Over the Pancakes

PLOT: In the short story, the plot begins in medias res. In the movie version, I think that it needs to start prior to the actual hunting day. There needs to be more development of the characters before Tub shoots Kenny. Instead of beginning the film right before the truck picks up Kenny, it needs to begin maybe the morning of with Tub getting ready and eating. He can drive to the meeting spot while scarfing down junk food. And when he finally did get into the truck with his friends, he could eat an orange and complain about his "healthy" breakfast. This would be a foreshadowing to Tub's later confession to Frank about his eating habits. In general, there needs to be more action in the movie. There are only around four scenes in the short story. I think in the hunting scene, Tub needs to have flashbacks to when he and Frank were better friends. This will give the audience a better understanding of the change in their relationship, while also adding length to the plot.

POINT OF VIEW: The point of view probably would not change. In the story, the narrator is omniscient. In the movie, there would be no narrator, just action. The narrator in this story played no role except to tell what was happening, which is obviously important. The description: "Squares of light from farmhouse windows fell onto the blue snow" would have to be shown, not said. The ending would also have to take a much different approach. Instead of just saying that the men took a different turn, the film would have to somehow show it. Not having a narrator will definitely have an effect on the work, but it will not change the overall meaning of it.

CHARACTERIZATION: Characterization will have the biggest change of all the elements. Tub, Frank, and Kenny all need to be more developed. The audience needs to see the relationship between Frank and the babysitter and even his wife. And like mentioned before, we need to see Tub's struggle with food. Finally, Kenny needs to be more portrayed as the "evil" character who stole Frank away from Tub. This could be done through flashbacks of Frank's. Every time Kenny makes fun of Tub, Frank could think back to a time where he and Tub were better friends, ignoring Kenny. Adding details to the characters will create a better ending. The less sympathetic the audience is towards Kenny, and the more sympathetic the audience is towards Tub and Frank--the ending will seem more like sweet revenge, not a worry.

SETTING: The setting of the short story is perfect for the movie. But for the new scenes, for example, Tub's house, needs to be extremely modest to the poor side. His house needs to be unkempt with takeout and food wrappers all over the floor. This will help Tub become a more sympathetic character, because it will portray him as lonely.

I envision the time setting for this film to be in the nineteen seventies in a town similar to Martinsville. Because it is in the 1970s, there are no cell phones. They couldn't have just called up an ambulance. (Although they could have at the coffee shop.. )

THEME: The theme in the short story is the self-absorbency, but in the film I think the theme should be friendship. This needs to be about Tub and Frank "falling back into love", not romantic love, but friend love. Instead of viewing the scene where Frank and Tub confess their addictions to each other (Tub with food and Frank with the babysitter) as Frank enabling Tub for his own selfish reasons, the audience will see it the two men accepting each other for who they really are. This changes the actual meaning of the work. It will turn the film into a more "feel good" movie, despite the weird ending. The reunion of Frank and Tub will allow the movie to end eerily, because the attention of the audience will be of the other two men. The last scene will not even show Kenny. There will be a sign that shows which way the hospital is, and their truck will pass the stop. The camera will move in on Tub and Frank, laughing together and then zoom out to a long road into nothingness.

I never had any friends later on like the ones I had when I was twelve. Jesus, does anyone?

PLOT: The movie Stand by Me stayed true to The Body. However, the pace of the story changed dramatically. Gordie only narrates through some of the story, so it seemed to go quicker. For example, the beginning scene in the movie shows Vern running towards the club house with his news and the rest of the crew playing cards. The narration does not get in the way of Vern revealing his secret. Even through the journey to see the dead body, their path is shortened. The creek in the movie was used as a short cut, instead of just a relaxing swim. They also did not include the ending, where the four boys were beaten up by the older boys. I can't help but think that these details were not included to help make it a more "kid-friendly" film. Although they used the "F" word a few times, it was much less than in the story.

POINT OF VIEW: The movie is still narrated by an adult Gordie, but he only interrupts a few times. So it is still in first person point of view. Because most of the story was shown, not told, it was much easier to follow and understand. Gordie's story about Chico in Stud City was not included, which took away from the relationship he shared with his family. But the story about Lard Ass, The Revenge of Lard Ass Hogan, was still included. This is probably because Lard Ass was actually told around the fire, but Stud City was only a part of the narration in the short story. It was also very inappropriate.

CHARACTERIZATION: First of all, in the story, Teddy's hair was long enough to hide his deformed ear, but it was obvious in the movie. I think this helped make Teddy a more sympathetic character. In the story, I kind of forgot about his family history, but in the movie, his ear never let anyone forget who his dad was.

Also, the relationship between Gordie and Dennis was dramatically different between the film and the story. In the film, Gordie says he didn't cry at all at the funeral, but he was much closer to Denny when he was alive. In the story, "[he] cried when [he] heard, and [he] cried more at the funeral" (page 298), but he really just felt disconnected to Dennis while he was alive. But it is much easier to sympathize for a character if he actually misses his dead brother.. and Hollywood only wants to draw in people.

SETTING: The biggest difference in the setting between the movie and story was Maine versus Oregon. I really don' t understand why they had to make this change, other than the fact that Oregon is more rural than Maine, which actually fits the plot better, I think. Stephen King was from Maine, so I think that is why he based some of his stories there. I read that the film was actually set in 1959, and the movie in 1960, but no where in the movie was this mentioned. Either way, it had no real impact of the movie. The time is really important to maintain what the story is really about. Gordie and Chris "grew up" on the journey to see the dead body in ways I couldn't have as a twelve year old. I would have been on the back of a milk carton by the time we reached the junkyard.

THEME: The theme definitely did not change from short story to film. It was still very much a coming to age story. However, Hollywood dramatized the ending quite a bit. Chris and Gordie shared a closer relationship in both the story and the film, but they didn't have the heartfelt conversation in the story that they had in the movie. But I think this change was actually important for the theme. It not only strengthened the relationship between Chris and Gordie, but it also helped in explaining the transformation that Gordie made in his relationship with his parents. This moment in the movie is where we actually see Gordie grow up. He finally understood that he really can't take into consideration what his parents thought of him. It is more awkward to get inside a character's head in a film than in a written piece, so this scene is a perfect way to reflect "coming of age".

spacey with estrogen

At first Zoe SORTA reminded me of Abby Koop (name used with permission). She's pretty hard to follow. Zoe and Abby are both very smart people.. She is a professor at a college and Abby is an AP student. But they both also know lots of random things.. Zoe "seems to know the entire sound track to The King and I" and Abby seems to know everything about Harry Potter. And they both tend to make awkward situations for themselves. So yeah.. Zoe is a strange character.

I think the biggest difference between Abby and Zoe is that Zoe is very bitter and sarcastic.
"I'm not married? Oh, my God... I forgot to get married." or after being asked if she is seeing anyone.. "I'm seeing my house... "
I think the narrator's dry tone adds to her strange personality. "She thought it was terribly, terribly funny."

Why does she know so many of these depressing stories? And why does she stop herself when she's talking to Evan about marriage, but not when she is talking to Earl about love? I mean.. I understand that she is weird.. but she was just plain mean to Earl. But then I guess he was mean back.. and he gets a little weird. Maybe they'd make a good couple.

his guardian angel

Irony in this story.

I think the ending might be dramatic irony.. The mom tucks the boy to bed and says "It was God did it you were there. You were his guardian angel." She doesn't know that Larry just drank the drink out of curiosity.. not out of protection. He didn't intentionally stop the father from drinking, but it worked.

But now that I'm thinking about it, I might be wrong. She says that "it was God did it you were there".. Maybe she is saying that God saved the father through the husband. It was like intervention from God through the angel(Larry). That might not be true.

Another ironic thing was simply that Larry got drunk and not the father. We all knew he was an alcoholic in the beginning of the story and that funerals set him off, so.. It was weird when the little boy actually ended up drunk.

It's fun to stay at the YMCA!

This story really makes me think about our society and social norms.
The only things I can think of that are sorta like this are capital punishment, abortion and gang stuff. But those things aren't really that much alike..

Then I was thinking about just weird things.. those weird tv shows like Hole in the Wall, Wipe Out... Now I am just on youtube watching a lot of pointless videos. I have to take this post somewhere else.

Maybe I can't really compare anything from this world to The Lottery, because everything I do is normal to me. The Lottery was normal to those villagers. Normal things don't usually change. We just accept things and don't question the reasons.

Here's a question: Why does the school year end at summer break? Why don't we get off like three months in the fall and then come back during January?

That's not really as extreme as stoning people to death.. or as Jesus-timeish.
When we don't question the way something is, then it just stays.

1981

Questionfive
Discuss the title of the story. The original title was "Mine". Which do you think is more effective?

I think the title "Popular Mechanics" is more effective as a title.. I'm guessing that the story is about divorce.
Sometimes in divorce parents will say.. "We're doing this for the kids.. they will be happier this way", but then they don't really even take the kids into consideration after that. I know a lot of my cousins come from divorced families, and this is true in their case. It's a constant battle over who gets the children until the children turn into adults and move out too soon. It really isn't a healthy environment to grow up in.
The author is criticizing parents who do this.. and usually they don't even know that they are. Each parent wants to win so bad, they forget who they are fighting for.
In this story, the mom and dad are so intense in their fight, they rip the baby apart and he dies! And that's basically what happens today too.. but the kids don't die.

"Mine" helps in understanding the irrational behavior of the parents.. like from Finding Nemo.. the seagulls all chirping "Mine! Mine! Mine!"..they took no consideration of any of the other birds or the fish. They just wanted one thing and didn't think about anything else.

"Popular Mechanics" actually tells the reader that the author is making fun of society and divorce.. and then the actual story describes the "Mine" thing.