Hi everyone, For reference, I was able to pull up a copy with subtitles online with a quick search (if you are comfortable with that.) Otherwise, you can rent it off Amazon for $3.
Comparing this to the book is in a whole different realm. I loved the book, but the movie gave so much more clarity about the story. Also many things that I missed in the book evoked many more emotions because of the voice-overs.
I really enjoyed the movie's editing. I felt the cuts were made to be "panel" sized, if that makes sense. The camera lingered on each background or image just enough to register its composition but that caused some of the important symbols to be rushed over and lose some of their beauty, like the breadcrumb birds. I found myself wishing to watch them swim longer, but a still image that I can hold in my hand might not have been as captivating. It almost felt like a comic book in the harry potter universe where all pictures move and live. Marjane was so personable and cute in the movie, partly because I watched it in French with english subtitles.
In some respects the movie clarified things, Marji as a child was mimicking the adults around her and what she could see from her windows. For example, "Down with the Shaw," and her grandmother trying to get her into bed. She was at a very vulnerable age and wanted to be like the adults she knew.
In other ways the film looses something, example, the scenes where the boy falls from the roof, and the extreme loneliness she felt in Austria. The Austrian scenes are much more detailed in the book.
Both versions bring much to the table to discuss, like how Marji arrives in Paris and takes off her scarf, puts it back on, and then removes it one last time as she drives into the night toward her new adopted home. This seems to give the movies a hopeful ending where the book lets us hang a bit.
In a side tangent I now understand much more about why Iran (the country) is so against America and Americans. I honestly never got it, but when you consider that we sold guns to both Iraq and Iran it is pretty clear to get why they don't like our country.
Marjane's life in Europe and becoming more Western really shaped who she was. Seeing her friends from Iran judging her for her sex life really left such an image on what it means to be somewhat western in a place like this. These girls doddle over boys and sex, but judge each other for doing what they somewhat dream of. Their government might have more of a handle on their personalities than they think.
Over the years, there have been many comic book/ graphic novel film adaptions. I’ve see films like Watchmen that interpret their source material very closely, frame to frame, while others might stray farther from the source material. Persepolis does greatly in the realm of interpretation. The animation is more closely to that of a motion comic than a featured adaption and the story line strongly follows the novel. Like all novel adaptions, things are going to be cut to keep the film moving in the right direction as well as making cuts for time. Things cut from Persepolis include some of Marjane’s experiences while growing up, choosing to give a few specific scenes as major points in her life. There was also a lot of compression. Marjane’s time in Europe was cut up and compressed removing important things that made Marjane so interesting. Her time in school was completely gone, the time with her first group of friends was trimmed down losing its impact on her overall personality, her making friends and even her experimenting with a new style was cut. These moments of growth for her were what really made the character so recognizable in respect to our own time growing up. Even the meeting with her mother after she traveled to Europe to see her was gone. I feel like this moment really kept Marjane going in this new life and made her feel like a grown-up for the first time. Film’s cut so much from stories like this. The importance is to keep enough character growth that the story would still move along the same path. Even though all these scenes were cut short, the film was successful in creating the atmosphere of the original novel. Something else that I saw different was the inclusion of cartoons. The film was animated but the inclusion of her friends in Europe as birds in one scene, or her car flying through the city, and her boyfriend who cheated on her as looking like a monster lightened the mood and added more to Marjane’s personality. I read the story too seriously to be able to see this side of her. Even though Marjane lived in such a complicated and scary location, she was still able to be a child at heart and this childish personality lead to her be the person she always wanted to be. She was open and not scared of life in front of her for the most part. The story from the very beginning revolved around Marjane and her life in Iran and how it became a dominant force in her development and how she saw the world. Maybe less focus on Europe and more on Iran was meant to keep the story centered in one location for better pacing. Overall, I really like the film adaption. It added more to the ending by opening up what happened after she left home. The introduction of Marjane in an airport looking back at her life and then the end where she had left created a framework of support for the film. This adaption was completely successful in showing both Iran and Marjane’s story and I applaud such an adaption.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie Persepolis and I think it was a good accompaniment to the comic book. However, I don't think I would have gotten the whole picture if I hadn't also read the comic. It seems like some things were shortened or altered slightly while other scenes were expanded upon, perhaps for added emphasis. For instance, much of Marjane's time in Europe was condensed including the visit from her mother. On the other hand, some of the war scenes were drawn out. I also liked how they decided to show the story in the comic as a flashback Marjane was having in the airport. And I think it was cool that the present moments were shown in color, while the rest was in the same black and white style as the comic. I think the two go well together, but the comic stands on its own, whereas the film probably doesn't do as good of job of showing the whole story.
An interesting difference in my opinion was the way that shadows moved across the scenes in the movie. They were shown to depict a change in emotion, safety, or environment. While this is something that McCloud covered in his book on setting tones, I found it even more rewarding in the context of moving pictures. When connected to time the change feels like its happening to the protagonist rather than around the antagonist. This is a very important difference in the perception of the audience. When shadows are changing from the character outward they seem to be dictating the world around them. Where as, if the they are being approached by shadows, decisions are being made beyond their control. The world is changing around them. It creates a feeling of time ever present and constant dynamics for the characters involved.
That all being said, I find the book adds clarity to the movie and is certainly something to be read ahead of watching the film. I must say that it is refreshing to see a book so well adapted into a film. Yes they share a medium of the comic sort, but that does not mean that it wasn't well done. Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest and animating something that was so well done can be the same. It was something that I can, with confidence recommend to a friend to watch, and expect them to understand the story. There were subtleties within the film that I would not have understood without having read the book, but that is part of what I feel makes it exceptional. It is a journey, and it treats itself as such.
First thoughts on the movie: I was able to understand more of the historical aspects of war because the perception changed for the film. Instead of hearing it through a child’s voice, it helped to see the reenactments play out instead. The film was telling the stories, not Marjane. I’m so glad didn’t try to reinnact this actors or actresses. They chose to keep the cartoons and simply animate them.
I’ve very glad I read the book first. Since there was was some scenes that were cut short and some that were longer. Like usual, reading the book first gives the advantage of more details. Its more beneficial to understand the original source (the book) to understand how and when the film came to be.
If anything, I got to see Marjane move and exist just like I had imagined in my head! The film was very well done and I enjoyed it very much! It’s always enjoyable to compare books with their films. The change in medium can bring out different parts that you didn’t originally see. All because it changes your perception.
I think that the movie provided a little more life than the book, but lost some of the detail along the way. Details that make it difficult to understand some of her story, like her time in Austria, her relationship with her ex husband, and her friend who was killed in a missile attack. It is useful as a companion to the book, but I would not recommend it as a stand alone.
How do you feel the addition of color in he introduction sequence impacted the feeling of the images? I felt young Marji sounds and acts a lot like how I thought she would but some of the other characters changed. The pacing of the movie was quicker, though by necessity, I don't think it did the story justice. Some of the rushed conversations actually changed how the characters were. Marji's father was more conservative in his reactions in the comic. He was portrayed a bit more brashly in the movie. In the book the father was more cynical to the stories in the news. The grandmother's importance to Marjane in the beginning seemed underplayed to me. The movie was great. It was faithful to the overall story found in the comics, and it was interesting to see certain events play out, but everything that was changed or cut for time changed to much. The comic is the best way to experience Marji's story, as it was the original format to which she wanted her story told.
I actually watched the movie 3 years ago and had no idea it was even adapted from a comic until it was on the reading list for this class. I really enjoyed it and found it very memorable as a movie. After reading the comic and then watching the movie a second time, I get the feeling the movie is almost an abridged/revised version and I sort of prefer it. I think the movie has a much more traditional or recognizable plot. There is less about Marjane's growing up and moving around Austria and more about the revolution and the deaths and the climax of the movie, when they are all caught at the party and the guy dies, is much more of a climax for the movie than in the book where it just seems like another event in her life. In the movie there are extra scenes of the atrocities performed by the government that make it more moving politically, while the book has more about Marjane which makes the comic more moving as a story about coming of age.
The movie also has the scene where Marjane sings Eye of the Tiger terribly and it's really funny.
In an interview someone posted a few weeks ago, Satrapi said she was not even totally on board with the adaption and she just committed to it and then had to go through with it. From that I would imagine she thinks it works better as a comic. I really don't see a huge difference between the way a comic and an animation work. I think the movie makes all the important points. If I had to chose one experience I would chose the movie because the plot was more clear to me and it cut a lot of the extra growing up stuff. However the comic is like the extended directors cut, which makes it cool to read additionally.
This comment is late because I wasn't sure if this is the blog post where we would do this discussion*
This is a late response-- I thought that there would be a separate assignment sheet or posting for this...
I guess some of the major difference that I saw between the film in the book is a change in the pace and focus, simply because of the way the two different mediums tend to go. Obviously screen time is an element that must be mediated in a film—it could not include all of the details and asides of the book. I found the movie condensed and streamlined the many elements of the comic into something a little more traditional as far as story telling goes. It added the frame of the colored Marjane smoking and contemplating as an adult at the airport. This I think orients the details of her coming of age and adds coherency. From this frame we as viewers understand that we will find out the moments that brought her there, and we will gain insight as to her cultural identity as an Iranian in a foreign airport. This frame was also used between big leaps in time within Marjane’s childhood. I noticed a very slow pacing at her childhood in Iran as opposed to her marriage and return at the end which was very sped up. I think the weight of importance at her growing up during such political strife was the reason why the narrative chose to slow down here. Otherwise I think the choice of framing the events with the colored Marjane vs. the monochromatic flashbacks was a way to kind of streamline the comic which was a little more episodic narratively. The effect of this almost illustrated her memoir writing process—the scenes she recalled were literally the ones she reconstructed with ink on paper. I noticed that there were a few elements added to the end of the film I think to solve some of the issues of closure that me and some classmates noticed from the book. We were reoriented of the importance of the grandmother with her recalling the childhood dialogue of the flowers in her bra as well as a tie-up of the identity theme when she answers the taxi driver that she is indeed from Iran. In this she answers the promise she made to her grandmother about being true to herself and redeems her mistake as a young adult of pretending to be French. I actually really enjoyed the movie adaptation as opposed to the book, but I think what the comic possesses is something a little more ambivalent. Perhaps it lacked closure in a way because the making of the comic was a way of Satrapi’s experience. Perhaps the film made assumptions for the sake of a streamlined traditional story.
I felt there were a few details lacking from the film that were in the book. A lot of the relationships she talked about, a lot of the events of the war and other things lead her to be the person she was. The things she did in Vienna, the lifestyle she had, even some of the events of growing into a young woman there were basically missing from the film. I realize that a film can have time constraints and some details could be superfluous and not fit in the film. I liked how she kept it black and white and used her original artistic touch to animate the story. It created a continuity between the film and the comic. It also made it easy to follow along. The short frame story was interesting, but I didn't understand it. Was she going to France, or was she leaving France. At the beginning it seemed like she was leaving France, but then at the end she gets in a taxi in France and leaves.
The film had an excellent animation quality that was very neatly drawn and had fluid motions throughout the frames. Ordering the events in the beginning of the story so that it lead up to the scene where Marjane and her classmates are looking the same wearing the veil made the story more easy to follow. The music was nice and the voices portrayed the characters well, even though it was in french and made for french people to understand. The simplicity of the characters in the illustration style of the comic allowed the animation to have more movement without distracting jumps or shaking outlines and details. I found it interesting that the entire art project and design job were left out of the film. The addition of certain pop culture names mentioned added some familiarity and humor to the story. The use of montage to show war, life changes, and movement within the compositions of scenes from the comic added life and clarity to certain moments in the story.
Sorry for the late response, I was waiting for a different post to show up! My bad.
--
I think I prefer Persepolis the movie to the graphic novel -- and that's rare for me. I think the animation is so smooth and well thought-out that it immerses me more than the graphic novel managed to. The biggest difference, for me at least, was that we got to spend more time with some of the most interesting characters. Marj.'s uncle, for example, felt much more alive and got more screen-time and I think that made what happened to him even more potent than it was in the books. Same for Marj's grandmother. I think the voice actors also did a wonderful job of giving the characters "life." I feel like this is a more coherent piece of art than the graphic novel -- all the pieces are working together, and it is well-paced and well-plotted, while the comic often provided information that wasn't needed and left out information that would have made the work more potent.
Great comments, guys. Something to think goes back to the question of medium we discussed early in the term: what is the difference between the medium of film and of comics? Some argue that film is simply comics sped up and comics film slowed down. Others make the assertion that comics--because of its use of the gutter space/ closure as McCloud defines it--encourages more reader participation and interpretation than the film medium. Does film encourage passivity in a way that comics do not?
The link above is fixed, btw. Sorry for the original bad link!
It is important to reflect on how large a jump it is from comic books to graphics, especially given how widespread the popularity of both media has become. While animation sacrifices comic book artifacts such as the gutter, their presentation and structuring still maintains much of the feel of comics, where the aesthetics of framing and transition that are associated with comic books are apparent in most animation. Put another way, the way we see the environment and characters in Persepolis the film plays by the many of the same rules that Persepolis the comic book follows. But with animations come motion, a concept handled much more figuratively in the world of comics. It’s easy enough to think of motion in animations as handled the same way as live-action cinema, but I believe that animations maintain some of the flexibility of meaning that the idea of motion has in comics, albeit to a lesser extent. This is most apparent in scene transitions, where shifting between set pieces has a similar emphasis on ambiguity as the comics’ gutter. While thinking of animations as a combination of film and comic aesthetics may be oversimplifying things, I find that this perspective is still a good place to start analysis.
In all honesty, I found that Persepolis the film was much more enjoyable than its source material. Satrapi’s comic has a great deal of value, and for the most part I think it has earned its reputation. But with the unpredictable pacing and lack of strong organization, I couldn’t help but see it as little more than a very promising first draft. Because it’s not the content that I felt was lacking in Persepolis; it’s how Satrapi presents it all. The film, meanwhile, has the polish, depth, and structure that I had been hoping for this whole time. This, in my opinion, is the final draft which the comic is meant to become.
Sorry about being late as well. It was partially weather partially computer troubles.
Anyway I really enjoyed this film! The comic seemed a little stale, but something about the animation helped it out a lot. Maybe it's the fact that content can be more easily digested when you hear it in your native language (though quite irritating when Marjane's father is the only one with an obviously american accent) as well as watching animated versions of what used to be very text heavy panels. We can't relate to their culture just with text, we need to actually see and hear these things happen since it's all so shockingly unfamiliar to the western world. The improvement on the art is so welcome it's amazing.Satrapi is really not much of an artist so it's great to get subtle textures in the background, and characters drawn with more than just a fat sharpie. The only other comic turned movie I thought was an improvement was the Surrogates, and for similar reasons. It fixed a lot of the problems with the comic, and tried to mold it into a better experience. However that film has a terrible plot hole in the end... But back on track this is a great film, and I agree with those above, it does appear to be Persepolis at its finest.
I really liked the movie, it was exactly what I imagined in my head when I was reading the comic itself. I think it makes a bigger difference when it's a regular novel, and then it's made into a movie, because what you have in your mind is based on the assumptions you made reading, but in the comic, because we see vivid imagery, when we see the movie, it shows the actual comic in motion, it was really nice, and I liked the way they depicted the movie, it gave the comic more life, once sound and motion is added, it really gave it a much better perspective.
That link is bad. We can't see the movie.
ReplyDeleteThis video contains content from Sony Pictures, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
Sorry about that.
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteFor reference, I was able to pull up a copy with subtitles online with a quick search (if you are comfortable with that.) Otherwise, you can rent it off Amazon for $3.
can someone post the link please?
ReplyDeleteI found a pretty good link if anyone wants to watch it!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuvKy6-uomU
Thanks! I used this link and it worked well!
DeleteWas a great movie!
ReplyDeleteComparing this to the book is in a whole different realm. I loved the book, but the movie gave so much more clarity about the story. Also many things that I missed in the book evoked many more emotions because of the voice-overs.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the movie's editing. I felt the cuts were made to be "panel" sized, if that makes sense. The camera lingered on each background or image just enough to register its composition but that caused some of the important symbols to be rushed over and lose some of their beauty, like the breadcrumb birds. I found myself wishing to watch them swim longer, but a still image that I can hold in my hand might not have been as captivating. It almost felt like a comic book in the harry potter universe where all pictures move and live. Marjane was so personable and cute in the movie, partly because I watched it in French with english subtitles.
ReplyDeleteIn some respects the movie clarified things, Marji as a child was mimicking the adults around her and what she could see from her windows. For example, "Down with the Shaw," and her grandmother trying to get her into bed. She was at a very vulnerable age and wanted to be like the adults she knew.
ReplyDeleteIn other ways the film looses something, example, the scenes where the boy falls from the roof, and the extreme loneliness she felt in Austria. The Austrian scenes are much more detailed in the book.
Both versions bring much to the table to discuss, like how Marji arrives in Paris and takes off her scarf, puts it back on, and then removes it one last time as she drives into the night toward her new adopted home. This seems to give the movies a hopeful ending where the book lets us hang a bit.
In a side tangent I now understand much more about why Iran (the country) is so against America and Americans. I honestly never got it, but when you consider that we sold guns to both Iraq and Iran it is pretty clear to get why they don't like our country.
Marjane's life in Europe and becoming more Western really shaped who she was. Seeing her friends from Iran judging her for her sex life really left such an image on what it means to be somewhat western in a place like this. These girls doddle over boys and sex, but judge each other for doing what they somewhat dream of. Their government might have more of a handle on their personalities than they think.
DeleteOver the years, there have been many comic book/ graphic novel film adaptions. I’ve see films like Watchmen that interpret their source material very closely, frame to frame, while others might stray farther from the source material. Persepolis does greatly in the realm of interpretation. The animation is more closely to that of a motion comic than a featured adaption and the story line strongly follows the novel. Like all novel adaptions, things are going to be cut to keep the film moving in the right direction as well as making cuts for time. Things cut from Persepolis include some of Marjane’s experiences while growing up, choosing to give a few specific scenes as major points in her life. There was also a lot of compression. Marjane’s time in Europe was cut up and compressed removing important things that made Marjane so interesting. Her time in school was completely gone, the time with her first group of friends was trimmed down losing its impact on her overall personality, her making friends and even her experimenting with a new style was cut. These moments of growth for her were what really made the character so recognizable in respect to our own time growing up. Even the meeting with her mother after she traveled to Europe to see her was gone. I feel like this moment really kept Marjane going in this new life and made her feel like a grown-up for the first time. Film’s cut so much from stories like this. The importance is to keep enough character growth that the story would still move along the same path. Even though all these scenes were cut short, the film was successful in creating the atmosphere of the original novel.
ReplyDeleteSomething else that I saw different was the inclusion of cartoons. The film was animated but the inclusion of her friends in Europe as birds in one scene, or her car flying through the city, and her boyfriend who cheated on her as looking like a monster lightened the mood and added more to Marjane’s personality. I read the story too seriously to be able to see this side of her. Even though Marjane lived in such a complicated and scary location, she was still able to be a child at heart and this childish personality lead to her be the person she always wanted to be. She was open and not scared of life in front of her for the most part. The story from the very beginning revolved around Marjane and her life in Iran and how it became a dominant force in her development and how she saw the world. Maybe less focus on Europe and more on Iran was meant to keep the story centered in one location for better pacing.
Overall, I really like the film adaption. It added more to the ending by opening up what happened after she left home. The introduction of Marjane in an airport looking back at her life and then the end where she had left created a framework of support for the film. This adaption was completely successful in showing both Iran and Marjane’s story and I applaud such an adaption.
Overall, I really enjoyed the movie Persepolis and I think it was a good accompaniment to the comic book. However, I don't think I would have gotten the whole picture if I hadn't also read the comic. It seems like some things were shortened or altered slightly while other scenes were expanded upon, perhaps for added emphasis. For instance, much of Marjane's time in Europe was condensed including the visit from her mother. On the other hand, some of the war scenes were drawn out. I also liked how they decided to show the story in the comic as a flashback Marjane was having in the airport. And I think it was cool that the present moments were shown in color, while the rest was in the same black and white style as the comic. I think the two go well together, but the comic stands on its own, whereas the film probably doesn't do as good of job of showing the whole story.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting difference in my opinion was the way that shadows moved across the scenes in the movie. They were shown to depict a change in emotion, safety, or environment. While this is something that McCloud covered in his book on setting tones, I found it even more rewarding in the context of moving pictures. When connected to time the change feels like its happening to the protagonist rather than around the antagonist. This is a very important difference in the perception of the audience. When shadows are changing from the character outward they seem to be dictating the world around them. Where as, if the they are being approached by shadows, decisions are being made beyond their control. The world is changing around them. It creates a feeling of time ever present and constant dynamics for the characters involved.
ReplyDeleteThat all being said, I find the book adds clarity to the movie and is certainly something to be read ahead of watching the film. I must say that it is refreshing to see a book so well adapted into a film. Yes they share a medium of the comic sort, but that does not mean that it wasn't well done. Sometimes the simplest things are the hardest and animating something that was so well done can be the same. It was something that I can, with confidence recommend to a friend to watch, and expect them to understand the story. There were subtleties within the film that I would not have understood without having read the book, but that is part of what I feel makes it exceptional. It is a journey, and it treats itself as such.
First thoughts on the movie: I was able to understand more of the historical aspects of war because the perception changed for the film. Instead of hearing it through a child’s voice, it helped to see the reenactments play out instead. The film was telling the stories, not Marjane. I’m so glad didn’t try to reinnact this actors or actresses. They chose to keep the cartoons and simply animate them.
ReplyDeleteI’ve very glad I read the book first. Since there was was some scenes that were cut short and some that were longer. Like usual, reading the book first gives the advantage of more details. Its more beneficial to understand the original source (the book) to understand how and when the film came to be.
If anything, I got to see Marjane move and exist just like I had imagined in my head! The film was very well done and I enjoyed it very much! It’s always enjoyable to compare books with their films. The change in medium can bring out different parts that you didn’t originally see. All because it changes your perception.
I think that the movie provided a little more life than the book, but lost some of the detail along the way. Details that make it difficult to understand some of her story, like her time in Austria, her relationship with her ex husband, and her friend who was killed in a missile attack. It is useful as a companion to the book, but I would not recommend it as a stand alone.
ReplyDeleteHow do you feel the addition of color in he introduction sequence impacted the feeling of the images? I felt young Marji sounds and acts a lot like how I thought she would but some of the other characters changed. The pacing of the movie was quicker, though by necessity, I don't think it did the story justice. Some of the rushed conversations actually changed how the characters were. Marji's father was more conservative in his reactions in the comic. He was portrayed a bit more brashly in the movie. In the book the father was more cynical to the stories in the news. The grandmother's importance to Marjane in the beginning seemed underplayed to me. The movie was great. It was faithful to the overall story found in the comics, and it was interesting to see certain events play out, but everything that was changed or cut for time changed to much. The comic is the best way to experience Marji's story, as it was the original format to which she wanted her story told.
ReplyDeleteI actually watched the movie 3 years ago and had no idea it was even adapted from a comic until it was on the reading list for this class. I really enjoyed it and found it very memorable as a movie. After reading the comic and then watching the movie a second time, I get the feeling the movie is almost an abridged/revised version and I sort of prefer it.
ReplyDeleteI think the movie has a much more traditional or recognizable plot. There is less about Marjane's growing up and moving around Austria and more about the revolution and the deaths and the climax of the movie, when they are all caught at the party and the guy dies, is much more of a climax for the movie than in the book where it just seems like another event in her life. In the movie there are extra scenes of the atrocities performed by the government that make it more moving politically, while the book has more about Marjane which makes the comic more moving as a story about coming of age.
The movie also has the scene where Marjane sings Eye of the Tiger terribly and it's really funny.
In an interview someone posted a few weeks ago, Satrapi said she was not even totally on board with the adaption and she just committed to it and then had to go through with it. From that I would imagine she thinks it works better as a comic. I really don't see a huge difference between the way a comic and an animation work. I think the movie makes all the important points. If I had to chose one experience I would chose the movie because the plot was more clear to me and it cut a lot of the extra growing up stuff. However the comic is like the extended directors cut, which makes it cool to read additionally.
This comment is late because I wasn't sure if this is the blog post where we would do this discussion*
This is a late response-- I thought that there would be a separate assignment sheet or posting for this...
ReplyDeleteI guess some of the major difference that I saw between the film in the book is a change in the pace and focus, simply because of the way the two different mediums tend to go. Obviously screen time is an element that must be mediated in a film—it could not include all of the details and asides of the book. I found the movie condensed and streamlined the many elements of the comic into something a little more traditional as far as story telling goes. It added the frame of the colored Marjane smoking and contemplating as an adult at the airport. This I think orients the details of her coming of age and adds coherency. From this frame we as viewers understand that we will find out the moments that brought her there, and we will gain insight as to her cultural identity as an Iranian in a foreign airport. This frame was also used between big leaps in time within Marjane’s childhood. I noticed a very slow pacing at her childhood in Iran as opposed to her marriage and return at the end which was very sped up. I think the weight of importance at her growing up during such political strife was the reason why the narrative chose to slow down here. Otherwise I think the choice of framing the events with the colored Marjane vs. the monochromatic flashbacks was a way to kind of streamline the comic which was a little more episodic narratively. The effect of this almost illustrated her memoir writing process—the scenes she recalled were literally the ones she reconstructed with ink on paper.
I noticed that there were a few elements added to the end of the film I think to solve some of the issues of closure that me and some classmates noticed from the book. We were reoriented of the importance of the grandmother with her recalling the childhood dialogue of the flowers in her bra as well as a tie-up of the identity theme when she answers the taxi driver that she is indeed from Iran. In this she answers the promise she made to her grandmother about being true to herself and redeems her mistake as a young adult of pretending to be French.
I actually really enjoyed the movie adaptation as opposed to the book, but I think what the comic possesses is something a little more ambivalent. Perhaps it lacked closure in a way because the making of the comic was a way of Satrapi’s experience. Perhaps the film made assumptions for the sake of a streamlined traditional story.
I felt there were a few details lacking from the film that were in the book. A lot of the relationships she talked about, a lot of the events of the war and other things lead her to be the person she was. The things she did in Vienna, the lifestyle she had, even some of the events of growing into a young woman there were basically missing from the film. I realize that a film can have time constraints and some details could be superfluous and not fit in the film.
ReplyDeleteI liked how she kept it black and white and used her original artistic touch to animate the story. It created a continuity between the film and the comic. It also made it easy to follow along.
The short frame story was interesting, but I didn't understand it. Was she going to France, or was she leaving France. At the beginning it seemed like she was leaving France, but then at the end she gets in a taxi in France and leaves.
The film had an excellent animation quality that was very neatly drawn and had fluid motions throughout the frames. Ordering the events in the beginning of the story so that it lead up to the scene where Marjane and her classmates are looking the same wearing the veil made the story more easy to follow. The music was nice and the voices portrayed the characters well, even though it was in french and made for french people to understand. The simplicity of the characters in the illustration style of the comic allowed the animation to have more movement without distracting jumps or shaking outlines and details. I found it interesting that the entire art project and design job were left out of the film. The addition of certain pop culture names mentioned added some familiarity and humor to the story. The use of montage to show war, life changes, and movement within the compositions of scenes from the comic added life and clarity to certain moments in the story.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the late response, I was waiting for a different post to show up! My bad.
ReplyDelete--
I think I prefer Persepolis the movie to the graphic novel -- and that's rare for me. I think the animation is so smooth and well thought-out that it immerses me more than the graphic novel managed to. The biggest difference, for me at least, was that we got to spend more time with some of the most interesting characters. Marj.'s uncle, for example, felt much more alive and got more screen-time and I think that made what happened to him even more potent than it was in the books. Same for Marj's grandmother. I think the voice actors also did a wonderful job of giving the characters "life." I feel like this is a more coherent piece of art than the graphic novel -- all the pieces are working together, and it is well-paced and well-plotted, while the comic often provided information that wasn't needed and left out information that would have made the work more potent.
Great comments, guys. Something to think goes back to the question of medium we discussed early in the term: what is the difference between the medium of film and of comics? Some argue that film is simply comics sped up and comics film slowed down. Others make the assertion that comics--because of its use of the gutter space/ closure as McCloud defines it--encourages more reader participation and interpretation than the film medium. Does film encourage passivity in a way that comics do not?
ReplyDeleteThe link above is fixed, btw. Sorry for the original bad link!
It is important to reflect on how large a jump it is from comic books to graphics, especially given how widespread the popularity of both media has become. While animation sacrifices comic book artifacts such as the gutter, their presentation and structuring still maintains much of the feel of comics, where the aesthetics of framing and transition that are associated with comic books are apparent in most animation. Put another way, the way we see the environment and characters in Persepolis the film plays by the many of the same rules that Persepolis the comic book follows. But with animations come motion, a concept handled much more figuratively in the world of comics. It’s easy enough to think of motion in animations as handled the same way as live-action cinema, but I believe that animations maintain some of the flexibility of meaning that the idea of motion has in comics, albeit to a lesser extent. This is most apparent in scene transitions, where shifting between set pieces has a similar emphasis on ambiguity as the comics’ gutter. While thinking of animations as a combination of film and comic aesthetics may be oversimplifying things, I find that this perspective is still a good place to start analysis.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, I found that Persepolis the film was much more enjoyable than its source material. Satrapi’s comic has a great deal of value, and for the most part I think it has earned its reputation. But with the unpredictable pacing and lack of strong organization, I couldn’t help but see it as little more than a very promising first draft. Because it’s not the content that I felt was lacking in Persepolis; it’s how Satrapi presents it all. The film, meanwhile, has the polish, depth, and structure that I had been hoping for this whole time. This, in my opinion, is the final draft which the comic is meant to become.
I apologize for the lateness, weather has made things ten times more difficult. I trust you can sympathize.
DeleteSorry about being late as well. It was partially weather partially computer troubles.
ReplyDeleteAnyway I really enjoyed this film! The comic seemed a little stale, but something about the animation helped it out a lot. Maybe it's the fact that content can be more easily digested when you hear it in your native language (though quite irritating when Marjane's father is the only one with an obviously american accent) as well as watching animated versions of what used to be very text heavy panels. We can't relate to their culture just with text, we need to actually see and hear these things happen since it's all so shockingly unfamiliar to the western world. The improvement on the art is so welcome it's amazing.Satrapi is really not much of an artist so it's great to get subtle textures in the background, and characters drawn with more than just a fat sharpie. The only other comic turned movie I thought was an improvement was the Surrogates, and for similar reasons. It fixed a lot of the problems with the comic, and tried to mold it into a better experience. However that film has a terrible plot hole in the end... But back on track this is a great film, and I agree with those above, it does appear to be Persepolis at its finest.
I really liked the movie, it was exactly what I imagined in my head when I was reading the comic itself. I think it makes a bigger difference when it's a regular novel, and then it's made into a movie, because what you have in your mind is based on the assumptions you made reading, but in the comic, because we see vivid imagery, when we see the movie, it shows the actual comic in motion, it was really nice, and I liked the way they depicted the movie, it gave the comic more life, once sound and motion is added, it really gave it a much better perspective.
ReplyDelete