Having now seen the movie, and reading Persepolis, there is a question that comes to my mind. Which is more effective at delivering Marjane's story? Does one do more justice than the other?
Personally, I found the movie highlighting different areas than that of the book. Similar to my earlier post, in terms of the beginning parts of the film, the specific events during school, and the troubles she faced within were barely touched upon. Did others find parts the felt integral to the story and its message being left out or just barely touched upon?
Lastly, having watched the film on YouTube, there was an additional aspect, the comments section. I am not sure if anyone took the time to read through them (I would encourage you too), but I find that the comments are an interesting source of other inputs. A small insight as to what others take from videos, similar to our discussions here in class. How do you find these outlooks to intersect with ours? Is that format an aid or does it detract from more productive forms of discussion?
I actually rented the movie via Netflix. However I personally enjoyed the movie better than that of the graphic novel. Although the movie was like a moving graphic novel due to the animation style, I found that I enjoyed how the movie did not include certain scenes from the book (like the scene with Marji's friend spraying her crotch). Sometimes less is more and I found that the movie was able to portray the story in an emotionally connecting way without giving too much that would cause the viewer to wonder why a certain scene was even included in the film.
ReplyDeleteI thought that, while the movie was more refined than the graphic novel, a lot of textual information was lost in the translation. One of the great things about the medium of comics is that you can marry visual and textual narrative together as one, using the strengths of both forms. A moment can be stretched out in a graphic novel, something that is used to great effect in Persepolis. This sort of metanarrative is extremely important to the structure of the story; somebody often mentions something to Marji, which then results in her not only offering her narrative insight into the situation, but is also often accompanied by small, visual reference or joke (usually in the form of Marji fantasizing something, or recalling something that happened outside of the immediate structure of these story). For me, the sheer amount of information present in the graphic novel was extremely valuable - it really helped flesh out a historical context that I was only tangentially familiar with. More than that, it helped the reader to get to "know" everybody better. A lot of subtlety was lost as well; much of the stylized panels that recall Iranian paintings or textiles were removed from the movie (see the scene where Marji's father tells her about her grandfather having been a prince, for example).
ReplyDeleteI think that the film was a decent adaption of the graphic novel, but a lot of material was lost in translating a two-volume book into an hour-and-a-half film. Some of the information that was excised was cursory, but other moments (such as Marji's first kiss being removed), feels notable in its absence.
Generally speaking, I try not to read Youtube comments. Especially when it comes to material that might be seen as politically "hot" (such as, say, a film dealing with the Iranian revolution). However, I did check out the Youtube comments on Persepolis. What I found there didn't surprise me, much. The film is somewhat obscure, even more so when paired with the fact that it is a version with Dutch titles. I'd say the majority of the comments were from people who had specifically sought out the film, and therefore offered generally agreeable comments. There was, unsurprisingly, a strong anti-Iranian tone present throughout the comments section, however.
I believe that it depends on the viewer’s preference rather than the maker of the story/director of the film, which creates the better impact. Yes but this happens in films. The director is the one to deem certain events worthy that the audience may not agree. It was interesting to see which areas were more focused on more than others. But it’s a good reflection to show how other cultures viewed the occurrence when they weren’t involved. I think that the comments help the understanding of the movie if someone stumbles upon the video without previous knowledge. Going in we have knowledge thanks to our discussion community.
ReplyDeleteI thought one of the biggest overall improvements of the film over the comic was the use of the airport as a framing device for the recounting of the story. It wasn’t hitting you over the head, but it at least provided some kind of breathing room to the events of the story which allowed the viewer to interpret some kind of structure (which I thought the comic was desperately lacking).
ReplyDeleteThe animation style worked well in some places, especially when portraying scenes of violence/conquest. Because the frame usually contained a background instead of just a foreground (another big weakness of the comic), they could use the strategy of the silhouette to convey images abstractly. The silhouette of soldiers in gas masks against a textured cloud of gas is a much more effective image than the extremely simple visual style that Satrapi used in the comic.
One choice that I thought was strange was that the overall tone of the film felt like an imitation of European New Wave cinema. The transitions and the voice acting especially gave it this really flat, dry feeling that was very characteristic of those kinds of films. Now interestingly enough, I think it was entirely appropriate because I thought the comic was very flat and dry, but I don’t think that’s what Satrapi was going for, so I’m not sure why they used that strategy here.
I really enjoyed the use of the airport as a framing device, and that the whole story was told as a flashback, which really added a great flow to the story, which I felt the comic version lacked somewhat. The comic felt somewhat discombobulated. In this way, I guess I felt that the film was more effective.
ReplyDeleteI did feel like a lot of the concepts that were brought up in the book were somewhat lost in translation, but I feel that the themes (for the most part) and character development were shown fairly well, due to the fact that it's a retrospective story told in flashback form. Without the voiceover, it certainly wouldn't have worked as well.
All that being said, I do feel that there were several fairly important moments that may have been left out due to trying to cram so much content into a 90 minute film.
I think the comic is more effective than the film. While having audio and more detail in some narratives, I think the film was a bit goofy in parts (the awkward eye of the tiger montage I'm thinking of specifically). I think the comic was better produced overall. I think the film spent too much time of the fluff and visual effects of some stories (Anoosh traveling to Russia) that were largely unnecessary. That time could have been better spent on the setting and Marji's story.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I just want to say that I enjoyed watching the movie. This was a very entertaining activity for the class. But I feel as though both the book and the movie were equally effective in telling Marjane's story. The book may have delivered the message of her story, but I believe that the movie made it come to life. So in a way, they work together to make the story amazing. However, I do feel like this movie has barely touched on some important parts. I'm not saying that there were some parts that were left out, but that's the problem. Because the movie was trying to cover everything that happened in the book, it felt a little fast paced. This is usually a danger to movies because when things go to fast, there is barely emotion in them. Just look at what happened in The Last Airbender Movie. Still, the Persepolis movie did have a good amount of emotion, even though it was fast paced. I don't care what the comment section says about this movie, it's good enough to deliver the message and entertain me as well. I'm actually considering writing a short story because of this inspiration.
ReplyDeleteI always enjoy watching the film versions of books I've read and comparing the two, but I almost always prefer reading a book to watching a movie, regardless of genre or medium. As a reader, a book provides so much more insight into characters and events for me than a movie does and I always find myself paying more attention to what was left out of the movie than to the actual film.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of "Persepolis," I agree with some of the other classmates who expressed the feeling of losing something in the translation. You can experience this feeling with any novel that is translated into a movie but I think it is especially true for graphic novels or comics because of the relationship created between author and reader through the panels and gutters. Something special happens for the reader through the process of comprehending a text via the combination of words and images which doesn't occur in the movie. It is hard to put into words but it's almost as if you're a part of the novel, while in the film version you are strictly an observer. It may have something to do with the fact that the gutter gives readers a chance to slip in their own interpretation of events between panels. I enjoyed watching the movie but I got a stronger sense of Marji's character through reading the book than I would have if I had only watched the film. And no, I did not think to read any of the comments when I watched the movie, but since it was suggested I may go back and browse over them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie was nice alternate way of telling Marji's story. I felt that the movie left parts out but highlighted other parts that the book did not. Towards the end of the movie it does not talk about the Marji's and Reza's return to college or the rejected amusement park project. The movie does give attention to certain events that went on in Marji life while she was in grade school. I think the movie did a good job at conveying the story but you get a better glimpse of who Marji is in the book. The Marji in the movie is just not as robust as the Marji in the book although they represent the same person in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the movie seemed more focused than the comic. In the comic, I thought there were some parts that were way too long and unfocused. Maybe the time constraints forced Satrapi to boil the story down, and I think it had a good outcome. I prefer the comic medium though, so I guess my ideal combination would be the movies structure in the comic form. However, there was one part of the story that I thought really benefitted from animation and that was Uncle Anoosh's story. Maybe it's the sound of little Marji's sobs or something, but wow. Also, I really liked the ending with the cab driver. I thought it gave a little more closure to the story than the airport scene and her last narration about her grandma.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed both the movie and the book, and I was surprised by how well the movie adhered to the source material. However, I feel that the book did a better job in telling Marji's story because the movie made cuts (likely for running time) to some parts of the story and actually omitted some scenes. Moreover, the pacing in the film was much faster than the book, which threw me off a bit. The cuts and pacing made it feel somewhat fragmented at times, especially since we saw less development of her character and of those around her, but the movie conveyed the heart of the story adequately.
ReplyDeleteAs for the comments, I haven't read them, but I find that that format can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, they can add useful and intriguing points to a discussion; on the other hand, the nature of the internet means you will inevitably deal with some combination of ignoramuses, bigots, and trolls who just like stirring up hostility.
Oh, yeah. I forgot about the comments. I agree with Dean. YouTube commenters can be so hostile. I avoid YouTube for that reason, and actually rented the DVD from the library. The DVD menu was a work of its own, really neat.
ReplyDeleteI also rented the movie from the library, so I don't have much to say about the youtube commenters. I also think Dean does a good job summing up the usefulness of youtube comments. In my experience, I've never really gained much insight from the comment section, just mild amusement.
DeleteI think the most successful way to deliver Marjane's story is the combination of both. As you pointed out, the book and movie highlight different points of importance, which reflects the change between her beliefs while writing the book versus her beliefs while working on the film. The pacing of the book and movie both have some issues, but I think the movie may have proven to give the audience more of her creative vision. The film gives movement to her drawings, creating more of the creepy affect the teachers and authority figures had on the children, and the inflections of each person's lines. But the book gives more information on certain parts of her life. They really work best together.
ReplyDeleteI felt that the part of her life in Vienna where she is moving around a lot, specifically when she is living with the gay men could have made the story show a bit more about her change into adulthood. I really wish they would have shown Marji's mother's visit to Vienna and her reaction to Marji's living situation. I loved the two women's interactions and felt this could have told the audience more about their mother-daughter relationship as it turned more into adult friendship.
I think the comments really show how some information was left out of the movie; for example, someone asked who Marx was when he appears in the clouds with God in the later part of the film. There is also a lot of talk about religion and the different cultural beliefs and morals. I usually make a point of not reading any comments on YouTube videos, but I figured since you brought them up there must be some interesting ones. Typically, not reading the comments keeps me from thinking of YouTube as any sort of social media and just a form of video sharing. But either way the movie is great so the comments did not bother me.
I personally believe that the novel is more effective than the film at telling the story. While the film is excellent, it leaves out a lot of the interesting personal anecdotes and insights, such as Marji trying to lie in a bath to experience her grandfather's suffering. Furthermore, I think that the film being translated into English or even in its original French loses something of the exotic feel of Iranian culture.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that I felt like any integral parts of the story were left out in the film. But I will argue that there was much more backstory and history presented in the graphic novel than there were in the movie, and this might make it confusing for some people.
The comments section of any video, article, or website nowadays is always full to the brim with many points-of-view. But I have become skeptical about many of them. It seems that so many of the commentators often have limited education or knowledge about the subject matter, and so their comments seem inappropriate. Often a lot of people are just bigoted about the subject and blatantly post their comments out of prejudice or anger. So while it can be an aid to discussion, I find that comments are often distracting and even harmful to a more academic discussion.
Both the film and the book are effective in telling Margi’s story, but the book definitely does more justice than the movie because it goes into more depth. For instance, in the movie, Margi’s depression was downplayed and her attempt at suicide was cut out. This aspect of the movie degrades the emotional toll and character development of Margi. Also, much of her drug use was omitted as well, which causes the audience to be less aware of Marjane’s transformation. I felt that these omissions made the fill seem fragmented and incomplete.
ReplyDeleteI definitely prefer the book. I know a lot of people here commented that the pacing of Persepolis seems unfocused but I'm alright with that. The chapters are different vignettes of her life and add up to a complete whole. I think it functions quite well as an autobiography in graphic novel form. The film on the other hand, left out a lot of the drug use (and suicide attempt) which I think took a bit of "edge" off of Marji's story. The film was alright and maybe I would have enjoyed it more had I not read the book first. Honestly, I've never been a huge fan of film s I'm probably biased.
ReplyDeleteAs for the comment section of a You Tube video - sometimes I read them because they are hilarious (often unintentionally so). I skimmed over them on his video and stopped reading after a post called Marji some rather lewd words.
I enjoyed the movie, but personally feel that the novel lends more strength to the overall message. With the absence of the "gutter", many aspects of the story that were embellished by the readers imagination now have definite frames. This means the power of the images and the subtitles between characters are somewhat lessened, in my opinion. As readers we all formulate voices and attitudes that seem to suit the inanimate characters in a graphic novel. With movies we have specific voice actors delivering lines in a specific way and with their own range of emotion. While this doesn't necessarily mean that the overall message is changed, I do think it distracts from it's content. For example the sequence involving Marjane's experiences in Austria were partially skimmed over in the movie. Her time spent "couch-hopping", while only a small portion of story, is actually very significant in her development and appreciation for her Iranian upbringing. Although there were elements that I feel were actually better represented in the movie as opposed to the novel. For example, Marjane recounting how her former boyfriend actually exhibited signs of disrespect and ignorance after their breakup was more humorously depicted in the movie.
ReplyDeleteIn watching the movie, I was a little bummed by the disjointedness of it all. Whereas in the book, it felt natural to jump from point to point, the film just felt kind of like a mess. As it went on, I certainly think it got better, but there is something to be said for the flow in film vs book. I think the reason the book was able to work with the flow had to do a lot with the sound. I watched the film with an English dub, and sometimes it could be very disorienting having it swap back and forth so quickly. In the book, while it does change visually, it isn't really very jarring. It just kind of happens.
ReplyDeleteI thought most of the things it left out felt very appropriate. It was a film, and thusly had to be much shorter than the graphic novel, and I think they chose well cutting things out. Everything included was necessary, and the bits cut out were mostly pretty extraneous. I have to say it did take away from her character a little bit. In the book you definitely see her journey from wanting to be a prophet, to shunning religion to just wanting to be free. In the film, it still kind of showed, but it honestly wasn't as easy to pick out, and I wondered if it would have been as noticeable if I hadn't read the book first. It's hard converting a novel into film. Overall though, I think it was very well done.
One thing I found really interesting was the fact that it was shown as a flashback from the airport. The color take was interesting to represent the present, and it definitely grounded us a bit as far as who was speaking. But I don't know if I liked it. I'd like to think that maybe she ended up "happily ever after", even though that's never really the case in life. But this kind of sealed the deal that she didn't really end up that way. Which is okay I guess, and definitely more real. But I don't know if it was necessary. I liked the book ending, where she ended saying freedom comes with a price. It leaves it more open, somehow, which I liked.