Professor Scanlan's OpenLab Course Site

Author: Evgheni M.

Final Essay

Evgheni Melman

Prof. Sean Scanlan

English 2400, Section O552

December 17, 2020

Empathy and Ethics in “Life of Pi”

Ethics and empathy when depicted in written stories or films help to shape exceptional characters with deep and profound morals. What is empathy? According to the Empathy handout, “Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of  reference…” or in other words, being able to place yourself in place of others. Ethics are moral principles that govern a person’s behavior, and can vary significantly from person to person. Generally, normative ethics are divided into three types: Deontology, Virtue, and Utilitarian ethics. Deontology ethics are about following strict pre-set behavioral rules that are either given to you or you gave to yourself. Virtue ethics are about “being a better person” and focus on virtues themselves (positive traits that make its possessor a good human being), moral character, family, friendship, emotions, etc. Utilitarian ethics are about “ends and not means,” and providing “the greater good for the most people.” In this essay, I will analyze how empathy and ethics are depicted in literary works and their film adaptations on example of “Life of Pi” story by Yann Martel and its film adaptation of the same name directed by Ang Lee.

In the text version of “Life of Pi” by Yann Martel empathy is prevailing throughout the story, but in the film version, we only see a few occasion. One such occurrence is in the scene where the hyena attacks wounded zebra on the lifeboat not long after the shipwreck. In the scene we can see a close-up shot of Pi crying and screaming at the hyena to stop its assault on zebra is if Pi was feeling zebra’s pain himself. One other such occasion is the scene where Pi helps Orange Juice, the orangutan, onto the lifeboat and after noticing that she had lost her baby orangutan lies to her by saying “Don’t worry, I bet mother and father found him. They will be here soon.“ He knew that they won’t come, but decided to comfort Orange Juice with a lie because he could understand her sorrow. Slightly later, Pi notices that Orange Juice has sea-sickness and says “Sorry, Orange Juice, I don’t have any sea-sickness medicine for you.” This scene shows that Pi understood what Orange Juice felt at the time as if he was in her place and felt sorry for not being able to actually help her. What is interesting, is that the written story adds a touch of utilitarian ethics to the scene of Orange Juice’s onboarding. After Orange Juice gets on the boat, Pi says “I clung to hope that a zebra, a familiar prey and an orangutan, an unfamiliar one would distract [hyena] from the toughs of me.” This addition is a prime example of utilitarian ethics, as even though hyena attacking zebra and orangutan is bad and would make Pi sad, the greater good is that hyena will not attack him instead and he can stay alive.

An example of utilitarian ethics intertwining with empathy that is present in both versions is the scene where Pi kills a fish to feed himself and Richard Parker. He says,

I wrapped the fish tightly in the blanket. … I imagined what it would feel like if I were wrapped in a blanket and someone were trying to break my neck. I was appalled. I gave up a number of times. Yet I knew it had to be done, and the longer I waited, the longer the fish’s suffering would go on. Tears flowing down my cheeks, I egged myself on until I heard a cracking sound and I no longer felt any life fighting in my hands.

In this scene we can clearly see Pi placing himself in the position of the fish and feeling extremely sorry for what he is about to do. But doing it brings greater good for both him and Richard Parker, so he puts his deontology ethics aside and, hesitantly, does it anyway.

Virtue ethics are depicted in the film in the scene where Pi saves Richard Parker by letting him back onto the lifeboat after he jumps off the lifeboat in an attempt at catching a fish. This is a clear example of virtue ethics because it shows the Pi’s virtues and moral character. That is because the safest choice for Pi would be to claim the lifeboat for himself and leave Richard Parker to drown, instead Pi chose to be a “better person” and save the tiger even though that meant living on the raft in fears for his life. Another scene where virtue ethics are at play, is the one where Pi and Richard Parker finally reach the solid land in Mexico. In that scene, Richard Parker leaves Pi unceremoniously without looking back and Pi is mourning his loss. The scene shows how much Pi bonded with the Richard Parker as if he became his friend or even a family member, and shows us Pi’s feelings, virtues, and moral character.

Deontology ethics are shown throughout the story. All the scenes where Pi will not eat or harm animals as he is a vegetarian, like the scene at the family dinner where he refused to eat lamb even after being suggested to do so by his father, represent the vast majority of deontology ethics depictions. By being a vegetarian, Pi follows a strict set of rules that he gave to himself that guide and assess his choices. We also see Pi going against his deontology ethics numerous times, like the time he killed and ate the fish to survive.

In conclusion, empathy and ethics play a huge role in the “Life of Pi,” and omission of them would make the story plain and the characters ordinary. Written story and film do vary slightly in their presentation of the two, but the general picture stays the same, and it is of a unique character solving unique problems in unique ways.

FINAL DRAFT-MIDTERM ESSAY

Evgheni Melman

Prof. Sean Scanlan

English 2400, Section O552

October 20, 2020

Analysis of “Rear Window” translation style

The “Rear Window” (1954) film by Alfred Hitchcock is an adaption of the short story “It had to be Murder” (1942) written by Cornell Woolrich. According to Linda Cahir, there exist three types of translations for adapting a written work into a film: literal, traditional, and radical. In this essay, I will be analyzing which translation style did Hitchcock used in its adaptation of “It had to be Murder” and the implications of his choice on the story and viewer perception.

The plots of both the “It had to be Murder” and the “Rear Window” reveal the same story of a man named Jeffries. Both Jeffrieses are homestuck due to their leg injuries, both kill their time by peeping at their neighbors, and both get themselves involved into a neighboring homicide investigation thorough their peeping activities and prove that Mr. Thorwald is the culprit. This alone makes it hard to call the translation radical, so let`s explore the differences of both works in greater details to determine if it is a literal or traditional adaptation.

The most striking difference is in the characters surrounding Jeffrieses and helping them with outside activities that neither Jefferies can perform on their own. The “It had to be Murder” Jefferies has a male caretaker named Sam who is driven by a long spanning history with Jeffries and perhaps a paid servitude and is blindly obedient to any Jefferies’ request. The “Rear Window” Jefferies does not have a single “Sam”, instead Sam’s role is given jointly to his girlfriend Lisa and nurse Stella. Unlike written Sam, they are not just Jefferies captives and have a mind of their own with Lisa even becoming convinced that a murder was afoot and being excited about the prospect of helping to solve the case. Lisa even went to Thorwald’s apartment to search for the wedding ring completely on her own to Jefferies’ dismay. The inclusion of a girlfriend in general gives the viewer a better understanding of the protagonist’s personality (the written story mentioned nothing about Jefferies love life) while both Lisa and Stella add an element of women intuition to the whole story.

Another difference in the film version that lets the viewer understand Jefferies more is the inclusion of information about his professional occupation. In the “Rear Window” it is explained clearly that Jeffries is a photographer, while the written story does not place any emphasis on what he does for a living. This information gives us an insight about his personality and lets us understand why he is good at observing his surroundings and picking up what most wouldn’t, it is literally his job. In the story, on the other hand, his description left us guessing on whether he was a detective, a private investigator, or just a weirdo stalking his neighbors. Additionally, in the story, Jefferies observations are described from the first person, giving the reader the insight into his thoughts, while each time the “Rear Window”’s Jefferies observes his neighbors through his camera lens, we are presented with a point of view shot of exactly what he sees as if we are looking through his camera lens ourselves. This direct view, while lacking the Jefferies’ though process details, lets the viewer reexperience the Jeffries’ perspective and construct their own thought about observed scene while increasing the tension at the same time.

An obvious addition to the movie compared to the written story is sound. The “Rear Window” employs only diegetic sound for the most part. Diegetic sound is the sound that is natural to the scene, whether on-screen or off-screen, coming from actual objects or from implied ones. Non-diegetic sound in contrast is not natural to the scene, it could not be heard on scene in the real word. Non-diegetic sounds include sounds like narration, voice over, or sound effects. While non-diegetic sounds are often used to increase the suspense or add a more dramatic effect, Hitchcock managed to do all that with excellence with only diegetic sounds. Throughout the film we only hear sounds that naturally occur in the scene, like the sound of cars passing by and their honks now and then that not only distract the viewer, but the characters as well adding that final bit of additional suspense to already suspenseful scenes. Most sounds that we hear are also presented from Jeffries perspective like the heavily muffled conversations from the other apartments during the observation scene. This not only adds the dramatic effect, but also further locks the viewer into the Jeffries point of observing.

In conclusion, after this analysis we can clearly see that the translation of the “Rear Window” is traditional since there are not insignificant changes introduced into the film to aid in viewer’s perception. At the end of the day, this type of translation let Hitchcock take an already great “It had to be Murder” and turn it into a classic masterpiece that we know.

Coffeehouse #3

Although the movie was based on Cornell Woolrich’s short story, there are definitely some differences between them. For instance, in the short story Jeffries had an assistant named Sam (who had known him for ten years) but in the movie the same role was performed by a female nurse named Stella. Whereas Jeffries seemed to be more authoritarian with Sam that was not the case with Stella. As well, in the short story there is no mention of a girlfriend. However, in the film Jefferies had a very classy and lovely girlfriend. Thus, the movie added an element of “woman intuition” that didn’t exist in the story. The other major difference we see is the representation of Jeffries’s profession. Short story only vaguely mentions what he does for a living, while the movie tells us explicitly that he is a photographer. This information gives us an insight about his personality and lets us understand why he is good at observing his surroundings and picking up what most wouldn’t, it is literally his job. In the story, on the other hand, his description left us guessing on whether he was a detective, or maybe a private investigator. A minor difference between the story and the movie is the details (or lack thereof) of Jeffries love life. In the reading there was no hints or talks about his love life, while in the film there is Lisa, his girlfriend, which appears in a number of scenes and even plans a romantic date with Jeffries. Another minor difference is in the description of the neighbors. In the story we cannot clearly identify the neighbors Jeffries is observing, while in the movie they are shown to us clearly.

Coffeehouse #1

I spent almost the entirety of this summer in my apartment since all of my much-less-boring travelling plans were canceled due to COVID. And by almost I mean only getting out to the nearby pharmacy to stock up on food and essentials. Most of the unanticipated abundance of free-time was spent on 2 electronics and numerous coding projects that I’ve wanted to do for quite a while but couldn’t for various reasons, mostly the lack of time. The rest was killed on binging YouTube, Netflix, and Crunchyroll, though I can only remember the plot of about half of the shows that I watched. Overall, it was a somewhat productive Summer in terms of self-learning with a sprinkle of mindless fun.

 

Regarding the stories, I enjoyed “The Tell-Tale Heart” more than “The Yellow Wallpaper.” While both stories depict main characters who suffer from a mental illness, they differ a lot in the writing style, setting, and the use of language. Poe strips the story of excess detail which highlights the murderer’s obsession with the old man’s eye, the heartbeat, and his own claim to sanity. Short, simple phrases, which are often abruptly interrupted expose the nervousness of the main character, while descriptions of his feelings immerse the reader in the full horror of the events. “The Yellow Wallpaper” on the other hand is more about nuances with its abundance of synonyms, adjectives, and detailed descriptions that all aid in the buildup of the story. Unlike “The Tell-Tale Heart,” it doesn’t just show us the madness of the main character, it demonstrates the conditions (or lack thereof) that led to its development. But even though it does so with a great success, its creeping progression and predictable and unfulfilling ending just wasn’t to my liking compared to the deeper atmosphere of “The Tell-Tale Heart.”