Personally, I didn't like the movie very much. Since I had just read the book, the depictions of the characters didn't really fit with how I viewed them in my head, and I didn't think that they portrayed Tim O'Brien's characters very well. I thought that the movie could have been really confusing had I not known the format of the book. If the evidence and hypothesis sections weren't clearly explained in the book, I don't thin I would have been able to decipher the movie in the way that it was intended. I think it would have been hard to decipher what the movie was trying to say, if I didn't have the book as a reference point for what was supposed to be going on in the book. I think overall, I really liked the book, but I think that the story was best conveyed through writing and it just can't be as good in a movie form, especially given the format and style of the book.
I thought the video of In the Lake of the Woods was okay. It didn't exactly capture the novel as I envisioned it, but then again, it is difficult to find a movie that does. I thought Kathy wasn't at all who I had imagined she would be. In the movie, I felt a lot less sympathy for John than in the book. I felt more like Kathy should have just left him, and confused as to why she didn't. In the book I didn't have that feeling. I understood their relationship more. Obviously it's hard to capture the essence of a book, especially a book in that sort of contemporary style, in a movie in that amount of time. That being said, I thought they took an interesting approach to the novel, and the movie itself wasn't bad.
I liked the Movie version of in the lake of the woods, but it didn't quite have the same effect as the book did. The movie was a bit too visual to convey the feels and oddities that existed in the book. I thought the movie was very well shot though, the scenarios were very good and I noticed that John's clothes almost always matched with the background (not sure if thats anything important just an observation.)
The film version of In the Lake of the Woods did not completely correlate with what I pictured when reading the novel. I did not feel as emotionally connected to the characters in the movie as I did with John and Kathy in the novel. Also, I did not enjoy that the mysterious narrator was actually shown in the film. I think that this took away from the story because it didn't allow the audience to question the narrator's identity as the book did. Also, while the solution to Kathy Wade's disappearance was still somewhat unresolved in the film, I felt as though the filmmakers almost forced their interpretation of what happened to Kathy onto the audience. There was definitely less room for questioning in the film. Altogether, the film adaptation wasn't terrible, but in my opinion, should have left more of the mystery in.
The problem with the movie was that it honestly left nothing to wonder. In the book I would literally find myself angry because i couldn't predict the ending and how things would turn out for Mr. Way. However the movie, because it was a visual adaptation i could read, through expressions and things like that, what had actually happened. I believe this is a problem with many film adaptations. When the images in the head contrast with the images on the screen, its very hard to get into things.
Ok, so answering the question: It's hard to judge the movie without comparing it to the book. I also didn't see much of the movie, but I felt that the filming of it it was pretty good, and the scenes were well staged, but I thought that the characters were a little bit annoying. I didn't understand, just based on the movie why Kathy put up with John for so long, or why the characters did what they did for each other. I guess I didn't see enough of the movie to give a full response to the movie, but it wasn't something I really wanted to keep watching.
I personally felt more emotion watching the film adaptation of In the Lake of the Woods than reading the book. The film was mostly faithful to the novel, but the film was more atmospheric, I felt, due to the background music, the alternating scenes (similar to Fugitive Pieces), and the visual reactions of every character to the disappearance of John's wife. This was similarly done in the novel, except it was harder to understand due to the complexities within the story and at the same time, requiring the reader to visualize each situation through his/her own eyes.
I feel like I would like the movie if I hadn't read the book beforehand. The book's order of events seemed more appropriate than the movie's; it heightened the suspense more. Also, I didn't imagine Kathy like the actress, which is minor but still almost puts you off a little when you're seeing the movie. The evidence chapters were also much better than the interviews, they seemed much more fitting. I feel like they did a pretty good job in the adaptation, yet the book was still better. (The case with most film adaptations.)
I feel like this movie adaptation almost ruined the book,In the Lake of the Woods. It seemed really low-budget and, while some films can pull off being low-budget, this seemed more like a Lifetime Movie of the Week in comparison to the book. I feel like part of the charm of In the Lake of the Woods is that it is so modern in its writing and is extremely unique, and that's something that can't be captured in a movie. I also disliked how the film adaptation actually created an ending for the novel, because the book was more unique in the way that they left it up to the reader to decide what happened.
I personally loved that deeper meaning in the book. I enjoyed the motifs and the way Tim O'Brien made the main character think. Sadly, i hated the book though. I personally don't enjoy that type of...crazy, psycho murder mystery stuff. It's a little too frustrating. I don't like how the movie and book ended without the reader knowing what happens. Though i know that him writing the uncertainty in made it more suspenseful and interesting. I personally dont like that style but i can recognize his greatness for what it is. Hes a great writer...i just hate the style. Also, the movie seemed to drag on and on. The cinematography was awful. I give it a 4...Just because of the story. Didn't appreciate it and i think it was a major distraction from other work we/I could have been doing.
I didn't think this movie was terrible, but it was no comparison to the book. I agree with what Nahoma said. If I hadn't read the book before watching this I think I would be deeply confused. I don't think they emphasized how "creepy" John was in the begging of their relationship with his spying and everything. Not only that but how sincere his love was for Kathy. They needed more about vietnam because I feel like they just sort of threw it in there.
Like Molly I found myself not feeling as sympathetic for John in the movie than in the book. I don't know if that was done on purpose but I think it took away from the abiguity of all of it. If we atomatically don't like him then there isn't really that much possibility for us to wonder if her really did it. In the book I felt really bad for him, I wanted to believe that he didn't do it even though I was almost positive he did. I didn't think it was his fault, but in the movie he didn't really seem "mentally" out of place more just angry that he lost his election.
I didn't think the movie was terrible though. I thought it stayed pretty true to the book and that is a hard thing to do. It is a rare occasion when you enjoy the movie just as much as the book, but I think it was decent.
To me, the film adaptation of In the Lake of the Woods felt vague compared to the novel. It seemed to rely on the assumption that the audience had read the novel, and left out several important plot elements and hypotheses. It did a poor job in the way of development in any of the characters other than John, and even with him, major points were left out. While the novel was supposed to be ambiguous and open-ended in order to leave the conclusion up to the reader, the film warps the story to make it seem as though John murdered Kathy. Also, plot holes. Kathy's affair was mentioned, but never covered in detail. The marriage was shown to be falling apart, but the audience was not given any particular reason why, nor are they shown the strength of the bond between John and Kathy. The motifs that shaped the novel were mostly excluded. Basically, the film fell short.
I don't think In the Lake of the Woods lends itself well to the screen. Too much of the story depends on the thoughts and stream-of-consciousness musings of John and the mysterious, unnamed narrator. These kinds of things are hard to translate into the engaging action that most television programs and movies depend on. The dialogue is sparse and unimaginative. The action is repetitive--John mopes around, Kathy tries to talk to him, they argue, one or the other stalks off, John mopes around some more. The actors in the film adaptation overdo roles that are remarkable in the book for their subtlety and multi-layered complexity. The ambiguity of the book is not well-represented in the film. A viewer who had not previously read Tim O'Brien's novel would be confused by the different endings. The film leaves the viewer with the impression that John killed Kathy, because this is the last "hypothesis" sequence seen. This disrupts the kind of uncertainty that is carried out well in the novel. All in all, I would say there's a reason this was a made-for-television movie.
I wasn't a fan of the movie it was a little confusing and boring to me. The actors just weren't what I pictured in the book which took it away for me. The movie wasn't all that bad but the book was way better. It went from flashback to present flashback to present and after awhile you get lost but like the book you almost have to put the pieces together.
The movie made it easier for me to understand the flashbacks and changes between the different characters. However i didn't like the movie because I feel like it took away from what my mind had already built from the novel. The characteristics of the characters, the image of the cabin on the lake, and the way i portray John and Kathy on my own, in my mind, was different, in a disappointing way, in the movie. I think John killed Kathy because he felt like he needed to kill some one. Considering the fact that he didn't kill any one during the Mai lay massacre, and felt like he could have helped but didn't, he probably felt the need to kill some one and, the fact hat his wife and him were the only two bastards on the lake made it an easy choice for him. Also the symbol of the two snakes swallowing each other made me think that John and Kathy were not in love or devouring each other through love. I think they represent the pain and hurt in their relationship. They were swallowing each other and john couldn't take it any more so he killed her. She needed to die, they argued to much any way.
By Alicia Green I enjoyed the movie, the film answered some questions that I had and helped me to understand certain parts. The movie was very accurate from the novel, there were just a few parts that they either added or left out even some parts were different. I still do prefer the book much better, it gave me the imagery and visualization of the stories between kathy and John's relationship, It was very descriptive and thorough. I enjoyed both the film and novel of In the Lake of the Woods.
Well i pretty much agree with everyone else minus one or two. What made the book so interesting was the imagery and the language the author used so watching the movie made the story less appealing. Though the book was better as a result of it being more suspenseful when you leave out a certain amount of details the story lacks clarity. Though the movie was less suspenseful it clarified things in the novel that i didn't understand. 1 thought it was interesting that the book and the movie took a different approach to revealing the story however the book did it more effectively. The characters in the movie weren't what i imagined they would be i expected them to be a little older looking and Kathy to be less outspoken. If i had not read the book i think the movie would have been more enjoyable.
Especially in a TV-style, film won't be able to capture the personal-psychological narrative. O'Brien gets deep into the interior monologue of his characters, and, with limited dialogue, he told John Wade's story. Film has to be carried with dialogue, which hurt some of O'Brien's story. The film also gave more pronounced hints and examples of foreshadowing. In the show, it almost didn't feel finished, and not because of the less-than-obvious ending. The idea of interviewing minor characters without any true idea of a device for presenting the story didn't do the novel justice, I think
Honestly, with the parts of the movie that I did watch, I didn't like them. I really didn't envision any of the characters in my head as they were portrayed in the movie. Obviously the film script differed greatly from the book because it had to be adapted in order for viewers, who haven't read the book, to understand the book more clearly. Also the film didn't include as much detail and depth as the book did. This is expected because people just want to see action and a story unravel and not really have every single teeny weeny detail. Honestly, I believe that some books are great (such as In the Lake of the Woods, The Time Traveler's Wife) BUT even if they are great that does not necessarily mean that they should be converted into movies.
Personally, I didn't like the movie very much. Since I had just read the book, the depictions of the characters didn't really fit with how I viewed them in my head, and I didn't think that they portrayed Tim O'Brien's characters very well. I thought that the movie could have been really confusing had I not known the format of the book. If the evidence and hypothesis sections weren't clearly explained in the book, I don't thin I would have been able to decipher the movie in the way that it was intended. I think it would have been hard to decipher what the movie was trying to say, if I didn't have the book as a reference point for what was supposed to be going on in the book. I think overall, I really liked the book, but I think that the story was best conveyed through writing and it just can't be as good in a movie form, especially given the format and style of the book.
ReplyDeleteI thought the video of In the Lake of the Woods was okay. It didn't exactly capture the novel as I envisioned it, but then again, it is difficult to find a movie that does. I thought Kathy wasn't at all who I had imagined she would be. In the movie, I felt a lot less sympathy for John than in the book. I felt more like Kathy should have just left him, and confused as to why she didn't. In the book I didn't have that feeling. I understood their relationship more. Obviously it's hard to capture the essence of a book, especially a book in that sort of contemporary style, in a movie in that amount of time. That being said, I thought they took an interesting approach to the novel, and the movie itself wasn't bad.
ReplyDeleteI liked the Movie version of in the lake of the woods, but it didn't quite have the same effect as the book did. The movie was a bit too visual to convey the feels and oddities that existed in the book. I thought the movie was very well shot though, the scenarios were very good and I noticed that John's clothes almost always matched with the background (not sure if thats anything important just an observation.)
ReplyDeleteThe film version of In the Lake of the Woods did not completely correlate with what I pictured when reading the novel. I did not feel as emotionally connected to the characters in the movie as I did with John and Kathy in the novel. Also, I did not enjoy that the mysterious narrator was actually shown in the film. I think that this took away from the story because it didn't allow the audience to question the narrator's identity as the book did. Also, while the solution to Kathy Wade's disappearance was still somewhat unresolved in the film, I felt as though the filmmakers almost forced their interpretation of what happened to Kathy onto the audience. There was definitely less room for questioning in the film. Altogether, the film adaptation wasn't terrible, but in my opinion, should have left more of the mystery in.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the movie was that it honestly left nothing to wonder. In the book I would literally find myself angry because i couldn't predict the ending and how things would turn out for Mr. Way. However the movie, because it was a visual adaptation i could read, through expressions and things like that, what had actually happened. I believe this is a problem with many film adaptations. When the images in the head contrast with the images on the screen, its very hard to get into things.
ReplyDeleteOk, so answering the question:
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to judge the movie without comparing it to the book. I also didn't see much of the movie, but I felt that the filming of it it was pretty good, and the scenes were well staged, but I thought that the characters were a little bit annoying. I didn't understand, just based on the movie why Kathy put up with John for so long, or why the characters did what they did for each other. I guess I didn't see enough of the movie to give a full response to the movie, but it wasn't something I really wanted to keep watching.
James B
ReplyDeleteI personally felt more emotion watching the film adaptation of In the Lake of the Woods than reading the book. The film was mostly faithful to the novel, but the film was more atmospheric, I felt, due to the background music, the alternating scenes (similar to Fugitive Pieces), and the visual reactions of every character to the disappearance of John's wife. This was similarly done in the novel, except it was harder to understand due to the complexities within the story and at the same time, requiring the reader to visualize each situation through his/her own eyes.
I feel like I would like the movie if I hadn't read the book beforehand. The book's order of events seemed more appropriate than the movie's; it heightened the suspense more. Also, I didn't imagine Kathy like the actress, which is minor but still almost puts you off a little when you're seeing the movie. The evidence chapters were also much better than the interviews, they seemed much more fitting. I feel like they did a pretty good job in the adaptation, yet the book was still better. (The case with most film adaptations.)
ReplyDeleteI feel like this movie adaptation almost ruined the book,In the Lake of the Woods. It seemed really low-budget and, while some films can pull off being low-budget, this seemed more like a Lifetime Movie of the Week in comparison to the book. I feel like part of the charm of In the Lake of the Woods is that it is so modern in its writing and is extremely unique, and that's something that can't be captured in a movie. I also disliked how the film adaptation actually created an ending for the novel, because the book was more unique in the way that they left it up to the reader to decide what happened.
ReplyDeleteI personally loved that deeper meaning in the book. I enjoyed the motifs and the way Tim O'Brien made the main character think. Sadly, i hated the book though. I personally don't enjoy that type of...crazy, psycho murder mystery stuff. It's a little too frustrating. I don't like how the movie and book ended without the reader knowing what happens. Though i know that him writing the uncertainty in made it more suspenseful and interesting. I personally dont like that style but i can recognize his greatness for what it is. Hes a great writer...i just hate the style. Also, the movie seemed to drag on and on. The cinematography was awful. I give it a 4...Just because of the story. Didn't appreciate it and i think it was a major distraction from other work we/I could have been doing.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think this movie was terrible, but it was no comparison to the book. I agree with what Nahoma said. If I hadn't read the book before watching this I think I would be deeply confused. I don't think they emphasized how "creepy" John was in the begging of their relationship with his spying and everything. Not only that but how sincere his love was for Kathy. They needed more about vietnam because I feel like they just sort of threw it in there.
ReplyDeleteLike Molly I found myself not feeling as sympathetic for John in the movie than in the book. I don't know if that was done on purpose but I think it took away from the abiguity of all of it. If we atomatically don't like him then there isn't really that much possibility for us to wonder if her really did it. In the book I felt really bad for him, I wanted to believe that he didn't do it even though I was almost positive he did. I didn't think it was his fault, but in the movie he didn't really seem "mentally" out of place more just angry that he lost his election.
I didn't think the movie was terrible though. I thought it stayed pretty true to the book and that is a hard thing to do. It is a rare occasion when you enjoy the movie just as much as the book, but I think it was decent.
To me, the film adaptation of In the Lake of the Woods felt vague compared to the novel. It seemed to rely on the assumption that the audience had read the novel, and left out several important plot elements and hypotheses. It did a poor job in the way of development in any of the characters other than John, and even with him, major points were left out. While the novel was supposed to be ambiguous and open-ended in order to leave the conclusion up to the reader, the film warps the story to make it seem as though John murdered Kathy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, plot holes. Kathy's affair was mentioned, but never covered in detail. The marriage was shown to be falling apart, but the audience was not given any particular reason why, nor are they shown the strength of the bond between John and Kathy.
The motifs that shaped the novel were mostly excluded.
Basically, the film fell short.
I don't think In the Lake of the Woods lends itself well to the screen. Too much of the story depends on the thoughts and stream-of-consciousness musings of John and the mysterious, unnamed narrator. These kinds of things are hard to translate into the engaging action that most television programs and movies depend on. The dialogue is sparse and unimaginative. The action is repetitive--John mopes around, Kathy tries to talk to him, they argue, one or the other stalks off, John mopes around some more. The actors in the film adaptation overdo roles that are remarkable in the book for their subtlety and multi-layered complexity.
ReplyDeleteThe ambiguity of the book is not well-represented in the film. A viewer who had not previously read Tim O'Brien's novel would be confused by the different endings. The film leaves the viewer with the impression that John killed Kathy, because this is the last "hypothesis" sequence seen. This disrupts the kind of uncertainty that is carried out well in the novel.
All in all, I would say there's a reason this was a made-for-television movie.
I wasn't a fan of the movie it was a little confusing and boring to me. The actors just weren't what I pictured in the book which took it away for me. The movie wasn't all that bad but the book was way better. It went from flashback to present flashback to present and after awhile you get lost but like the book you almost have to put the pieces together.
ReplyDeleteThe movie made it easier for me to understand the flashbacks and changes between the different characters. However i didn't like the movie because I feel like it took away from what my mind had already built from the novel. The characteristics of the characters, the image of the cabin on the lake, and the way i portray John and Kathy on my own, in my mind, was different, in a disappointing way, in the movie. I think John killed Kathy because he felt like he needed to kill some one. Considering the fact that he didn't kill any one during the Mai lay massacre, and felt like he could have helped but didn't, he probably felt the need to kill some one and, the fact hat his wife and him were the only two bastards on the lake made it an easy choice for him. Also the symbol of the two snakes swallowing each other made me think that John and Kathy were not in love or devouring each other through love. I think they represent the pain and hurt in their relationship. They were swallowing each other and john couldn't take it any more so he killed her. She needed to die, they argued to much any way.
ReplyDeleteBy Alicia Green
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the movie, the film answered some questions that I had and helped me to understand certain parts. The movie was very accurate from the novel, there were just a few parts that they either added or left out even some parts were different. I still do prefer the book much better, it gave me the imagery and visualization of the stories between kathy and John's relationship, It was very descriptive and thorough. I enjoyed both the film and novel of In the Lake of the Woods.
Well i pretty much agree with everyone else minus one or two. What made the book so interesting was the imagery and the language the author used so watching the movie made the story less appealing. Though the book was better as a result of it being more suspenseful when you leave out a certain amount of details the story lacks clarity. Though the movie was less suspenseful it clarified things in the novel that i didn't understand. 1 thought it was interesting that the book and the movie took a different approach to revealing the story however the book did it more effectively. The characters in the movie weren't what i imagined they would be i expected them to be a little older looking and Kathy to be less outspoken. If i had not read the book i think the movie would have been more enjoyable.
ReplyDeleteEspecially in a TV-style, film won't be able to capture the personal-psychological narrative. O'Brien gets deep into the interior monologue of his characters, and, with limited dialogue, he told John Wade's story. Film has to be carried with dialogue, which hurt some of O'Brien's story. The film also gave more pronounced hints and examples of foreshadowing. In the show, it almost didn't feel finished, and not because of the less-than-obvious ending. The idea of interviewing minor characters without any true idea of a device for presenting the story didn't do the novel justice, I think
ReplyDeleteI say this also because Tim O'Brien has such a distinctive voice, and I really wanted to see that. I guess I didn't, and I guess I expected to.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, with the parts of the movie that I did watch, I didn't like them. I really didn't envision any of the characters in my head as they were portrayed in the movie. Obviously the film script differed greatly from the book because it had to be adapted in order for viewers, who haven't read the book, to understand the book more clearly. Also the film didn't include as much detail and depth as the book did. This is expected because people just want to see action and a story unravel and not really have every single teeny weeny detail. Honestly, I believe that some books are great (such as In the Lake of the Woods, The Time Traveler's Wife) BUT even if they are great that does not necessarily mean that they should be converted into movies.
ReplyDelete