Favorite Character

In this book, I enjoy reading about Angus. He is a very responsible and caring man for taking care of Charley, and Angus is Charley's favorite Uncle. This may sound strange but another reason  I like Angus is because he reminds me of beef. To a teenage guy, food, especially beef such as steak or a medium rare juicy burger or meat in a taco really makes me hungry, and it is also very mouth watering... especially during fourth period which is right before lunch. Angus just seems just like a really cool dude, and he is my type of guy.

Childhood

Breaking News

In recent studies I believe that there are no myths in one's childhood. I think that everyone goes through childhood, and they live or have lived it in the moments of truth. What I mean is, most people have learned from childhood of advice, what right and wrong, when you can get away with something, and even a few rules of life. There is no myth to that. We have learned and moved on from the past.

Mrs Lannen asked what the author is trying to say, and Chris Emter responded to this question by saying, "I really do not know what he is trying to say, if the author is saying what I think he is saying, that childhood is a myth, than I am going to have to disagree with him because my childhood was no myth. It was real, and I learned a few of the guidelines I mentioned above from childhood, and that is the cold hard truth."

Indian Country

They have not changed much for me since in the book, the author describes a lot of the roles that are were popular in the West that are also portrayed in movies. Such as Little House on the Prairie and how they men did most of the outdoor work, like fixing fences, hunting, milking the cows, and shooting guns, where women stayed inside and baked, cooked, and even teaching Carrie how to sew. Frontier homesteading was very difficult in the past, just by what was available to make a successful life on the frontier. It took days in cover wagon to reach a town 5 miles away, the Indians always wanting to raid houses and set fire to homesteads because of the dislike of the new homesteaders, and even the medicine they had was not that advanced so getting sick could lead to major deaths or infections, so under these circumstances, it made living in "Indian Country" very difficult. In my opinion the most difficult thing for the homesteaders was the Indians, because not knowing when they will attack, and how they will attack left the homesteaders on their toes.

Movie Critiques

        Chris Emter
         Front Lit
         10/7/11




          When in comes to reading a book, then watching a movie made from that same book, there are probably going to be a few differences int he characters, settings, and plots. This can make a movie or story more interesting or disappointing depending on how well the producer mimicked the story made.
          After reading the story and watching the movie, I found out that there are a lot of things different between the two. Things from character change to length and even settings for the story were changed between the two. For example the town in the book was called Twotrees and in the movie it is called Shinbone. In the book, Bert was the John Wayne character in the movie, but he was called Tom Donafin. However in the book, the author portrayed Ranse as being an outcast and very arrogant, but in the movie he was portrayed as being a hero, and a smart man that would be good in the government system. Like I said in my last blog, the reason why things were added or taken out was to make a longer story and more entertaining.
          I do not think the author cares if the producer switches things up, just as long as he or she gets paid. The film was filmed as old western style  with black and white film, old west settings in the desert, and the costumes. I thought the costumes were represented well with the time period. I think that is what they would have worn back then. I definitely like the movie version better because it gave the short story in the book more energy and sort of what really happened. it was more entertaining see what they did then trying to imagine it.
          In conclusion when watching a movie based off a book, there are going to be changes made, count on it. Just go with the flow, watch it, and have a good time.

So many more questions

I think the director has to put in more characters or change the set so he can shoot an hour movie. In a short story the reader just gets a taste of what happened but in the movie, things hve to be remodified. For example if a shirt fits one person and doesn't another, the taylor has to modify the shirt so it fits the other guy. Sometimes this can make or break a movie. It can make it by giving it more action, detail, and drama which is what critics love, or it can be exactly the same, so if the book was boring to people, and they make the movie the same way people are not going to watch it as much. I do not know anyting about what an author thinks if a movie is way different from the movie. I think if the director did not include the author's input in the movie, the author has no say in the movie scenes. I think some authors are just happy they are making money and having his or her story made into a film.

So many questions

I think the goal of the movie was to show that a small man can take down a big man.  I think they went back in time in the movie, almost like a dream after they  showed  the part of the house that got burned with all of the cactus roses. They showed the events that led up to that scene in the movie. I thought the goal of the story was like the goal in the movie ecept without all the details like the movie had. I think the senator was basically saying to keep his pride or reputation that he was great friends with Bert, but really he didn't like him, so it kind of comes out that they were like friendemies.