Author: Vanessa Mendoza

Final Essay

December 17, 2020 / Vanessa Mendoza / 0 Comments

Vanessa Mendoza

Final Essay

ENG 2400/Section O552 Professor Scanlan

December 17, 2020

Life of Pi and Empathy

After reading “Life of Pi” by Yann Martel published in 2001 and watching the film by Ang Lee released in 2012, we are able to compare them as they cross boundaries. How does empathy change or stay the same when a narrative like “The Life of Pi” is translated into film? To start off, what is empathy anyways? Generally speaking, empathy is the ability to understand or feel what another person is going through, the ability to put oneself in another person’s shoes. The question is: Does this idea of empathy change or stay the same between the text version of “Life of Pi” and the film?

The main plot of the book is maintained in the film: after a big storm, Pi is stranded on a lifeboat with a tiger named Richard Parker. The story revolves around their survival, bondage together, and actions as days pass with no one who seems to come to their rescue. I was able to tell that the sense of empathy differed between text and film version. This makes sense being that we all react differently to different things. Many times when we read and book and then see the movie we always tend to see a difference and say “It wasn’t the same.” We tend to prefer one over the other by the end. Many of these actions and scenes have an empathic impact, an empathic impact that tends to change from the text version to the film. To dive deeper into this idea I will be analyzing the scenes where the hyena eats the zebra, Pi’s reasoning for not wanting Richard Parker to die, and lastly the ending when Pi and Richard Parker make it to land.

A book will always be more descriptive, all it takes is vivid words, imagination, ink on paper. Whereas a film is a bit more limited in its ways to portray certain things. For example the scene in the book where the hyena eats the zebra is described much more violently than what is shown in the film. In the book we read: “The zebra’s broken leg was missing. The hyena had bitten off and dragged it to the stern, behind the zebra. A flap of skin hung limply over the raw stump. Blood was still dripping.” In the film, the viewer does see how the hyena attacks the zebra and bleeds but is not as vivid as the book. This may be due to the film maker’s choice and of course not all details from a book can be portrayed over to a film, it would be too long. In the film, the viewer briefly sees the shot where the zebra is attacked, the bloody color is minimal, and the scene quickly transitions on to the next scene. We are more empathetic towards Pi from the book because through the author’s descriptive word choice. The reader is able to feel how hard it must’ve been to be stranded, alone, and looking at such a violent scene.

Another example of a different type of empathy in the text is the Egoistic Thesis of empathy. This type of empathy is associated with a negative feeling or can lead to awareness of the negative consequences of not helping. Examples of these feelings are guilt and shame. We see this type of empathy in the text version of the “The Life of Pi”: “A part of me did not want Richard Parker to die at all, because if he died I would be left alone with despair, a foe even more formidable than a tiger.” Here Pi reasoned that if Richard Parker died, he would be left alone thinking about the tragic circumstances he had undergone. This type of empathy is not very clear in the film. In the film, the viewer sees what Pi goes through to make the best out of being with Richard Parker. Makes sure he has food, later on tries to tame him in order to survive but the reasons are never really clear. Whereas in the text, we read Pi’s reasoning: “Any punishment worse than death? I looked at Richard Parker. My panic was gone. My fear was dominated. Survival was at hand.” Pi’s reasoning for looking after Richard Parker was so he wouldn’t be alone, if tamed it meant Pi would be alive until someone found them. End reward: survival. In the text, the reader literally reads Pi’s logic and is able to see the Egoistic Thesis of empathy, whereas in the film the viewer is left to put the pieces together.

At the end of the film, the viewer is also moved to be empathetic towards Pi. The touching scene of Pi crying as he sees Richard Parker walking away makes us feel empathetic towards him. Batson characterizes empathy in terms of being sympathetic, moved by, being compassionate, tender, warm, and soft hearted towards the other’s plight. The scene in the movie seems to portray this scene more touchingly with the camera focusing on Pi’s crying face portraying his disappointment and despair as Richard Parker walks away. Whereas in the text we read: “I was weeping because Richard Parker had left me so unceremoniously.” This scene becomes much more vivid in the film, the viewer is even able to see Pi touched and teary in the present as an adult as he recalls that moment. The close up of Pi crying and getting melancholic as he recalls the story helps the viewer feel more empathetic for what he has gone through and how broken hearted he was when Richard Parker left.

When you read something, you visualize it in your head according to your imagination. Whereas, a film brings it to life and gives you an alternative perspective depending on how it is translated. Viewing something a certain way may push the viewer to be more empathetic to a certain character or look at a different perspective that they hadn’t thought of. It could be that when you read a book, you feel more empathetic towards a certain character but then watch the film and feel more empathetic towards another character. This difference can be due to the film makers choice of film techniques and their take on the film. All in all, there is always some type of change from a text to a film. A text will always be open to interpretation by the filmmaker, open to different types of translations. The translation from the text to the film may be radical, therefore may change not only the plot but also the concept of empathy.

Final Draft-Midterm Essay

October 29, 2020 / Vanessa Mendoza / 0 Comments

Vanessa Mendoza

Midterm Essay

English 2400/Section O552 Professor Scanlan

October 29, 2020

Like Water for Chocolate

After reading “Like Water for Chocolate” by Laura Esquivel published in 1989 and watching the film directed by Alfonoso Arau released in 1993 we can compare them according to Linda Cahir’s definition of translation. The book “Like Water for Chocolate” is a love story between two characters: Tita and Pedro whom despite their love are not able to marry. According to Linda Cahir, literature to film translations can be literal, traditional, or radical. What type of translation would the book and the film fall under?

The plot of the film version “Like Water for Chocolate” is identical to Laura Esquivel’s text version besides some minor details. The emotion, main ideas of love between Tita and Pedro, rivalry between the two sisters: Rosaura and Tita, and what seems to be magical elements are portrayed throughout the film just like in the book. The focus remains on Tita and Pedro in the film just like in the book through the use of shots and camera movement. In addition, the use of narration in both the film and the book makes the translation almost identical. But there are missing scenes that are in the book but not present in the film. For these reasons, the translation of the book to the film is traditional. The translation is not literal because the details from the book are not maintained as closely as possible being that there are missing scenes. It is not a radical translation either since the plot is not reshaped to an extreme.

In order to prove that the translation between the book and the film is traditional I will explore the scene where Tita makes a dinner with the rose Pedro gives her, the scene where Rosaura and Tita argue. Third, I will compare the final scene where both Tita and Pedro die.

One of the major ideas/themes in the book that translates over to the film is Tita’s and Pedro’s love. This is shown in the book when even though Pedro is married to Tita’s sister Rosaura, gives Tita a rose. The difference here between the film and the book is what happens when Tita makes dinner with this rose. In the book, we read that “With that meal it seemed they had discovered a new system of communication, in which Tita was the transmitter, Pedro the receiver, and poor Gertrudia the medium, the conducting body through which the singular sexual message was passed.” Whereas, in the film we see how everyone in the table : Tita, Pedro, Gertrudis, and Mama Elena start fidgeting in their chairs. This minor detail does not interfere with the emotion we find in the text, through the shots of everyone’s face gestures we are able to tell that everyone at the table is feeling sensuous. The book also says: “He let Tita penetrate to the farthest corners of his being, and all the while they couldn’t take their eyes off each other.” The shot of Pedro and Tita looking at each other while eating adds to show how they feel attracted towards each other. This scene was not identical to the book but is still able to capture the main idea of love that preserves between Tita and Pedro, therefore making the translation between the book and the film a traditional translation.

Another major idea that is present in the book and film is the rivalry or tension that exists between Rosaura and Tita. It is a rivalry that goes back to when Rosaura married Pedro, the guy Tita wanted to marry. Time after Rosaura marries Pedro, she confronts Tita “You saw how Pedro switched to me at the least opportunity. I married him because that’s what he wanted.” This feeling of rivalry portrayed over in the film with both of them yelling at each other, bringing things up, and confronting one another. The only thing we hear in the film is their arguing making the scene tense just like in the book. The same narration and dialogue the reader finds in the book between the sisters is present in the film. There is no added music, the dialogue is not omitted in the film therefore allowing the viewer to get more insight into the story and how the characters interact. This close translation between the book and the film makes it a traditional translation.

At the end of the book, the reader is left a bit confused as to what happens. This is clarified in the film. Years later Tita and Pedro seem to finally be able to live their love but we are presented with an idea that John had brought up earlier. “If a strong emotion suddenly lights all the candles we carry inside ourselves, it creates a brightness that shines far beyond our normal vision and then a splendid tunnel appears that shows us the way that we forgot when we were born and calls us to recover our lost divine origin. The soul longs to return to the place it came from, leaving the body lifeless.” The lighting in the film is darkened keeping Tita and Pedro in focus, as if nothing else existed. The camera closes up on them making sure their love is what the viewer should focus on and nothing else. The dim lighting also helps transmit the romantic mood that we find in the book.

All in all, the essence of the text version “Like Water for Chocolate”, is maintained throughout the film. There are missing details in the film but this does not interfere with the overall plot of the story. The narration, the lighting, the camera movement all contribute to recreating the scenes from the book as closely as possible focusing on the love story.

First Draft Midterm Essay

October 22, 2020 / Vanessa Mendoza / 1 Comment

Vanessa Mendoza

English 2400/Section O552

First Draft Midterm Essay

The plot of the film version “Like Water for Chocolate” is identical to Laura Esquivel’s text version besides some minor details. The focal point remains on Tita and Pedro in the film just like in the book through the use of shots and camera movement. In addition, the use of narration in both the film and the book makes the translation almost identical. But there are missing scenes that are in the book but not present in the film. For these reasons, the translation of the book to the film is traditional. The overall plot and setting of the book is maintained throughout the book besides some minor details. The translation is not literal because the details from the book are not maintained as closely as possible being that there are missing scenes. It is not a radical translation either since the plot is not reshaped to an extreme.

In order to prove that the translation between the book and the film is traditional I will explore the sound that is present in the film. Second, I will compare the scene where Tita makes the quail dinner with the rose Pedro gives her. Third, I will analyze when Dr.John asks for Tita’s hand in marriage.

To start off I will be analyzing the use of sound in the film compared to book. In the book, there is no mention of music. The only thing that the reader really hears is the narrator of the story and the dialogue that takes place between the characters. With the addition of the dialogue between the characters in the film instead of limiting itself to the narration, the viewer gets more insight of the story and characters just like in the book version. Similarly in the film we get to hear the narrator telling the story. In the book, we also get to know a lot about the recipes that are cooked, ingredients, steps, etc. Whereas, in the film we don’t really find out much about them. We do get to see some of the recipes but not as much as the ones mentioned in the book. Whereas, the recipes seem to be a big part of the book and not as much in the film, the plot is not changed and the reader/viewer is still able to concentrate on the main focus: the love story.

Many of the scenes in the film are similar to those in the book but with some differences. One example is the quail dinner. In the book, the reader is told that Tita gets a rose from Pedro and contrary to Mama Elena’s order to throw it out she keeps it and makes dinner using it. While eating, the one who seems to be affected by this dinner is Tita’s sister Gertrudis. The film is able to capture this scene almost precisely besides the fact that when everyone is eating the dinner Tita cooked, the film shows shots of everyone being affected by the dinner, not just Gertrudis. Everyone in the table including Mama Elena seems to start feeling a bit weird. This is a detail that differs from the book but has no real effect on the story, therefore making it a traditional translation.

In the book, we read about the scene where Dr.John asks for Tita’s hand in marriage. In the film, we briefly see this scene but it is able to capture the essence of the text. The lighting of the room is dark which correlates with the mood of the scene. Tita agrees to marry John but she never says she loves him, even when she kissed John previously she said it wasn’t the same as kissing Pedro. The somber lighting helps portray the mood of the scene where there is a lot of mixed emotions on Tita’s end. In this scene, the camera also focuses on Tita when she gets the ring and stares at it keeping her as the focal point. This lighting also helps to add to the tension and doubt that is felt during this scene.

Coffeehouse #3

September 30, 2020 / Vanessa Mendoza / 0 Comments

One major difference between the written story and the film is the details we get on the main character. For example, in the written story we don’t really know much about Jeff besides his broken leg that we find out towards the end. Whereas, in the film we find out about this girl who he says is too good for him. In the film, the caretaker talks about marriage and Jeff has many conversations with this girl, has dinner with her something that doesn’t appear in the story. Another major difference between the film and the written story is the details pertaining to the neighbors. The details on some of the neighbors from the story differ from the details on the neighbors in the film. For example, the text mentioned him watching a young widow putting her child to bed, something we don’t see in the film. In the film, we see another neighbor who seems to live on her own, setting up a table for what seems to be a date, opening the door for someone she is imagining and having a conversation. A minor difference between the text and the film is that in the text we don’t really learn much about Jeff’s attitude in the beginning besides the fact that he is nosy and interested in his neighbor’s business. Whereas in the film, we learn that he is a photographer, scared to continue with this girl for being “too perfect” and even when he is with her he is still too busy thinking about his neighbors. Another difference is that the film doesn’t really focus right away on the husband and his ill wife. In the film we get more of an overall perspective of everything, added scenes, and definitely more dialogue between characters. The story also starts off with “ . . . for their faces were too small to fill in with identifiable features at that distance.” Yet in the film we clearly see all the neighbors that Jeff is observing.

Coffeehouse #2

September 24, 2020 / Vanessa Mendoza / 0 Comments

If you look out the window from the living room of the apartment where I live you won’t see much going on. It is a quiet neighborhood unless some noisy car passes by blasting their music. When you look straight ahead, there is a nice house that was just renovated by the owners. Most of the time they are sitting in the stairs of their home or watering their plants. Right next to this house is an apartment, there is not much action. Though years ago, from the kitchen window you could see an old man every morning staring out his window for quite a while. Next to that building, crossing the street, there is a big church. Nothing really goes on unless it is Sunday and people go to church or are on line certain days to get food. I live in the fourth floor, therefore when you look down you are able to see a little of what goes on. Down by the entrance there is usually nosy neighbors from the first floor with their chairs out just chilling, staring at anyone who walks into the building making it an awkward situation. A lot of people in the building have dogs, you will usually bump into one of them. But at night it gets dark and quiet with only a few people having their lights on, not many cars pass by either.

My remaining questions after reading the story are: was there really a murder or did Jeff just see things out of boredom? Who exactly is Sam, why is he willing to do anything Jeff says even if it means risking his life? Where did Boyne come from at the end if Jeff wasn’t able to communicate with him? How did they conclude with the theory of murder?

Film-Lit Coffeehouse Assignment #1

September 8, 2020 / Vanessa Mendoza / 0 Comments

This summer was definitely different. I wasn’t able to go out with my friends like other summers, I was home most of the summer taking a course online. I was able to practice my driving though, driving my dad to work and then picking him up so that he wouldn’t have to take public transportation.

Between “The-Tell-Tale Heart” and “The Yellow Wallpaper”, I like “The Tell-Tale-Heart” more because it was intriguing from the start. I found “The-Tell-Tale Heart” a bit easier to understand and follow along. While reading “The Yellow Wallpaper” I had to reread certain parts in order to understand what I was reading and be able to follow the story. I also found the ending of “The-Tell-Tale Heart” to be more interesting with him confessing his crime because of the noises he was hearing even though the police had found nothing on him. Whereas, in “The Yellow Wallpaper” you could kind of see where it was heading to: she was obsessed over the wallpaper and kept being so until the end. I also found the things used in “The Tell-Tale Heart” more interesting. For example, to me the use of the old man’s eye was more interesting than the wallpaper. In both stories, the characters were obsessing over these things and I just found the use of the eye more appealing, different, making me go “really?” With “The-Tell-Tale-Heart” I was able to pick stuff out right away, for example that the person had something going on, was bothered by the old man’s eye, was bothered by the noises after he killed the old man which could relate to his conscious. Whereas with “The Yellow Paper” it took me some time to depict certain things or come to conclusions. I guess “The Yellow Wallpaper” might take some more analyzing and “The-Tell-Tale Heart” was more of a straight forward short story to read.

Author: Vanessa Mendoza

Final Essay

Final Draft-Midterm Essay

First Draft Midterm Essay

Coffeehouse #3

Coffeehouse #2

Film-Lit Coffeehouse Assignment #1

Vital Information

Form?

The OpenLab at City Tech:A place to learn, work, and share

Support

Accessibility

Copyright

Creative Commons

The OpenLab at City Tech:A place to learn, work, and share

Support

Accessibility

Copyright

Creative Commons