is exactly the opposite George Orwell wanted to express.
George Orwell would praise and enjoy the movie, until he reach the last. Because US wanted to overthrow Soviet Union, and George Orwell used it merely to show his idea, this change was made. George Orwell would be angry to see the last, but I think he would not mind the other changes.

]]> Comment on Animal Farm on film: W.W.G.O.T. by Lily Ohira http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/animal-farm-on-film-w-w-g-o-t/#comment-221 Lily Ohira Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:27:51 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?p=835#comment-221 Through his journalist and novelist works, George Orwell presented his strong beliefs against totalitarianism and described himself a “democratic socialist.” However, he did not necessary call himself an anti-communist. In fact, he denied the common view that Animal Farm, his most famous novel, was a reference to Stalinism. Considering the information above, I think that he would have not liked the animated film of the novel because the CIA has completely transformed the underlying message of the story in order to promote anti-communism. Many important aspects of the novel were altered in the film, especially with a major change in the way the pigs interact with humans. The part where Napoleon receives a forged check in return of the pile of wood is omitted. In addition, at the end of the film, the pigs are having a celebration on their own, unlike in the novel where pigs and humans have a feast together. Moreover, the film shows the animals attacking and crushing Napoleon’s rule in the end. This was not a part of the novel, which had an ending with the animals wondering what will happen to their future since the pigs have become very similar to human masters. Such changes may seem unimportant, yet altogether they have the potential of altering the theme of the story. The production of the film was led by the CIA, which implies that by showing that the pigs fell at the end, the CIA wanted to show how Communism would fail. They have not been very respectful to George Orwell and his works. They have manufactured and utilized an anti-communist film out of Orwell’s story, which did not originally propose such ideas. Therefore George Orwell would be unimpressed, or could even show anger, on the animated film of his story. Through his journalist and novelist works, George Orwell presented his strong beliefs against totalitarianism and described himself a “democratic socialist.” However, he did not necessary call himself an anti-communist. In fact, he denied the common view that Animal Farm, his most famous novel, was a reference to Stalinism. Considering the information above, I think that he would have not liked the animated film of the novel because the CIA has completely transformed the underlying message of the story in order to promote anti-communism.
Many important aspects of the novel were altered in the film, especially with a major change in the way the pigs interact with humans. The part where Napoleon receives a forged check in return of the pile of wood is omitted. In addition, at the end of the film, the pigs are having a celebration on their own, unlike in the novel where pigs and humans have a feast together. Moreover, the film shows the animals attacking and crushing Napoleon’s rule in the end. This was not a part of the novel, which had an ending with the animals wondering what will happen to their future since the pigs have become very similar to human masters. Such changes may seem unimportant, yet altogether they have the potential of altering the theme of the story.
The production of the film was led by the CIA, which implies that by showing that the pigs fell at the end, the CIA wanted to show how Communism would fail. They have not been very respectful to George Orwell and his works. They have manufactured and utilized an anti-communist film out of Orwell’s story, which did not originally propose such ideas. Therefore George Orwell would be unimpressed, or could even show anger, on the animated film of his story.

]]> Comment on Animal Farm on film: W.W.G.O.T. by Shige http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/animal-farm-on-film-w-w-g-o-t/#comment-220 Shige Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:45:48 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?p=835#comment-220 The author of the Animal Farm, George Orwell, would not like the film version of his own novel. What he wanted to tell by the end of this novel and what film is trying to say are two different points. The novel clearly wanted to state fact about history repeating itself, how the leaders of the era are ignorant. However, the film version did not stated it that clear. Throughout the novel, George Orwell slowly tells the readers that the history repeats. How they fight over some nonsense things.　Then in real life, how we, humans, started WWI and WWII over who has the most power in the world. To me, it is ignorance, why do they need to show the power to the world, when they work together to Unite to solve the Earth. We are living on the same planet, living, eating, drinking, and developing our cultures. Also, they couldnt tell the difference of whose who, providing us that how ignorant they can be. George put efforts to the novel, making the connection between the characters and the animals to real people. Putting details that we could understand the history of this era. On the other hand, the film version was not according to the novel. in the novel, the animals couldnt do anything to the pig, but at the end pig became the human type. Mimicking another revolution that was not discovered through out the novel. Instead, the animals attacked pigs. So, George would not be satisfied by how it went. Well like the other students of my class mentioned, George Owell would not approve of this movie. it compleately states the difference. The author of the Animal Farm, George Orwell, would not like the film version of his own novel. What he wanted to tell by the end of this novel and what film is trying to say are two different points. The novel clearly wanted to state fact about history repeating itself, how the leaders of the era are ignorant. However, the film version did not stated it that clear. Throughout the novel, George Orwell slowly tells the readers that the history repeats. How they fight over some nonsense things.　Then in real life, how we, humans, started WWI and WWII over who has the most power in the world. To me, it is ignorance, why do they need to show the power to the world, when they work together to Unite to solve the Earth. We are living on the same planet, living, eating, drinking, and developing our cultures. Also, they couldnt tell the difference of whose who, providing us that how ignorant they can be. George put efforts to the novel, making the connection between the characters and the animals to real people. Putting details that we could understand the history of this era. On the other hand, the film version was not according to the novel. in the novel, the animals couldnt do anything to the pig, but at the end pig became the human type. Mimicking another revolution that was not discovered through out the novel. Instead, the animals attacked pigs. So, George would not be satisfied by how it went. Well like the other students of my class mentioned, George Owell would not approve of this movie. it compleately states the difference.

]]> Comment on Animal Farm on film: W.W.G.O.T. by Chiaki http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/animal-farm-on-film-w-w-g-o-t/#comment-219 Chiaki Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:47:30 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?p=835#comment-219 ♥YSD♥ I agree with what you wrote on your last paragraph. The American government's reason for making the film is different from George Orwell's purpose for writing his novel. Basically, the CIA didn't portray the ideas of George Orwell so I think he will not like the film. ♥YSD♥ I agree with what you wrote on your last paragraph. The American government’s reason for making the film is different from George Orwell’s purpose for writing his novel. Basically, the CIA didn’t portray the ideas of George Orwell so I think he will not like the film.

]]> Comment on Animal Farm on film: W.W.G.O.T. by Chiaki http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/animal-farm-on-film-w-w-g-o-t/#comment-218 Chiaki Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:38:00 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?p=835#comment-218 I think that George Orwell will be glad knowing that his novel “Animal Farm” was made into a film. However, he might be dissatisfied with the fact that there are multiple differences between the film and his original story. After reading the novel, and watching the film, you can easily tell that there are twists put in the film. George Orwell’s objective in writing his novel is to convey the communist Russia under the rule of Stalin during the Cold War. On the other hand, the film just turned out to be a propaganda film. I think that one of the reasons why this major change occurred is because it was the CIA that funded to produce this film and, the CIA and George Orwell has different political views. In addition to the contrasts between the novel and the film, as many people stated above, is the epilogue. In the novel, the other animals couldn’t recognize the difference between the pigs and the humans. They can stare at any individual in the room, and they will all look the same in their eyes. On the contrary, the film ended with the animals having a revolution to put an end to Napoleon’s rule. To sum up, I think that George Orwell will disapprove with the idea of making a film about his novel if there will be major changes with the content of his story. Therefore, he would’ve been unhappy with this kind of result. I think that George Orwell will be glad knowing that his novel “Animal Farm” was made into a film. However, he might be dissatisfied with the fact that there are multiple differences between the film and his original story. After reading the novel, and watching the film, you can easily tell that there are twists put in the film.
George Orwell’s objective in writing his novel is to convey the communist Russia under the rule of Stalin during the Cold War. On the other hand, the film just turned out to be a propaganda film. I think that one of the reasons why this major change occurred is because it was the CIA that funded to produce this film and, the CIA and George Orwell has different political views.
In addition to the contrasts between the novel and the film, as many people stated above, is the epilogue. In the novel, the other animals couldn’t recognize the difference between the pigs and the humans. They can stare at any individual in the room, and they will all look the same in their eyes. On the contrary, the film ended with the animals having a revolution to put an end to Napoleon’s rule.
To sum up, I think that George Orwell will disapprove with the idea of making a film about his novel if there will be major changes with the content of his story. Therefore, he would’ve been unhappy with this kind of result.

]]> Comment on Animal Farm on film: W.W.G.O.T. by Kazuya http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/animal-farm-on-film-w-w-g-o-t/#comment-217 Kazuya Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:17:56 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?p=835#comment-217 If George Orwell had a change to watch Animal Farm film I think he wouldn’t like it because his important points in the novel were not in the film, important fact was in the novel Benjamin was portrayed different from film. Benjamin discovers Napoleon’7s evil plot to completely overwork the animals and leads the animals during the second revolution, and becoming a strong leader in the community also he worked together with Boxer but in the novel this never happened. Another thing is the Old major die after telling the animals about his dream. In the novel the pigs make a trading with human when they need building material and other things that you can get in the farm however, in this film they start trading with Mr.Whymper. I think George Orwell, when he wrote the novel, as Musange said George Orwell wrote Animal Farm to depict the conditions in which he saw Russia at the time of the Cold War. There is more difference between novel and film I don't get why the director of this film didn’t follow the story in the novel and I believe George Orwell would be happy if the film were totally same as the story in novel. If George Orwell had a change to watch Animal Farm film I think he wouldn’t like it because his important points in the novel were not in the film, important fact was in the novel Benjamin was portrayed different from film. Benjamin discovers Napoleon’7s evil plot to completely overwork the animals and leads the animals during the second revolution, and becoming a strong leader in the community also he worked together with Boxer but in the novel this never happened. Another thing is the Old major die after telling the animals about his dream.
In the novel the pigs make a trading with human when they need building material and other things that you can get in the farm however, in this film they start trading with Mr.Whymper.
I think George Orwell, when he wrote the novel, as Musange said George Orwell wrote Animal Farm to depict the conditions in which he saw Russia at the time of the Cold War. There is more difference between novel and film I don’t get why the director of this film didn’t follow the story in the novel and I believe George Orwell would be happy if the film were totally same as the story in novel.

]]> Comment on Animal Farm on film: W.W.G.O.T. by Rina Frank http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/animal-farm-on-film-w-w-g-o-t/#comment-216 Rina Frank Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:09:40 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?p=835#comment-216 I like the way Maya hit a spot light on how it was important not to change the ending that G.O. had carefully planned out in order to portray the fact that Stalin was no better at leading Russia than Czar. I agree with this 100% because I also think that the main message to this ending was that although the leaders had changed, the people in the lower classes were still stuck in the same situation (or even worse), and there was nothing they could do about it. This ending was supposed to make us viewers realize many things, and to let us think about several issues, but the way they changed it in the film left us nothing but disappointment. I like the way Maya hit a spot light on how it was important not to change the ending that G.O. had carefully planned out in order to portray the fact that Stalin was no better at leading Russia than Czar. I agree with this 100% because I also think that the main message to this ending was that although the leaders had changed, the people in the lower classes were still stuck in the same situation (or even worse), and there was nothing they could do about it. This ending was supposed to make us viewers realize many things, and to let us think about several issues, but the way they changed it in the film left us nothing but disappointment.

]]> Comment on Animal Farm on film: W.W.G.O.T. by Rina Frank http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/2009/06/03/animal-farm-on-film-w-w-g-o-t/#comment-215 Rina Frank Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:00:42 +0000 http://bananamagic.wordpress.com/?p=835#comment-215 If I was George Orwell, I would be disappointed, disgusted, dissatisfied, and distressed after seeing the animated version of Animal Farm. I would feel betrayed and used, and I would feel like announcing to everyone how the movie had a totally different meaning and message than the book, and that that was not what I wanted to express. The book Animal Farm cynically describes the vanity of the Russian Revolution and the cruelness of Stalin’s leadership. Not only that, but the book Animal Farm also describes how people of the lower classes always get taken advantage of in a society that is ruled by egotistic leaders, how people tend to get obsessed with power, and how we could have a dark side that’s filled with desires and urges for power and money. The pigs were supposed to lead the Animals during the revolution to go against the humans in order to grasp a better future for all, but once the pigs became the leaders of animal farm, they became just like the humans, and they started to rule their own little world in very dirty ways. The animals were tricked, utilized, brainwashed, and mocked. In the animated version of Animal Farm, many of the important factors that George Orwell must have thought about carefully and cautiously were extracted. A few important characters were not included, and I was disappointed at this fact because I felt that each and every character had its own task, and everyone symbolized a particular matter. The point where Napoleon executes all of the animals suspected of having some sort of contact or relationship with Snowball were executed, clearly symbolizes the great purge where Stalin executed many of people was a very important scene, but it was not contained in the movie (maybe I just don’t remember seeing it, but I don’t remember it being expressed as dramatically in the book anyway). All of the subtle details where the pigs slowly trick the animals were not described very well. Things just happened step by step, and there were no expressions of how the animals were too feeble to go against the powerful pigs, or how they didn’t realize anything at all at first but a few eventually did later on still not being able to do anything about the fact that the pigs were ruling the farm in a wrong way. The last scene in the book, where the pigs start walking on their two legs, then coming together with the humans leaving the animals isolated and the animals not being able to tell the humans and pigs apart, was supposed to give the readers an empty feeling. It was supposed to make us realize how the animals got betrayed and how nothing changed even after all that drama, but this ending was completely changed in the film. By changing the ending of this story, it ruined every single bit of George Orwell’s work and left nothing to the story of Animal Farm. It changed the whole story and all of the symbolic messages images and meanings of the story just went down the drain, and changed the entire story of Animal Farm into a hollow propaganda film. If I was George Orwell, I would be disappointed, disgusted, dissatisfied, and distressed after seeing the animated version of Animal Farm. I would feel betrayed and used, and I would feel like announcing to everyone how the movie had a totally different meaning and message than the book, and that that was not what I wanted to express. The book Animal Farm cynically describes the vanity of the Russian Revolution and the cruelness of Stalin’s leadership. Not only that, but the book Animal Farm also describes how people of the lower classes always get taken advantage of in a society that is ruled by egotistic leaders, how people tend to get obsessed with power, and how we could have a dark side that’s filled with desires and urges for power and money. The pigs were supposed to lead the Animals during the revolution to go against the humans in order to grasp a better future for all, but once the pigs became the leaders of animal farm, they became just like the humans, and they started to rule their own little world in very dirty ways. The animals were tricked, utilized, brainwashed, and mocked. In the animated version of Animal Farm, many of the important factors that George Orwell must have thought about carefully and cautiously were extracted. A few important characters were not included, and I was disappointed at this fact because I felt that each and every character had its own task, and everyone symbolized a particular matter. The point where Napoleon executes all of the animals suspected of having some sort of contact or relationship with Snowball were executed, clearly symbolizes the great purge where Stalin executed many of people was a very important scene, but it was not contained in the movie (maybe I just don’t remember seeing it, but I don’t remember it being expressed as dramatically in the book anyway). All of the subtle details where the pigs slowly trick the animals were not described very well. Things just happened step by step, and there were no expressions of how the animals were too feeble to go against the powerful pigs, or how they didn’t realize anything at all at first but a few eventually did later on still not being able to do anything about the fact that the pigs were ruling the farm in a wrong way. The last scene in the book, where the pigs start walking on their two legs, then coming together with the humans leaving the animals isolated and the animals not being able to tell the humans and pigs apart, was supposed to give the readers an empty feeling. It was supposed to make us realize how the animals got betrayed and how nothing changed even after all that drama, but this ending was completely changed in the film. By changing the ending of this story, it ruined every single bit of George Orwell’s work and left nothing to the story of Animal Farm. It changed the whole story and all of the symbolic messages images and meanings of the story just went down the drain, and changed the entire story of Animal Farm into a hollow propaganda film.

]]>