It's......
AGENDA:
1. Discuss "The Yellow Wallpaper" by Charlotte Perkins Gillman
- What did you think of the story? The main character?
- What was your impression/interpretation of the ending?
- What tenets of Freud or Jung could you find?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWJ4ZtLlRvE&list=PLA9B79A6592B5414C&index=2
If you are interested in watching the entire PBS Masterpiece Theater production, here is the link to the playlist on Youtube.
The Yellow Wallpaper
HOMEWORK:
Please do a blog post looking at the last scene of "The Yellow Wallpaper", comparing and contrasting how it is depicted in the film clip we watched and how Gillman depicts it in her short story.
- What is gained or lost by this film adaptation?
- Which version do you think highlights the main character's instability/insanity more?
- How does the film version enhance or lessen the creepy and disturbing effect of the original story?
- Did seeing the film version affect your interpretation of the main character and the ending of the story? Why or why not?
To be totally honest I didn't find anything to be gained by the film adaptation. I preferred the written version because it really drew you in as the woman's metal faculties deteriorated. It seemed much more personal than just watching cheesy acting, it allowed you to see into her mind as she spiraled downwards. The short story disturbed me by the end but when I watched the film I could only laugh. It made it much less creepy with the poor acting and film quality, when you read it it takes over you.
ReplyDeleteNo, watching it did not affect my interpretation, I had a pretty good understanding of what was happening. I was able to imagine what was going on and the language was easy to understand.
The film adaption of "The Yellow Wallpaper" basically had the same aspects as the story. In my opinion the only difference was that the film created a visual as to how insane the main character looked when her husband John came into the room after she destroyed it and it gave insight into why John fainted. The story highlights her instability/insanity more than the film because it has more depth as to what her thought process was while being stuck in a room for a long period of time. The story also depicts her thoughts on her husband and the sister's actions.
ReplyDeleteThe adaption of "The Yellow Wall Paper" to film lost all of its creepiness. Reading the story was way more intriguing than watching the movie. it lost the description that was given to the reader. All of the conversations that her and John had were not put into the movie. The story is the better version by far because of the fact that it was a lot more descriptive and it drew my attention more than the movie did. The words used gave a better picture than the actual movie did. It also made me a little freaked out at the end. No, seeing the film version did not change my understanding or feeling about the story. My mind is completely made up. The only thing that the movie did was make me laugh a little.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I don’t think anything is gained by watching the film nor lost. There’s obviously different parts in the film that weren't specifically described the same way in the short story. For the most part the film had the same aspects as the short story did so it was easy to comprehend. I actually think watching the film was beneficial to get an additional and clear understanding & to actually see how insane the narrator was although the acting wasn't that great. Overall I think the short story is better than the film because it has more depth and also many details. The short story allowed you to see exactly how she gradually broke down to someone she didn't even know anymore and then trying to find herself again.
ReplyDeleteOne scene where I felt the film enhanced the creepiness of the original story is the when the girl comes out the wall as she’s peeling off the wallpaper. Personally, I found the short to be more disturbing than watching the film because of how descriptive it was. I enjoyed watching the film, it didn't affect my interpretation at all because not all stories are going to be depicted the same way as the original.
I think that in the access to the deterioration of the woman's mental capacity is lost in the translation from story to film. The story gives the reader direct insight into all of the protagonist's thoughts, because it is a first person account, written in the form of diary entries. The movie, however, allows the viewer to gain insight into the perspective of other people, and how the protagonist's decline into insanity appears to other people. For example, in the story the woman seems very intellectual, and she is forced to pour this intellect into the pattern of wallpaper, because that is the most stimulating thing she has access to. In the film, however, she doesn't appear intellectual at all, rather she seems vacant and removed from reality. Her eyes are dead and her demeanor is almost robotic, whereas the story makes her seem lively. I think the movie highlights her insanity more, just because it is portrayed in a more dramatic way. There is distressing music, and yelling, and running, and intense close ups of her face. In the movie John dramatically fought a battle against a wooden door, but in the story she just quietly and reassuringly told him to get the key and he did so. I thought the movie was more creepy because it had intense music and when there was that close up shot of her face I freaked out. The film version doesn't really change my perspective of the main character because essentially the endings were the same. John fainted and she continued to crawl over him. In the story, however, she made it seem like she was escaping her oppression, while the movie showed that she was just falling into another trap—she became captive to her own mind.
ReplyDeleteI thought the film gained a lot in the way of portraying the woman. You're not just hearing how she's taking in events, you're seeing them and that frees you from the bias that is created by reading her words. That's also a loss, because without being able to hear her thoughts, we don't know just how confused she is and how she doesn't feel as if she's going insane at all. We lose the more personal connection with her, and so it's harder to empathize with her when she seems so crazy. Truthfully, I think that the film highlights the woman's instability and insanity more because of the visual affects. You could see and hear how she talked to other people and how removed she was, and you could see the craziness in her eyes after she tore down all of the wallpaper. In the story, you can draw the conclusion that she's going/is crazy, but in the film it's extremely visible. The film version is way more creepy than the print version for all of the reasons I just said; it's a lot more visible how crazy the woman is going. Likewise, by showing the woman without the bias of reading her own writing, my interpretation of the story changed because I felt less empathy for her. In the print version, it's way more evident that she feels trapped and contained, and that's what's making her go insane, but the film version loses some of that, and I lose some of my empathy for her.
ReplyDeleteOften times the book is said to be better than the movie. It can be said that there are things both gained and lost by the film adaption. A visual aid is gained, and with that the viewer sees more effect and how things can be played out with a bit more drama added, versus how it may be played out in one's head. However, this may also be what is lost by the film. The film took away what the reader might have imagined how the end was played out, i.e facial expressions or emotion. The film added both of these and made an impact on the viewer. The film highlights the insanity more because at the end of the written version she seems peaceful, while in the movie her insanity can be seen by boarding up the doors rather viciously and a crazy look in her eyes, one of rage and hunger and instability. The film enhances the creepiness of the main character due to the visual aid it supplies. She has a reddened face and a crazed, yet calm expression that can only be disguised as mentally unstable. That feature seems to be common in films, and characters like that often are recognised as an important or impacting role. I imagined the character with messy hair and crazy eyes and a snarled mouth when I was reading. This was partially true minus the mouth. It added to my interpretation though because it left an impression of her face in my mind. The movie merely promoted my intepretation of the character.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCharlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” is the embodiment of the struggles faced by women in seeking freedom of thought. This theme is made apparent through the characterization of John (the protagonist’s husband), the thoughts and writing of Jane, and the environment in which she is placed. In my opinion, there are many elements of importance that are lost in the movie. The short story is significant in showing Charlotte’s more steady progression toward insanity. The narrator’s use of personification indicates her depressed state of mind. For example, in describing the wallpaper, she says the pattern “curves for a little distance [and then] they suddenly commit suicide…destroy themselves in unheard of contradictions.” This personification suggests that she fears harming herself, and projects those fears onto the wallpaper. The film, however, does not emphasize Charlotte’s eventual personality transition as her isolation in the room takes hold of her mind. In the film, Charlotte hardly speaks, so we have no insight into her thoughts (which the short story allowed us to have). If I had not read the short story, I would have been confused on what was happening. From spitting up her medicine, immediately ripping the wallpaper off the wall, and the destroyed bedroom, all of these events happened too quickly without any context. The only justice the film does is at the end when the “thing” behind the wallpaper is not only her shadow, but also a projected being of what she wishes it to be. It is the illusion of the protagonist’s shadow against the bars of the wallpaper’s pattern that drives her to complete insanity and eventually into believing she and the so-called women in the wallpaper have traded places. I personally thought the film version was creepy (mostly because of the woman portraying Charlotte who had creepy eyes). However, I also thought it was incredibly dramatic for a movie that had no plot. Seeing the film version did not affect my interpretation of the main character because the ending stayed to its truest form, the eventual understanding of the protagonist’s projection of an imaginary woman — which at first is merely her shadow — against the bars of the wallpaper’s pattern fragments her identity.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the short story and the film both tell the same story, they are both portrayed and perceived in different ways. They did not dramatically contrast each other, but the short story allowed for a film in the readers head, where the film just showed another readers perception of the story. Reading the story before watching the film is definitely a suggestion that I'd give as it allows the reader to give their own input on how they perceived the story and the characters and how they acted. In the end of the story, the woman is seen as more at peace with herself, where in the film she almost seems somewhat possessed and frightening. The story also further emphasizes the role of the wallpaper and the true meaning behind the wallpaper. On top of that it gives the reader a better understanding on why the wallpaper is what it is. All of this is more unclear in the film as it doesn't allow you to use your imagination, but just lays out the story and gives you more of a "this is how it is" sort of feel to it. All in all, I would rather read the story than watch the film.
ReplyDeleteI felt as though through watching the film, things weren't necessarily gained, but they really enhanced the short story. I felt like the film took away didn't portray the story as accurately as it should have. I only really noticed the wallpaper when she was ripping it off the wall, but even then, I was distracted by everything else that was going on. If one hadn't read the short story and had only seen the film, the message could have been interpreted as just a girl going crazy, which is true in a sense, but the short story really emphasized her self image and even how she appeared to others. In the short story, the wallpaper could have represented many things, some being that the wallpaper, as torn up and crappy as it was, represented how people saw her. She was torn up inside after having her child and people could easily tell. Yet as the story continued and she saw a woman in the wallpaper and then later called it herself, the reader gets a clear answer that the wallpaper represented her. She knew it, she related to it, she grew protective over it which was what she was doing with herself as well. The film completely blew by that message and kind of hit it but not enough to give you a sense of assurance. I think that the film showed her insanity in a more abrupt way as opposed to the story. The story was detailed and done in such a way that we watched the character grow to become insane. I'd say the story enhances her insanity more. The story was a first person account but the film was an interpretation of what other people saw which changed my interpretation of her. I didn't feel as bad for her and felt like it was a good thing for her husband to put her in there. However, I prefer the short story because it gave me more room to feel for her.
ReplyDeleteI feel like the film version of the story enabled me to see just how mentally broken she was. While reading, I was more focused on her description of the wallpaper, and not her state of health. We really were able to see the physical strain it put on her, and the film also gave us the opportunity to witness the "women" that lives within the wallpaper basically taking over her body. The ending in the film was creepier to me, because she became practically possessed, which is not what I pictured while reading. I pictured that she would just be angry, and maybe even proud of herself for freeing the woman. Watching the film didn't impact my view on the main character, because she was still the mentally sick and mentally disturbed women I had read about. Although the ending wasn't what I pictured, my interpretation of the rest of the short story matched the film's.
ReplyDeleteIn the film clip of "The Yellow Wallpaper", there are some things that can be both gained and lost. One thing I personally felt was lost was the creepiness of the story. In the written version, Gillman uses quotes such as, "Up and down and sideways they crawl, and those absurd, unblinking eyes everywhere (3)." and "...they suddenly commit suicide--plunge off at outrageous angles, destroy themselves in unheard of contradictions (2)" that help develop the story and show how twisted this lady really is. Quotes such as those were part of the journal of the main character, thus, what was written down was her thoughts. That alone is a huge red flag that this lady is going through some type of mid-life crisis and shows how increasingly insane she is becoming. The film version on the other hand did have a dim grimness to it, but over all, it was just weird and not that creepy. The film used dialog. The rest of the details of the story were to be seen by the eye and that was why the creepiness of the original story was deteriorated. When reading details such as those in the written version, you picture those things in a more dramatic way, especially with the plot of this story. Comparing what was in my mind to the film let me down because the written version rubbed off an intense amount of creepiness. Although I did not favor the film clip, it did give me an alternative interpretation of the story, separate from my mind, as well as a different visual of some of the details of the room such as the nailed down bed and of course, that infamous yellow wallpaper, even though they weren't that favorable. Another reason why I enjoyed the written version of "The Yellow Wallpaper" more than the film clip was due to the fact that it emphasized the main character's instability and insanity more accurately. This was interpreted through the woman's obsession with the yellow wallpaper. First she hated it, then she became fascinated and protective of it. This was brought upon the reader in a very tedious and annoying way, but it helped get the point across. You got to progressively see her, her thoughts and obsession develop which is what made the story gain points on this end. Seeing the film didn't affect my interpretation of the main character, but it did allow me to understand the ending of the story better. This was especially enhanced when Charlotte crawled over her husband John after he fainted. Over all, I knew she was crazy. If anything, it elucidated that more.
ReplyDeleteNikki Ehmann
ReplyDeleteI thought a great deal was lost in the film adaptation of The Yellow Wallpaper. Due to the fact that it was projected from a third person perspective, we lost the thought and imagination that came with the literature. We obviously couldn’t see what Charlotte was thinking, but because the short story described it, we could conjure an image in our heads. However, I do think that the film version illustrated her insanity more because the writing was from her perspective, and therefore it was normal. She didn’t know she was insane, so the extent of her mental instability couldn’t really be pulled from the story like the physical image from the movie. Thereby, it made it even creepier, as it was in great contrast to what I had pictured in my mind. By watching the film version, it did alter my initial interpretation of the ending to the story. The writing had been a bit confusing, so the movie did assist in clarifying what actually was happening; just lacking in what hadn’t really happened but in Charlotte’s head.
Seeing the wallpaper in the movie definitrly diminishes the demented effect of it and the more abstract view of what the wallpaper really was in the story. The movie does add a more dramatic effect with the switching between her ripping the wallpaper down and him giving a speech. The cheesy special effects also created a differenct experience from the story. The movie can portray her insanity better becasue we are able to see the way she speaks as well as her facial expressions. In the movie we are better equiped to see how she is feeling. The movie version makes the story even creepier because we are able to see what she looks like after the breaking point and we are able to see the "woman in the wall" but at the same time the written story allows our imaginations to fill us in on how each character looks and the level of creepiness in the story. Seeing the movie changed my opinion of the main character because I could see her expressions after she went totally insane. In the readings I saw her as being more calm, in my mind the main character changed from the readings to the movie.
ReplyDeleteThe film version has its advantages, but also took away from some great parts of the story. The film depicted the scene in a scarier way and exaggerated the events. The women at the end was over done which worked for the shock effect but took away the mysteriousness that the written story kept. I think that the movie highlighted her insanity far more, but almost out of control. Being insane is a completely realistic horror, but being the twitchy, demonic sort of insane is very cliché and only happens in movies. The written version was more generalized and less explicit in the ending. We could assume that it is ending in a number of ways because we were left with the man fainting and the women being left to her own devices. The movie makes us assume she did something crazy to his body when left in the room with him. I still kept my opinion to the story version because I found her character to be better outlined.
ReplyDelete1. the wallpaper and the exact pattern of it is gained in the film, however, the deep connection she feels to the wallpaper is somewhat lost. Also, the film doesn't seem as personal as the short story and there were acouple things added to the movie, such as the part when her husband is giving a speech and she is shown ripping down the wallpaper at the same time as he gives his speech regarding medicine.
ReplyDelete2. The film seems to highlight the main characters insanity more, because they can show the strange way she behaves and how she talks clearer than it is possible to do so in a story. In the story the way she talks is left up to the reader's imagination while in the film it is shown that she talks in an eerie monotone sort of way, and doesn't make eye contact with the person she is communicating with.
3. The film enhances the creepiness of teh original story because you can see the faces she makes and the way she moves and acts and talks. This is especially evident when she is crawling on the floor and her husband walks in and faints. That to me was the creepiest part of the sotry, and it was even creepier on a screen.
4. Seeing the film changed my interpretation of the main character and the ending of tbhe story by actually seeing the events unfold, rather than just imagining what was going on. The, to me, showed the main character's craziness and what happened in the story more clearly. for instance, when the person she saw in the story came out of the wall and she sort of turned into her, it was more clear in the film than the story.
I think the story is very intresting. It goes into depth of a womens point of view. It also shows how women were misdiagnosed and their treatment was to "rest". I like the main character because she shows how a women with a writers mind can not be cooped up because it will drive a person mad. I saw how in both the movie and story they describe how she became the women trapped in the wall paper and is finally free at last. I loved how the movie showed her in a yellow dress representing the wall paper from the story. I found aspects of Jungs Studies of Power and the aspect on how women write.
ReplyDeleteKayli Zeluff:
ReplyDelete1. I felt as thought the real emotion was lost in the film adaptation. Yes, the actress did a fantastic job attempting to portray how the character was feeling but personally I thought the written version was better since I felt as though I was experiencing the emotions myself.
2. I think the written version highlighted the characters insanity better than the film. As said in the pervious answer, I could relate better while reading the story than watching the film. I can always get into the situation better while reading it than I can when I'm watching it. Although the actress did a good job portraying the situation I liked the written version better since I could imagine it myself.
3. I think the film enhanced the creepy and disturbing parts of the story. While reading I can only imagine things that I have seen in other movies so seeing the way the director thought it should be was interesting.
4. Seeing the film didn't change anything for me. I enjoyed both the written story and the movie. They were very similar although I liked the story better than the film since i could interpret things in my own way.
After reading the story and seeing the film I feel that the film lacked some of the details that the story really got into. I like that both the story and the film do a good job of getting the authors point of veiw down while also helping to create an interesting story. I think that the story version does a better job of explaining the authors point of view. I think that the film helps to enhance the creepyness of it because it shows her going crazy, and the things she was feeling. Overall the film and the story help to create the main character, and how women were viewed during that time that were going through.
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing the movie, knowing how the story is written, I was a bit confused at times while watching the film. The movie was dramatic but it was hard to keep up with what was happening because each scene and situation moved along so quickly. I feel like some details were lost in the film that were in the book and vice versa with the books and how some details were always identified in the film.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the actors did a well job portraying the insanity that was being expressed within the story. I think despite some ill feelings towards the movie's storyline, I think the emotion of the dramatized personal account was great! It captured the viewers into being a part of the experience in the depths of the mind- especially coming from a woman's point of view
I think the film adaption of the story takes away from the creepy aspects of the written version. I think the film version also takes away from the main charactes insanity. The written version gives of a much more uncomfortable feeling and it really lets the audience see into the speakers head.The movie version only lets the audience see her insanity from the outside. The original creepy effect in the story was taken away in the film version. The written version was so much more descriptive, even though it became boring to read at some parts. The movie adaptation made me appreciate the written version more. Before I watched the movie I thought the story was kind of boring and I didn't really like it. After watching the movie I began to realize how creepy and weird the origianl version was. For me, seeing the movie made the reading better.
ReplyDelete1. From the film version I gained a more definite sense of a specific person's interpretation of insanity. It was clear in the film that this woman had lost her marbles and was completely alienated from the world around her. However, I preferred the original story. I felt as if I were personally losing touch with reality, and obsessing over this wallpaper.
ReplyDelete2. I think that the written story enhances the insanity of the main character more effectively. I felt as if the film portrayed a woman losing her mind, whereas reading the story I could better understand the definite decompensation of her mental stability, and why she was losing it, and how she felt about it. It was clearer in the story that her becoming the woman in the wall paper was simply a projection of her deranged mind.
3. The movie was creepier simply because there was the mystery of viewing the situation as an outsider. While reading the story it was always clear what was running through her head, but in the movie this wasn't the case.
4. My interpretation of the ending was that the wallpaper woman was a manifestation of her insanity coming to a head. That it was all in her mind. However, in the movie version it almost seemed as if the woman were an actual being, that the character actually physically became the wallpaper woman, rather than simply being mentally overtaken by the wallpaper.
I enjoyed the movie, but I but the reading was much more enjoyable because I could picture it all so vividly. The wallpaper in the movie was so not how I pictured it.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s “The Yellow Wallpaper” really expresses the struggle of a woman suffering from a mental illness that was not being treated properly. Throughout the story the woman is seeking freedom from her thoughts. The thoughts and writing of Jane, and the environment in which she is placed are portrayed well in the film but other aspects of the story are lost in the films interpretation. The short story really allows us, the readers, to be in the characters mind and understand her thoughts and in my opinion that was a major aspect that was lost. The actress in the film adaption did a good job portraying the characters mental instability and definitely kept the creepy feel of the story. Through Gilman’s writing I feel I had more of a connection to the character and in a way I felt bad for her because she was not only literally trapped in a room but she was mentally trapped in her own mind in fear of other people seeing how crazy she really was or how insane she felt she was. The woman she saw in the wallpaper represented her being trapped and I thought that the films adaption made it difficult to take seriously because the computer graphics were too literal and not done well. Perhaps if the film had chosen a different route to portray the woman in the wallpaper its impact would have made that aspect more impactful. Film adaptions leave a lot of little details out because of difficulties and such but I believe that in this story those little details were far too significant to skip over and dismiss for the film adaption. Over all I would have to say the short story portrayed the character much better than the film. The film did not change my interpretation of the character from the story, I don’t think that the film did the character justice in the end.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in the film adaptation of "the Yellow Wallpaper" that we lose our knowledge as to how mentally unstable is. Although we see here acting crazy we cannot hear what she was thinking like we could in the short story. The short story provides with a lot of insightful details that i thought were left out of the film adaptation, which is usually the case. I did like that the film adaptation gave you a visual aid and you could see how crazy she was after tearing down all the wallpaper.
ReplyDeleteI think that the film adaptation of the story did somewhat take away from it because films are quite frequently not able to capture the same emotions and feelings from the viewer as they would if the person were to have read the story. When a story is read, people are able to imagine what the characters look like, what they are doing and, in this case, what the awful wallpaper looks like. The insanity of the protagonist is definitely more fluent in the written version, which also makes this version more creepy and disturbing. While reading it, one takes notice of how much the wallpaper is affecting Jane. At the beginning of the story she is barely bothered by it, but by the end she is tearing it down like a lunatic because she cannot stand the sight of it. I do not think that seeing the film affected my interpretation of Jane, I just think that movies are not always a good substitute for books, and this film was no exception.
ReplyDelete