Hunters in the Snow, Motion Picture Style

I liked this story, and I feel that it would make a fairly decent movie. My only fear is that people will think that I'm trying to make a live-action version of South Park. Between the wintery setting and the "Oh my God, they killed Kenny!" I'm sure that at least some people might try to draw the connection. On second thought, I think I'll work that line in there somewhere.

Plot!
Well, the thing about plot for a short story is that there just might not be enough of it. The average movie is around two hours long, which honestly is about half the time it took me to read this story once. We can't have people throwing down $9.50 for a movie that is going to last twenty minutes, now. Naturally, we'll need to beef up the story. All the major events should definitely stay in there, but I think it might help to have some back story. Start the story back a ways, show Tub during his daily life alone, and also focus on Kenny and Frank before they all actually meet together for the hunting trip. I think it would be helpful to reveal to the audience to reveal the vices of Frank and Tub early on so that we can see the effect that it really plays on their character. It will add some situational irony in there if we are aware of both of their vices before they ever actually reveal them to his friend. And hey, irony just makes any movie more entertaining.

Setting?
No, you have to keep this the same. This is called "Hunters in the Snow." It is not going to work in downtown Los Angeles, or the quiet suburbs of New Hampshire. Although here's an interesting idea: start the movie off in the city, or at least a somewhat modernized area. It'll show how everyone started off perfectly civilized in their own lives. But then, as the story progresses, I think it would be cool to have them moving off, farther away from this sense of civilization, moving out into the wild, until the final scene when they're driving down a deserted road lined by nothing but snow-covered trees. I feel that this would really reinforce and illustrate the theme of a fall from humanity to animality. Actually, I'm not entirely sure that's a word. I'm pretty sure it's a Mortal Kombat thing....

PointofView#
Well, the point of view may need to be tweaked. In order to make my changes to plot, the camera is simply going to have to leave Tub for a little while. In order to develop the characters of Kenny and Frank, particularly before they ever even meet up with Tub, it is going to be mandatory to split the point of view between the three of them. However, there are some things that just shouldn't be revealed. Most notable of all, I think, is probably Kenny's conversation with the elderly fellow in the house, concerning the shooting of his dog. I think that should probably remain a secret to the audience until it is revealed at the same point in the plot as it was in the story. That suddenly revelation of Kenny's true intentions is dramatic, intriguing, and central to the story as a whole, and thus should definitely not be altered.

@Characterization
Adding the many scenes at the beginning of the film, long before the main characters ever meet, should definitely help bring about the characterization of not only Frank, Tub, and Kenny, but of the many other minor characters mentioned in the story but not explicitly introduced. The interactions between Tub, Frank, and their respective wives and families, will certainly help to paint a better picture of who their characters are. In the story itself, not much is revealed about the characters, but through back story, it should be possible to round out the characters and make them seem more real. The characterization itself should serve to show how the characters begin as civilized and compassionate human beings, thus making the descent into animalistic behavior all the more dramatic and prominent.


Naturally, because I am such a fantastic movie maker, all of the changes I have added thus far should make the theme much more prevalent in the story. The theme in question, naturally is the descent from being like humans to being like animals. Frankly, I feel that it will be much easier to understand how the characters interact with each other through a deeper understanding of who they are before they ever enter the wild. Thus, this will help depict three men who are perfectly sane and functional members of society. The movie can make it much more blatant that the people are gradually losing their humanity as the story progresses. It's far easier to visualize two men leaving their friend to bleed to death in the cold when it's right up there on the silver screen than it is to do so when reading a short story. The theme will be much more prominent simply due to the fact that it is a movie. Sometimes, it is just easier to portray something like a loss of humanity through visual, non-verbal body language than it is through the written word.

Behold the Horror

Minority Report - Video Style

I shall start with a list of things that the movie Minority Report has in common with its short story counterpart: the names John Anderton and Danny Witwer, the general premise of Precrime, and...no wait, actually that's it. Everything else was different. No, really, everything.

Plot
Well, the plot starts out almost the same. John Anderton, the dashing protagonist (though in the story he was actually a fat bald man), gives a quick introduction to the innerworkings of the Precrime process, which is mostly the same. The only real difference is that the precogs have visions, and the police interpret these visions which are captured on video, whereas in the story, the precogs merely mumbled incoherent nonsense, and computers interpreted the audio. The whole Army failsafe concept was scrapped for the alternative of having a chief justice of the supreme court and a doctor overlook the investigation process. However, John Anderton naturally realizes that he has been pegged for futuremurder and takes off running. He is not kidnapped by the army. However, he is attacked by police officers on jetpacks, which was certainly an intriguing chase scene. Another notable difference is that Anderton is not actually the creator of Precrime, but is rather just an officer, so he hunts down the real creator, and is...attacked by plants....Yeah. The lovely lady tells him that he must kidnap the precog Agatha in order to find his Minority Report. However, other than serving as the impetus for the kidnapping, the minority report serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever in the story. Yes, that is correct. John Anderton, after undergoing ocular surgery and being attacked by robotic spiders (yeah) then kidnaps Agatha only to discover that he does not even have a minority report. The title of the movie is then not mentioned at all for the rest of the film. That's the biggest difference, really, the minority report doesn't even do anything or mean anything at all. Oh, there is also a complete and utter difference in the intention of the main character. After accidentally killing the man he was supposed to kill, Anderton realizes that he has been set up (there's another difference, by the way, movie-Anderton only tried to arrest his victim but the man forced him to shoot him, whereas story-Anderton shot his victim intentionally). By the end of the story, however movie-Anderton and story-Anderton are completely different. Movie-Anderton sets out to discredit and destroy Precrime by proving that the Director, the one who set him up, murdered in order to get the precogs. Story-Anderton, however, murders a man in order to keep Precrime functioning. One attempts to destroy it, while the other tries to save it.

Point of View
The Point of View is slightly different in the movie. In the story, Anderton was the sole focus; we were only able to see the story and the other characters through his eyes. However, in the movie, the focus is primarily on Anderton, but we also get to see some other people. There are several scenes in which Anderton is not even present, such as with the director Lamar Burgess and the investigator Witwer. Spoiler Alert, Witwer gets shot. This scene is particularly important because now we can see that the true villain is not Witwer, who was the original object of our suspicion, but is actually Burgess. Wowza kapowza! But we didn't get Anderton's take on this scene, because he wasn't even aware it happened. The focus is less on Anderton and how his realizations drive the plot and more on how the audience is directly shown what's happening. Also, by the end of the movie, Anderton disappears completely for almost 15 minutes, and the audience is not able to see how he pieces together all of his evidence to get a clear understanding of what's happening. Suddenly he just appears, and the audience is like "what the heck's going on?" and Anderton's like "don't worry, everyone, I'm fixin' to explain it to y'all in this very convenient monologue." His rap-up speech at the end sort of reminded me of the end of a Scooby-Doo episode where The Gang, after apprehending the criminal, explains how they arrived at their realization to the audience, because children are not very good at unraveling mysteries, apparently. So basically, the difference is that rather than getting Anderton's realizations in real-time as the plot advances, we get a quick summary all at the very end.

Setting
The setting is virtually the same between the two. Naturally, because the movie is...y'know...visual, we are able to get a pretty vivid idea of what the setting looks like. Apparently all cars run on autopilot and can drive up walls, which is kind of cool. However, the setting isn't really all that important, other than just looking nice and acting as a decent excuse to throw together some ridiculous special effects. Just like how it was in the story, the setting only matters in that it allows the concept of Precrime to exist. The story is in the future, hey, that's a perfect place for something as futuristic-looking as Precrime to exist. Other than that, nothing really mattered. Oh, the movie took place in Washington D.C., while the short story took place in Chicago. That's...pertinent somehow, I'm sure.

Characterization
The main character is still John Anderton, and he is still characterized fairly indirectly. Other than the fact that the two characters are completely different, they are essentially characterized in the same way. We are only able to discern who Anderton is through his interactions with others and how we observe his actions. However, the other characters are characterized in a completely different fashion from how they were in the story. In the story, John Anderton told us exactly what to think about everyone. Woah, I don't trust that guy, and you shouldn't either! Hey, don't worry, this guy will take care of me. Hey you, you're strangling my wife, and I don't approve! We don't get this in the movie, really. We aren't able to hear Anderton's thoughts, so we can't really tell exactly how Anderton feels about anyone, other than through actions with them. All of the people are essentially characterized indirectly, and we no longer have Anderton's opinions and views telling us who to trust and who to suspect.

Theme
However, through all of the many differences betwixt the story and the film, the theme essentially holds the same. In my last post, dear reader, I spoke of a theme of the dangers of having an army in times of peace. Forget that, the army is not even mentioned in the movie. However, there is still the question of free will. In the film, the question of free will is even more blatantly shouted out at the audience. When John Anderton is hunting down Leo Crow, the man who he is supposed to kill, Agatha directly urges him not to continue searching for him, stating that he still has a choice to just walk away from the hotel and not murder Crow. However, he ends up heading into the hotel anyway, which starts to make us wonder "hey, maybe he didn't have a choice after all." And then John pulls the gun on Crow, and we start to say "Oh hey, I guess he really couldn't choose not to kill him." And then he starts reading him his Miranda Rights, and we say "Hey wait, I was promised bloodshed!" So in the end, it appears that Mr. Anderton wound up having the ability to choose after all, which makes us feel happy! But then Crow forces Anderton to shoot him, and we start to ask "Wait...so Anderton had free will, but it didn't actually matter...so does free will matter at all?" Well that's a whole new can of worms, m'friend. All's I know is that Tom Cruise is insane.

No, you're getting a Porsche, Oprah! Surprise!

You're Ugly, Too

Now see, this story was funny. Zoë reminds me a bit of that one kid in every class who is always extremely quiet, but if one listens hard enough, one might find that they happen to utter hilariously witty comments under their breath.

The fun thing about this story is that it essentially has no plot at all. There is not really much of a conflict or a progression of events. Rather, it's just a story about a really really really interesting character. So rather than discuss events, let's talk about Zoë. Zoë is an extremely sarcastic and cynical lady. She communicates primarily through jokes and biting sarcastic statements that are generally a little awkward to those in the immediate area. However, Zoë also seems to have a bit of a problem with turning off her humor or realizing when the joke has gone too far. When talking with her students, she often ends up making comments that are unprofessional, inappropriate, and borderline offensive to them. Likewise, at the end of the story, after thoroughly confusing Earl with her many jokes, lies, and random anecdotes, she takes the joke just a wee bit too far and pretends to shove him off the balcony, giving him quite a start indeed.

A big question that I had whilst reading was simply is Zoë just eccentric, or is she nuts? I could go either way really. The baggie deal could have simply been an anal-retentive organization method, or it could be a sign at obsessive compulsive disorder. The same goes for the Bruce Springsteen rug, and how she ultimately convinced herself beyond a shadow of a doubt and got rid of the rug. Also, when both Evan and Earl bring up the topic of love, rather than giving a serious opinion, she breaks off into a story where the main character ends up putting a bullet in the brain. This could be either a sign of being jaded by the idea of love, or maybe she's severely depressed. Furthermore, she also has a tendency of misjudging the environment around her and telling jokes that are not at all appropriate for the situation, like when she tells the story comparing the wife to a fairly intelligent labrador. Her inability to handle social situations well could just be her own awkward personality, or even a sign of autism. So who knows, really? There's not enough evidence to definitively say one way or the other.

Personally, though, I just think she's weird. And lonely.

Who needs men, anyway? Zoë would make a fantastic Crazy Cat Lady.

The Drunkard

I did not find this story to be humorous. I could recognize the irony of the situation, the reversal of expectation, the image of the cute little boy staggering home and swearing loudly at the neighbors, but personally I was just utterly unable to derive any amusement from any of those things. It might possibly have a bit to do with the subject matter, who knows. Tom Hanks stuck in a dry cleaning bag is funny, but this was not.

He gets out eventually.

I'll go ahead and analyze those things anyway, despite their unfunny nature. There's a bit of irony here. The son refers to himself as a "brake," or as something that is supposed to stop the father from drinking. So the audience expects little Larry to pull off some guilt trip, maybe cry a little, in order to get Daddy home sober. What actually ends up happening, however, is that Larry ends up drinking off Daddy's lager and bashes his skull into the wall. Hohoho, doesn't that just tickle the funny bone? However, through his severely intoxicated actions, he actually manages to keep his father from drinking. Kudos, Larry. It is particularly noteworthy to state that his previous efforts of attempting to divert Daddy away from the pub ultimately failed, so it makes it even more ironic that getting drunk would actually end up being the solution to his problems. There is of course, the reversal of expectation in that the reader expects Daddy to get plastered, but in fact, it is Larry who ends up a'stumbling home. Hohoho, I just taste the hilarity. The best, most hilariousest part of all, however, happens to be in that last little paragraph when Mother calls Larry his Father's guardian angel and implying that it was God's will that he get so severely intoxicated. One would expect Mother to be outraged that her precious little boy is drunk and bleeding profusely from the head, but rather she views it as divine intervention and pretty much the grandest thing since sliced bread. Hohoho, I must struggle to fight back the tears of laughter.

Serious dog and I have a lot in common.

The Lottery

I shall now use math to settle the debate on probability that arose in class today. The issue was brought up that the people who drew first obviously would have a better chance of surviving, as they are drawing from a larger pool. This idea of course comes from the classic draw-a-card-and-don't-replace-it-in-the-deck probability problem that we have all enjoyed in our high school math classes. You draw a card, and it's a heart. If you do not replace the card, what is the probability of drawing another heart? This problem does not apply to the situation at all. The case of the Lottery is more applicable to this scenario. I draw a card. I do not look at the card. I draw a second card. I do not look at the card. What is the probability that either card is the three of diamonds? Both cards have an even chance, one out of fifty-two, of being the three of diamonds. Because the people in the story do not look at their slips of paper until the very end, the probability is constant throughout the drawing. If they had replaced the black dot system with a deck of cards, and there were 52 families, even though everyone draws and does not replace, every family would have an equal probability of drawing the three of diamonds. This is completely irrelevant, but it was bugging me.

My logic is sound.

Ahem. Enough math. Question 4: what is the significance of the fact that the original box has been lost and many parts of the ritual have been forgotten? Can I find a statement in the story that most likely explains the original purpose of the ritual? Darn Tootin' I can.

The town has pretty much forgotten what this tradition is about. All of the traditional aspects of the process have been forgotten. The original box is long gone and replaced, the villagers write on slips of paper rather than woodchips, but most importantly of all, the original purpose of the lottery has been forgotten. Only Old Man Warner (Warnah) makes reference to the beginnings of the ritual on page 268: "Used to be a saying about 'Lottery in June, corn be heavy soon.' " It appears that the lottery first began as a process of selecting a victim for what appears to be a human tribal sacrifice in order to ensure a bountiful harvest. But it appears that many many years have passed on, and the focus on the funeral is not to make the corn heavy, but rather to simply follow through with the old tradition. The loss of the original box and rituals shows the degeneration from purposeful, while barbaric, to merely following tradition for the sake of tradition.

Christmas trees were originally dedicated to Odin and were decorated with the carcasses of nine animals. Merry Christmas.

Popular Mechanics

The title of this short story is "Popular Mechanics," which is easily the worst title I've ever heard. The original title, apparently, was "Mine." That is a much better title. Popular Mechanics is already a thing Mr. Carver.

"How to Build a Flying Car." What could go wrong?

I suppose I'd best put on my serious hat and start some hardcore analysis on this lovely tale. I will be tackling question 4 with this here blog post, Why is this couple splitting up? Do we know? Does it matter? Explain in my response. Okay, I will.

We have no idea why the couple is splitting up. We know nothing of their relationship except that they have decided to end it, and they also happen to have a wee little baby together. There is no possible way that we can know what has caused them to sever their ties, and frankly, we are not supposed to know. Usually when things are kept vague in literature, there's a pretty good reason. In this case, the ambiguity is used to make the situation more universal and applicable to more situations. Y'see kids, this short story is a commentary on divorce itself. If the couple has a specific reason for splitting up, then it becomes less universal. If the couple breaks up because one of them cheated, then the story becomes less about divorce and more about infidelity, and that's a whole new can of worms. By keeping the reason vague, it is able to serve as a commentary on every divorce and the impact that it has on the children.

I find this to be in bad taste. Deliciously bad taste.