Most movie adaptions do not usually have the author directly involved. The rights are given away to a movie studio and the plot along with its characters is alerted however the producers see fit even at the expense of real events if the adapted story is a biography. As Persepolis an independent film, however, Satrapi was able to direct her graphic novel's adaption and I believe that puts a whole new aspect in how the movie was handled. I did a little research on the movie and Satrapi mentioned that she left the parts of the movie dealing with the past in black and white so that the movie could be more universal and show that the events of the revolution could happen in any country. Do you think the movie accomplishes this or does it still stand as a movie that focuses primarily on Iran?
As Oliver mentioned the movie did not seem to focus much on Satrapi’s personal struggles. A lot of the scenes and characters were either downsized or left out entirely making the whole experience feels sped up for the sake of time. Since Satrapi was aiming to make the story more universal as the movie would likely reach a completely different audience than the graphic novel I argue that she left in just enough of her personal life to keep the story hers while also allowing the audience a chance to see life through Marji’s eyes without the intrusion of too much narration. Do you think that the movie allows the viewer a better chance to see the events through Marji’s eyes or is the effect of the story completely lost without more of Marji’s narration?
Leaving the movie in black in white does allow a connection that they audience wouldn’t have if they had colored in. The simplicity of the design of the characters remind me of McCloud’s reasoning for why he didn’t detailed his appearance in the comic.
ReplyDeleteIt makes it into a rough translation of what is happening. It is easier to view with knowledge. I think it would have been interesting if the class saw the movie before reading the book.
I do think that there is an element of universality to the flashback portions, but ultimately Persepolis is still very much a film about Iran (and how the political changes of the country effected its citizens). I'm not sure that adding color would change that, but I do prefer the black and white appearance (if only because I found it to be stylistically more attractive than the in-color portions of the film).
ReplyDeletePersonally, I felt like something was lacking in the character of Marji in the film version. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that we, as the novel, are not as "close" to her as we are with the graphic novel. Marji's narration and personality are a constant presence in the book, especially when it comes to depictions of her fantasies. A lot of the internalization that was present in the book was significantly scaled back in the film, and I think that the film suffered for it. Perhaps that's only because I know what was lost in the translation. I would imagine that if I had seen the movie and not read the book, I might have a more positive opinion of Marji's character. As is, the film version seems somewhat erratic and quick-to-anger (especially during her time in Vienna). The internalization that was present in the book helped flesh her out a bit more, and make her personality a little more three-dimensional.
On the whole, I wish she had handed the project off to someone else, so that we could get a totally new interpretation of the events. I’m not sure why you would try to make something so close to the original work: it just seems like an imitation.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, think that minimizing the personal stuff was overall a really good choice because I think it actually gave the story some kind of focus. I also appreciated the lack of narration because I think in the graphic novel it made everything a little bit too busy. In comics, when you have to jump back and forth between narration and dialogue you lose the continuity of the scene as a whole, and it prevents you from being immersed in the world of the story. I think that that was improved upon slightly in the film by cutting out the narration.
The idea that black and white is more relatable than color is ridiculous. Using color as a strategy allows you to communicate abstract ideas and emotions that black and white cannot (warm colors vs. cool colors produce different emotional reactions, for example). However, black and white can be useful if you want the focus to be on quality of line or texture (among other things). Both have their pros and cons, but the idea that one is inherently ‘more relatable’ is…nonsense.
I definitely think that the film focuses primarily on Iran—not sure that that's debatable. Furthermore, I'm not particular convinced of the effectiveness of using B&W to suggest universality. There are very particular circumstances that result in Iran's political situation, and there are frequent verbal reminders of the setting. One aesthetic quality that does enforce this intent that I find interesting is the abstraction of space throughout the Iran scenes. There are a lot of solid backgrounds and nondescript forms that distort the setting's specificity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would argue that the suggestion of universality undermines important themes in the source text. Marji's story concerns her solidifying her identity, which is repeatedly asserted as being intertwined with her nationality and the history of both Iran and her Iranian family. Draining the color instead robs the portrayal of Iran of its cultural specificity that the illustrations of the graphic novel work to emphasize. It's also a missed opportunity to make interesting juxtapositions between the Marji's home and the foreign cultures in which the immigrant is displaced. In a story where geographic place is so essential, its a shame to not better emphasize these differences.
As the other folks on here said, the I think the downsizing worked out, as it added a focus/flow to the movie. I definitely feel that the movie achieved something a bit more than the book in that aspect, but I definitely feel that without having read the book, I would have felt much less of a connection to Marji (basically, I agree with what Chris said: there is something missing in terms of Marji's character as a lot of things are either cut out or glazed over.)
ReplyDeleteI did notice the use of black and white and color. I immediately understood it as a time device for the setting, but I didn't consider the black and white as marker of universality. I suppose that could be true, but I think the black and white stood out as mostly loyalty to the comic and chronological setting.
ReplyDeleteI think the narration was well handled. A lot of the comic tries to show more than it tells, so it is fitting that the film would try this as well. I think the film did an excellent job illustrating moments of protest, violence and revolution perhaps with more impact than the comic. Instead of being told about it with some largely abstract imagery in the comic, we are shown in full motion with a ominous soundtrack the horrors of the revolution. The comic is still, however, effective, but it lacks some devices the film can utilize.
I think that the movie does both focus on the message of war and the events that happened in Iran. The whole message of the story is to show how difficult it is to grow up in a war-torn country. The movie just uses the aspect of Iran to deliver the heavy message.
ReplyDeleteAs for what Oliver said, I have to disagree with him. I found the movie to be more focused on Marji's struggles than anything. True there were some points in the movie that weren't very detailed in other characters, but I still find them to play an important role in the story. The movie allows us a better chance to see Marji's life through her eyes. After all, the narration is being told by her. Nobody else is saying their opinions while the movie is going.
I don't know. I think that the story could be universal with some tweaks but it fells like a story about an Iranian girl that grows up into an Iranian woman. Some of the events everyone can relate but there are others that are not so easy to relate to.
ReplyDeleteI think that if you haven't read the book then you may feel that the movie is adequate. But having read the book and seeing the movie you might feel a little cheated by the movie especially since the book was the first look at the story. I know I felt this way when I watched the movie "The Color Purple" then read the book of the same title.
Did anyone else take the color as a representation of freedom?
ReplyDeleteAs for the universality of the story, I actually thought the comic was much more universal. I hate to be this person, but I think reading Marji's narration in English made her more relatable to me. Reading the subtitles made me much more aware that Marji was from a very different world. I don't know if that's a bad thing actually because her life is very different than mine. While I generally don't mind watching foreign films, Persepolis was a little frustrating because instead of reading I wanted to watch the animation but it seemed like I had to pick one or the other at times. They should totally just dub the animation!
I think since there is no indication of Satrapi's race in her drawings (like a stereotypical shape of the people's eyes, noses, mouths, etc.) the novel and movie are easily universal. The drawings in Persepolis could easily be following any other country's wartime struggles. I think the film allows us to understand Marji's life more through her eyes and showing us what was the most important. I love Marji's narration in the novel but I don't think the effect is lost. I think the effect of her narration is used sparingly because the film has the opportunity to highlight dialogue. So I think the novel and movie just allow the audience to see Satrapi's life is different ways, both are effective.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that Satrapi was so involved in the film's production and I think that her involvement is the reason it stays so close to the book. I read up a bit on this as well, and I find that her explanation of the lack of color can work for the book as well. In addition to the lack of color, the characters are mostly drawn so that few of them actually look foreign. The movie is able to accomplish this just as well because the artwork is taken directly from her drawings. As such, I agree with her assertion that this story could easily take place anywhere.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the movie needed a bit more of Marji's narration. The pacing and the cuts they made (likely for running time) made the film feel somewhat fragmented, and I think that this could have been minimized by more narration. However, at the same time, I think there's somewhat of a tradeoff because there wouldn't have been much room for more narration unless they cut less. Strangely, I do feel like we see things a bit more through her eyes in the movie than in the book because of the way it was framed. She bookends the film with shots in color, representing her future self reflecting on her life, and this makes the film in some ways much more personal than the book, but I don't get as much emotion out of the film than I do from the book.
I do find that Satrapi's aesthetic choice to leave the revolution feeling universal works quite well. It doesn't seem all too unique to Iran, so she succeeds in accomplishing this. I would also argue that I find this idea to be a great one on her part. So much is gained by this, as the reader's mind quickly fills the gutters even of the movie by placing him/herself into the revolution and experiencing it as if it were his/her own country. That is so interesting to find out; what a great choice on Satrapi's part.
ReplyDeleteBut while I do think that the fast pace of the movie and exclusion of certain important or thematically substantial parts of the plot make for a more universal experience, I think that the story loses something in this way. Despite the fact that these events were real-life events of Satrapi's real life, I think that their inclusion could have led to an even more sympathetic audience. So many of the sad stories, like her friend who lost his limbs in the war, really make Persepolis the powerful graphic novel that it is, and I feel like in excluding these events, the story loses some of its power.
Since Marjane Satrapi was involved with the movie, it is no surprise that the film closely resembles the book in every way. Both the book and movie are uses simple drawings of characters and settings. This aspect allows the reader to insert themselves in the story much easier than if the drawings were more detailed. Before the book and movie, I never wondered what it would be like to live a culture where I had to constantly worry about bombs going off.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, the movie was a diminished version of the book. Obviously the movie had to make cuts because of issues with timing and cost, but I feel like it lost a large chunk of its emotional impact in the process. I’m not saying that the movie was completely terrible, but I have to say I prefer the book on this one.
I'm not sure if I felt the use of black and white made the film more universal. To me, the lack of color made it more like a memory and distinguishes time past. Total speculation here: I imagine it would be harder for Satrapi to put her very personal struggles in film form than graphic novel. I could be wrong, but I think actually showing the suicide attempt would have been difficult for both the artist and the audience.
ReplyDeleteSatrapi's involvement with the film surely is the result of the movie so closely following the book. I think she is telling a slightly different story by cutting many scenes and forgoing some of her more personal and intimate failings and strife. I also felt her grandmother played a (again, slightly) bigger role in the film.