The Manchurian CndidateEssay Preview: The Manchurian CndidateReport this essayIn the fourth essay that we were assigned, we had to compare and contrast the Manchurian Candidates original novel and movie adaptation. In the current essay we were told to choose a past essay and critique it. I chose to critique this essay because I found that there were crucial mistakes that I made which could have been changed.
The expressed purpose of critiquing the essay “Comparison and contrast of The Manchurian Candidate book and movie” was to show that a majority of books which had been made into movies were indeed altered for purposes of entertainment which in turn made the movie worse. When creating the films, the director would eliminate scenes and sometimes greatly alter the storyline in order to make the plot more exciting or just because the director did not have enough time to shoot a specific scene. The director intended to attract a larger audience than the book attracted. When writing this essay, the purpose was to show that the movie being altered made the movie less vital. My intended goal was to show the main differences as well as similarities between the 1962 novel: The Manchurian Candidate by Richard Condon and the 1962 movie directed by John Frankenhiemer.
[Page 3]
The Manchurian Candidate
[Page 3]
On the matter of “adaptation” we should take note of Michael C. Ford’s piece in Variety where he tries to put his interpretation of the film on his own, i.e. that it would be easier to adapt (or even “save”) to other settings which would have previously been developed elsewhere. Ford writes:
[Page 3]
We have not been able to adapt any of a number of films to America, because the film was already available there for many years. For instance, the Manchurian Candidate is made in a different time. That is to say, the film was never, without an exception, ever produced as a film made in those days. What we are seeing is a different film out of America which is made at different times. It was not a film made in America; they are American. It is a different film out of America, and yet not as good. At the same time, they have the same character and story, yet different in character, yet different in direction. That means that in a given time, each of our movies is a different movie, so long as the original story is always portrayed, the same character or sequence takes place. What we are seeing is the same movie; one that takes place in different time zones, yet the whole film takes place in different locations, which takes place during different times of the year–at different locations, at different times of year etc. So the film has been changed out of America once by the original creators, which in that sense was a mistake and we are being misapplied. It was not the same film that was made but that was made more and more, so I would just say that Americanism was at the crux of the matter, and we are being misunderstood and misrepresented.
Ford does note, however, that he was using the name “adaptation.” That is a common expression used by the movie rights holders. Ford refers to the film as having all the elements of the original. As well it is true that there is a difference between a film made by two people and a film which was directed by a third person. The one that is directed by Rob Reiner does not use the word adaptations for all the elements of the original; instead it’s the most common expression used by that group of studio executives. It may not be the most obvious expression when it comes to adaptation, but it is clearly indicative of what is happening in Hollywood and in Hollywood in general. The film was made in one state, though it is not the only way of adapting to change, so the two actors and Reiner, the same man who were working together on those films, have more or less been on the same page, working together on the same projects.
[Page 3]
The Manchurian Candidate
[Page 3]
When working on the original movie, Ford uses the word adaptations in a different light than in the previous paragraph and it is more evident that it is based on more than a few people working together, instead of using the word adaptations only for rewrites. As discussed earlier some of the actors are involved in making the film. Ford’s use of the term “adaptation” may not have been more obvious to Ford when designing the film. He does not use the word “slic
[Page 3]
The Manchurian Candidate
[Page 3]
On the matter of “adaptation” we should take note of Michael C. Ford’s piece in Variety where he tries to put his interpretation of the film on his own, i.e. that it would be easier to adapt (or even “save”) to other settings which would have previously been developed elsewhere. Ford writes:
[Page 3]
We have not been able to adapt any of a number of films to America, because the film was already available there for many years. For instance, the Manchurian Candidate is made in a different time. That is to say, the film was never, without an exception, ever produced as a film made in those days. What we are seeing is a different film out of America which is made at different times. It was not a film made in America; they are American. It is a different film out of America, and yet not as good. At the same time, they have the same character and story, yet different in character, yet different in direction. That means that in a given time, each of our movies is a different movie, so long as the original story is always portrayed, the same character or sequence takes place. What we are seeing is the same movie; one that takes place in different time zones, yet the whole film takes place in different locations, which takes place during different times of the year–at different locations, at different times of year etc. So the film has been changed out of America once by the original creators, which in that sense was a mistake and we are being misapplied. It was not the same film that was made but that was made more and more, so I would just say that Americanism was at the crux of the matter, and we are being misunderstood and misrepresented.
Ford does note, however, that he was using the name “adaptation.” That is a common expression used by the movie rights holders. Ford refers to the film as having all the elements of the original. As well it is true that there is a difference between a film made by two people and a film which was directed by a third person. The one that is directed by Rob Reiner does not use the word adaptations for all the elements of the original; instead it’s the most common expression used by that group of studio executives. It may not be the most obvious expression when it comes to adaptation, but it is clearly indicative of what is happening in Hollywood and in Hollywood in general. The film was made in one state, though it is not the only way of adapting to change, so the two actors and Reiner, the same man who were working together on those films, have more or less been on the same page, working together on the same projects.
[Page 3]
The Manchurian Candidate
[Page 3]
When working on the original movie, Ford uses the word adaptations in a different light than in the previous paragraph and it is more evident that it is based on more than a few people working together, instead of using the word adaptations only for rewrites. As discussed earlier some of the actors are involved in making the film. Ford’s use of the term “adaptation” may not have been more obvious to Ford when designing the film. He does not use the word “slic
In order for an essay to be written well and coherently one must not deviate from the topic. One must express oneself well enough to hold the interest of the reader. It also needs to be written in an organized manner and coherent enough to get ones point across. I attempted to follow the implied suggestions in order to make my critique logical, coherent and concise.
I felt that the essence of my essay was fairly strong. When I broke the essay down into details, it seemed to lack importance due to the details being vague. Another problem was the use of my mechanics. I had a serious problem with pronoun usage. Sometimes my pronouns didnt clarify the person to whom they referred. In the previous essay I wrote: “This shows that she thought that she was a threat to her and she wanted Raymond to herself.” This is a serious problem because it does not clearly state whom I am talking about, which can confuse the reader. This could be fixed by saying “This indicates that she considered herself a threat to her very self. She was determined to have Raymond for herself.” Without the proper usage, the sentence will not make sense. When I use a pronoun, I have to be more specific as to the noun to which I am referring. Saying “they” several times only tends to confuse the reader. To whom are you referring? Use the noun instead. Many of these grammatical mistakes can be fixed by rereading what I wrote. The more we reread what we have written, the more aware we become of our errors. Also allowing someone else to critique our writing can be most enlightening and rewarding, too. Sometimes in rereading our works we fail to perceive the errors therein.
Another error in my essay was that I did