Discussion Topic
Film vs. Text: Differences in Setting, Characterization, and Plot
Summary:
The film adaptation of Gulliver's Travels, particularly the 2010 version starring Jack Black, diverges significantly from Jonathan Swift's novel in setting, characterization, and plot. The film modernizes the setting, adds new characters and storylines, and shifts the tone from satirical to comic, culminating in a happy ending unlike the book's misanthropic conclusion. Directors often alter adaptations to suit the visual medium, condense narratives for time constraints, and cater to social viewing experiences, which can drive these changes.
What are the main differences between the film and novel Gulliver's Travels?
Gulliver's Travels has been adapted for the screen many times. The most recent feature film is the 2010 movie starring Jack Black, and this version is very unlike the book in numerous ways. First of all, the film has a modern setting and takes almost half an hour to establish Gulliver's character before he arrives in Lilliput, something that happens very quickly in the book.
In Lilliput, a new storyline is added to the film concerning the love affair between Horatio and Princess Mary. There is also a new character called Edward, a Lilliputian general who defects to Blefuscu and helps them to build a robot based on blueprints he found in a magazine belonging to Gulliver.
Gulliver's transition from Lilliput to Brobdingnag is much more abrupt in the film than it is in Swift's novel. After Gulliver's arrival in Brobdingnag, the plot of the book is abandoned completely, so...
Unlock
This Answer NowStart your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
the film actually covers less than half of Swift's narrative.
The tone of the film is also very different, since it has a happy ending, in which Gulliver is united with his girlfriend. In the book, Gulliver becomes a complete misanthrope who cannot bear the society of other people. In general terms, the film is much less satirical and more broadly comic than the book.
How does the film version's setting, characterization, or plot differ from the excerpt in the textbook? Why might the director have altered the story's representation?
It's hard to give very specific examples without having access to your source material, but there are a few approaches that might help you compare and contrast the two different forms of media. In trying to evaluate why the director would have chosen to alter a specific part of the original text, think about the differences between reading a book and watching a movie.
First, how are you getting most of your information? When you read a book, all the relevant narrative information is coming to you in one way: words. Words describe what a character looks like, what someone is wearing, what's happening in the environment, what characters are thinking, how they're moving, how their voices sound, and so on. Nothing happens without it being explicitly written down.
In a movie, a director isn't bound to work within the restrictions of text. They can passively provide information in other ways, which allows them some wiggle room to shift conscious focus to parts of the story that they're most interested in. Showing the difference in size between two characters is one relevant example, but they can also use visual and auditory clues to suggest subtler differences—one character's clothes might be a little more worn to suggest a different economic status. Another's voice might be a little weak to suggest feebleness. How might this advantage have driven the director of Gulliver's Travels to make the changes you're seeing between the two interpretations?
There are also some logistical differences between how we experience movies and how we read books. Movies, typically, are fairly short. Even with the added advantages of hearing and seeing, stories often need to be shortened to work well in that format. How might this have limited the director of the movie in choosing what to include?
Additionally, movies are often a social experience, whether you're watching with a few loved ones at home or in a theater full of strangers. Books, by contrast, are typically enjoyed alone. How might this have influenced the choices made by the director?
Good luck!