How are the "Flowers for Algernon" short story and the movie different and the same?
One of the first things that is missing from the film is Charlie's written narration. This was one of the most interesting things in the novel because we could literally see his transformation through his progress reports as he changed from that of a child to that of a genius and back again. Although this technique was challenging for some readers, it was also a wonderful device for the author to use because it revealed so much. The film, although very good, has to be told in a more traditional manner. I don't think we get as close to Charlie in the film, but the film does include more of the relationship between Alice Kinnian and Charlie. We are also able to witness the transformation of Charlie from more of a distance and watch a tremendous performance by Cliff Robertson, who won an academy award for his performance in "Charly", the film. As with most novels that are made into films, the rich details of the novel are not in the film but the film does a good job of telling the story.