Friday, September 11, 2009

Another thought

Compare and contrast the film version of The Power of One with what you have read of the book thus far.

33 comments:

Michaela Helble said...

The basic storyline of the movie was the same- Peekay goes to boarding school and is hated by the other students there, Grandpa Chook dies, Peekay goes to Baberton, meets Doc and helps him with the cactus garden, and learns to box in the prison. However, some major details are left out of the story. For example, there's no Hoppie in the movie, and it's Geel Piet that says "First with the head and then with the heart." Also, many of the names in the movie are changed. Inkosi-Inkosikozi has a different name and so does Grandpa Chook. Also, in the movie it is seems like Peekay's mother really loves him and cares about him, which isn't the case in the book. All these details add up to make the movie very different from the book.

Ms. Piro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kelsey said...

I think that all of the changes made to the movie really make the storyline much simpler in a way. I think that the way the book describes Peekay's mother as being kind of in her own world, and not really a mother figure towards Peekay makes the book stronger. It's an example of yet another person who has let him down. I don't really understand why the movie producers felt the need to change so many details from the original book. As it usually is, I think that the book is much better than the movie.

Katie Callahan said...

The movie stated the storyline in a much simpler way, but in doing so I think it left out some of the important factors. I don't think that the movie illistrated all of the pain and suffering that Peekay went through and how strong he became as a result of that punishment. Also, the movie did not show how strong a connection Peekay had with Granpa Chook, it is hard to believe that a chicken could be someone's best friend unless you read the book. When the movie left out Hoppie, it did not show how Peekay loses so many people in his life. I think the movie tried to make up for this by having his mother die early on. Also, because Hoppie was not there, he never really got to see anyone boxing in action before taking boxing lessons. I think that when Hoppie is able to beat Jackhammer Smit, even though he is the smaller man, gives Peekay hope and shows Peekay that he can do anything he wants to. Because this was left out in the book, I don't think the audience has as good an idea of why Peekay wants to box and that he truly believes that he can.

Emily Lohr said...

The movie has the same underlying story, but eliminates some key characters and changes the names of some characters. I didn't like how the movie changed a lot of stuff. For example, they had nanny have a son who was peekay's friend. Also, the mother dies. Pretty much agree with what everyone else has said. The book is clearly better than the movie, but we must remember that it's difficult to turn a five hundred page book into a movie that's exactly the same. It'd be too long. I also agree with Katie Callahan that the movie (so far) doesn't really give the audience a good idea of why Peekay wants to box. Doc pretty much just says you'll be good at it and throws him in the ring.

Lauren Hoh said...

The movie twisted what I thought were two important parts of the story, Peekay's mom dying and the whole train ride with Hoppie. I didn't like how Peekay started to box. Doc just took him over to Geel Piet and told him he wanted Peekay to learn how to box. Also, I really didn't like how the chicken's name was changed and that he wasn't a bigger part of the story. The main plot of Peekay going to school and being beat up and getting his night water cured was the same, but a lot of stuff was changed, and I don't think it changed for the better.

Alice.Rottersman said...

Besides the train ride and mom-dying-thing that everyone else mentioned, they also left out the complications of Doc's arrest when Peekay got his jaw broken. On another note, there weren't many female characters to begin with but the movie seems to have even less; there is no Mrs. Boxall, Marie, Mom, or Big Hettie. However, they made Granpa Chook a girl, which makes it all okay.

Brendon said...

The movie took out key parts that were read in the book. One part being the whole train ride with hoppie. I believed that that was a very inmportant part to Peekays story. Also, the movie altered the story line. They had Peekays mother die. This, in turn changed the rest of the book without the mother, you never meet the pastor. I did enjoy the doc and Geil pete (Morgan Freeman). I like the movie, but i do not like the movie if it is supposed to be the book.

Sonya said...

The basic storyline and events in the movie are similar to that of the book, but many of the names and key events have been changed. For instance, the names of Granpa Chook, Inkosi Inkosisazi, and even the origin of Peekay's names were changed, as well as many other more minor characters. The movie also skipped through the events at the boarding school much more quickly, cut out Peekay's experiences with Hoppie altogether, had Peekay's mother die, and simplified/shortened the events that happened with Doc's arrest. Many of these events were key in building Peekay's personality, and so in the movie, Peekay seems to be a slightly different person.

Leah said...

I really dislike how the movie changed the origin of Peekay's name. To me, it is vital to Peekay's character that he leaves behind "Pisskop"; that he rises up and creates a new identity for himself. In the movie, that identity is created for him, so instead of facing oppression and rising above it, he is simply a mama's boy living in the shadow of his dead father.

Alex Krass said...

The movie changed a lot of things that I disliked. It had things like his mother dying which will change a lot of the storie. The names of Grandpa Chook and the way Peekay got his named changed. A big part that aslo was diffrent was he never meat Hoppie. I thought this was a very important part to the storie and they took it out.

lynda said...

I thought they totally screwed up the movie! I feel like the most important part was cut out - PK meeting Hoppie. I felt that Hoppie was the one who showed PK what he could do with his life besides just being pushed around by other people.

I also think that they totally should have rethought casting for the Judge and the Jury.. they looked closer to 17-18 than 12.

Burton said...

I thought that the movie straight up sucked. All the mental thoughts i had from the book were destroyed, and now the voices i gave characters are all screwed up. Also the fact that they gave the famous line "First with the head, then with the heart" to a whole new person threw me off a bit. Before the movie I thought of Hoppie as a very important character that could come back later in the book, but in the movie they must of removed him fully causing me to be lost in how P.K really got into Boxing.

Sooooooo yeah not good, and I am surprised that this made it to screen kinda just ruined the story for me. Thanks movie.

mason vogt said...

I think the movie would have been a good movie if we had not been reading the book at the time. The movie is interesting, and makes many good points, but we see it as lacking the parts wee read from the book. I did, however, like the visual of the first boarding school Peekay went too. The movie accurately represented that part in the book for me, mostly because, they make Peekay look like the smallest most innocent boy.

Chris W said...

The movie...ehhh...obviously they didn't have the largest budget. Though that doesn't make up for the fact that they completely changed the ideas of the book....
As it is, the movie is too jumpy, and has an inconsistent rhythm...
So they changed the most important part, but I can see why they did that. The only problem in the end is length I guess, but it certainly would have been more interesting if they had put in the fight between Hoppie and Smit....obviously I'm a bit undecided....

Erin Donohue said...

The movie doesn't fully support what we have read in the book this far. I agree with Lauren when she stated that "two important parts of the story are missing", and for me those parts are the time spent with Peekay's chicken (not just perching above his bead and being killed) and the whole train ride with Hoppie. As the audience, we have been spoiled by reading most of the book, so we are bound to be disappointed in one way or another. We don't get as much background on each character; they just seem to appear and then influence Peekay quite a bit. I still find this movie interesting, although it does lack detail the message is of that similar to the book...

Jeff said...

If I were to watch the movie without reading the book, I don't think that I would have hated it as much as I do now. I had all of these images in my head about what each character looked like, and how they spoke, but now the movie is putting images into my head. That is why I don't like to watch movies of books that I have read. I dont think that Morgan Freeman was a good choice for Gilt Peet either. Gilt Peet is this common man who doesn't speak english but who wants to help PK. He is in a prison and a virtual unknown. Morgan Freeman makes him seem important. This could work both ways too. It could make him seem like an important figure at the start of the book. I also didn't like how PK's mother died as soon as she did.

Mallory said...

The movie was horrible compared to the book. I thought it made Peekay seem less strong and not as smart. It focused a lot on different parts of the story and flew through a lot of important things in the book. I also disliked the boy who played the role of Peekay in the movie it was completely different then my view of Peekay from the book.

Jennie said...

I don't think it's really fair to compare the movie to the book, as they're two completely different things. Yes--the book is GREAT. And the movie is nothing like the book. Almost the entire story is different, down to inconsequential name changes. There is no Hoppie--who is obviously a big character in the book--to tell Peekay to fight "first with the head, then with the heart." If you were to compare them, the book would obviously win out. But when it comes to making movies out of books, I've learned to accept that they're going to be completely different--it results in a lot less stress! (Take the Harry Potters, for example.......)

christopher.harwick said...

The book and the film have very different specific details and even some major ones. On the other hand there are some main ideas that remain true and both the film and the book. He gets bullied in both versions of the story, also he meets doc and they become great friends. Another important scene we saw today was the concert that took place at the prison. This concert show the passion and beauty of the afrikanners. Lastly although the film doesn't show some important scenes that certainly make the book more enjoyable like, hoppie or, the religous acts of Peekays mother it still conveys a similar message

Jennie said...

I like what Jeff said earlier--"If I were to watch the movie without reading the book, I don't think that I would have hated it as much as I do now." I completely agree. Standing alone, the movie might not be that bad. I mean, it has Morgan Freeman in it--so even if he might have been a bad choice for his character, how bad can the movie be overall? We all, however, are as biased as we can get. We went into the movie already with the idea that it would be different, and not in a good way. We already loved the book (at least I did) and therefore had very low expectations for the movie. And Jeff what do you mean you didn't think Peekay's mother should die as soon as she did???? Meaning, she's still going to...?? aaaaarrggggg


If I were to watch the movie without reading the book, I don't think that I would have hated it as much as I do now. I had all of these images in my head about what each character looked like, and how they spoke, but now the movie is putting images into my head. That is why I don't like to watch movies of books that I have read. I dont think that Morgan Freeman was a good choice for Gilt Peet either. Gilt Peet is this common man who doesn't speak english but who wants to help PK. He is in a prison and a virtual unknown. Morgan Freeman makes him seem important. This could work both ways too. It could make him seem like an important figure at the start of the book. I also didn't like how PK's mother died as soon as she did.

Megan Pattison said...

I agree with Jennie about the poor decision to make Morgan Freeman, Geel Peit. I think Morgan Freeman carrys with him an aura of importance, which shouldn't be affiliated with Geel Peit.

In the scene of the concert, there were some clear differences between the book and the movie. In the movie, Geel Peit's murder is shown almost completly. He doesn't die in the boxing ring, which I think is a mistake on the movies part. Geel Peit was very proud of his status on the boxing team and I think him dying there was a symbol of how he overstepped his boundaries racially during that time.

Sam said...

Following with what some people have said, I feel like the movie leaves out some of the most key parts. Such as when Peekay leaves his old name, Pisskop, behind and is reward with a new one. Or the train ride with Hoppie. The train ride was the beginning to Peekay's new life, his new ways of thinking, and without that the movie makes a huge unpredictable jump.

Also, as some people said the movie may have been good if we had not read the book. This may be true, but I feel that without the book, the story was lost in its narration and it would have been hard to follow without a lot of the background.

All in all, the movie was not worth watching, in fact it someone ruined the story for me because I have been imprinted with a different image of each character.

Robin Smith said...

The movie removed many of the very important sections of the book. For example the movie does not even mention Hoppie Groenewald, a man who Peekay says in the book will change his life for the next 17 years to come.

I agree with Sam that the train ride was a really a transformation for Peekay leaving behind his old life where he was tortured by bullies to a new life where he is the smartest and fastest and best fighter of his age.

Many of the parts of the movie were disappointing, and I thought that there were some pointless changes, such as the changes of certain characters names. However I think that the concert scene was well done.

Nicolas said...

It appeared to me that the movie was attempting to show a different image of South Africa than was shown in the book. The movie attempted to portray more of a foriegn image of South Aftica, rather than the young British Peekay who we can identify with.
This is why I think that even small things such as names were changed in the movie. Grandpa Chook was given an African name, for example.

Also, Hoppie was probably cut from the film because he represents a culture that doesn't seem inherently African to the viewer.

I don't like the moviemakers' decision to change the story in this way.

Kiana said...

As others have said, the movie failed to include major characters important to the plot of the book. I agree with Leah. Changing the origin of Peekay's name left out a significant part of moving on and growing up for Peekay. Also, as many have said, the movie eliminated Hoppie who was extremely important in introducing boxing to Peekay. Boxing became a large part of Peekay's life. It helped him feel more confident in school when he beat the biggest boy and gained respect of his peers. Boxing also gave Peekay a sense of purpose since his goal was to be the welterweight champion of the world. I think because Hoppie started all this for Peekay it is an important part of the plot and should have been included in the movie.

Daniel Alberta said...

I really don't like the movie for many reasons. They changed grampa chooks name, Peekays name origin, left out hoppie groenwald among other things. Also when Gil Peat told peekay first with the head and then with the heart, it wasn't true. Hoppie had told that to Peekay. Hoppie also was the one who first got Peekay interested in boxing. The book was definitely better. The plot of the movie was way off execpt for the concert scene. That was a good scene

Brendon said...

This movie does not portray the book correctly. If I were to watch the movie, I would not call it bad though. Peekay is not seen as an intelligent child. Also, the movie skipped the whole train ride with Hoppie, which to me was very important. I really enjoy the book, but like most movies, the book is better.

Daniel G said...

The movie is a pretty good movie by itself, though even without the book it seems to move a little too fast in some parts. Comparing it to the book, though, makes it seem so wrong, but it also just doesn't seem as good. It changes the storyline a lot and things like having the mother die that early on completely changes his childhood. In the book, we can see as Peekay goes to Doc and Mrs. Boxall instead of his own mother, and this shows how strange his childhood is. In the movie, he has no mother so it doesn't seem wierd for him to hang out with other adults, or at least not as wierd.

Ella said...

the part of the movie that I saw (the concert scene) was okay. I thought they did a good job capturing the essence of the different tribes all singing together. I do wish that they showed Doc more worried then he seemed and I wish they stuck more to the plot with Geel Piet's death and Peekay's costume. I do understand that it is hard in film to protray ever single detail since in a movie, there is a length and time issue where as a book can be as long as the author wants it to be.

George Papa said...

i like the movie that we've seen in class but interms of comparing it to the book its a little inacurrate. The book talks about Peekay's mother more often and in the movie you see Peekay without his own friends. You also see Peekay not as a briliantly intelligent kid but as a normal boy at the prison.

Nathaniel brown said...

The Power of One movie is an attempt to streamline the book into a short, simple story. Unfortunately the books best quality is its variety and irregularity. For instance, Peekay names his chicken Grandpa Chook, after his grandpa's "chooks." In the movie the chicken is given a native African name. Evidently the producer didn't think Grandpa Chook fit with Peekay's predominantly Zulu upbringing.

val14 said...

The plot in both the movie and book is basically the same, but there are numerous things in the book that are transformed. This changes how the viewer sees Peekay's strength and intellect. In the novel, the reader has a stronger feeling of how Peekay undertakes the torturous issues he is put through throughout his year at school. Also, Hoppie being taken out of the storyline really changes how we see Peekay's confidence level rise. However, there are parts in the film that give us a better cognizance of the setting. The small town is mostly how I had expected it to be, and the jail was also pretty similar.
Over all, I didn't really find the movie to be interesting, it didn't catch my attention like I was hoping it would. Since I'm reading the book and find it more attention-grabbing, I wouldn't put the movie on my list of favorites.