The purpose of my essay is to identify a film I have seen and for which there are at least three substantive analyses of the "poet's intent" published in contemporary periodicals, and after reading those analyses, compare and contrast the poet/film-maker's intents against the functions of poets or the standards of poetry articulated by our ancient authorities.
The sources I'm using are three reviews from newspaper movie critics, Deor, Widsith, Bede's Story of Caedmon, Sidney's Defense of Poesy, Chaucer's House of Fame, and Pope's Essay on Criticism.
Even though I'm pretty sure I know what I want to write, I can't move past my choppy introduction:
"I read the reviews by movie critics working for the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago-Sun Times on the movie Julie &Julia. Respectively, the movie critics were A.O. Scott, Kenneth Turan, and Roger Ebert. These critics attempted to ascertain the intent of filmmaker Nora Ephron in this movie as well as the reliability of the information offered in Julie &Julia."
Any ideas on how to make it flow a little better?
Well, your intro is all about your reading/writing of the thing, which is not interesting. The first sentence tells something about what you read, but instead it should tell something about what you discovered. You can write these introductory lines about a fascinating concept that emerged as you studied these reviews. What did you notice?
:-)
I changed the topic. Now I'm comparing original works with newer versions. I really don't know where I'm going with it but I'm having fun.
THE REWORKING OF ORIGINAL TALES
BEOWULF: CHRISTIAN TRANSFORMATION
When a scribe reworked the original tale of Beowulf, he replaced the concept of wyrd with Christianity. This changed the intent of the original Beowulf, which was to promote a general acceptance of phenomenon unexplainable by man as an uncontrollable, random act of the universe. The new intent as set forth by the scribe was to promote a higher power, the Christian God, as being in charge of the universe and controlling every aspect of a person's life. This removes the randomness of the original telling of Beowulf and inserts God's will as the reason for all happenings. The seemingly philosophical focus of the original Beowulf is changed into a religious focus in the scribe's reworking. This massively changes the intent of the tale of Beowulf.
In the original telling of Beowulf the monsters Grendel, Grendel's mother and the dragon were just monsters the ring-giver had to get rid of in order to protect the people who swore fealty to him. In the case of Grendel and his mother the ring-giver Hrothgar gets lucky when Beowulf arrives to rid Hrothgar's people of these monsters. In the scribe's reworked version of Beowulf, these monsters are actually evil creatures of hell and Beowulf is chosen by God to defeat them. In the original tale of Beowulf the fact that Hrothgar is not physically harmed is a matter of randomness. In the Christian retelling this occurrence is explained by saying Hrothgar's throne was protected by God.
FROM SIR GAWAIN AND DAME RAGNELLE TO WIFE OF BATH'S TALE
In the original telling, Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle, King Arthur is charged with the task of finding out what women want most by Sir Gromer Somer Joure and is helped by nephew Sir Gawain. In the retelling, The Wife of Bath's Tale, a knight that has raped a woman is charged with the task of finding what women desire most by Arthur's queen and does so alone. If King Arthur and the rapist knight did not succeed in either tale, though, they would have their heads cut off. Chaucer decides to put the power in women's hands immediately which is why the task is set forth by Arthur's queen. The rapist knight learns his lesson purely through women. In both tellings women want the ability to make their own decisions.
Chaucer's The Wife of Bath's Tale adds a religious element like the scribe's reworking of Beowulf but it is a noticeably smaller element in The Wife of Bath's Tale. It is only seen at the end of Chaucer's tale when the Wife of Bath prays that Christ should send all women husbands who are young, meek, and fresh in bed, and the grace to outlive their husbands. The changes to the introduction in this story are enough to make the majority of the stories different but the outcomes of both are generally the same, apart from the fact in The Wife of Bath's Tale the husband and wife have a long happy life together and in Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnelle the wife dies after five short years, leaving the husband to grieve her for the rest of his life.
HOLINSHED AND FROISSART REDONE BY SHAKESPEARE
Shakespeare's Richard II is not largely different from the Chronicles of Froissart and Holinshed's Chronicles. Shakespeare altered Gaunt into a patriotic character that is very loyal to the king in order to assert the divine right of kings. This adds a large element of Christianity to the play. This is noticeable when Richard II claims if Bolingbroke tries to usurp the throne, the heavens and Richard II will rain vengeance upon him. This is also noticeable when the Duke of York exhibits an extreme loyalty to the new king by racing off to basically tattle on his own son for conspiring against the crown.
Shakespeare also changed the reason for Bolingbroke's banishment in his play, Richard II. Originally in Holinshed's Chronicles, Bolingbroke is exiled for being unable to peacefully end his dispute for with Mowbray. In Shakespeare's reworking, Richard's apparent motivation for banishing Bolingbroke is jealousy. Richard did not like that Bolingbroke was so much more popular amongst the people than he was. This allows Shakespeare to demonstrate how Richard II was a poor ruler because he allowed his emotions to color his decisions.
JUVENAL'S ROME TO JOHNSON'S LONDON
Johnson takes Juvenal's satire on Rome and reworks it to fit London. Both satires are extremely similar as far as the writers are talking about how the major city they live in is a cesspool of corruption, crime and death. Both writers wrote nostalgically of the histories of their homelands and lamented the new replacing the old. They both wrote of foreigners taking over their homes and taking precedence over the true citizens.
Johnson more directly attacks his government by comparing George II (though he is not specifically mentioned) and the Whig political party to the Roman emperors during the Roman Empire's decline. Johnson was able to use more contemporary examples than Juvenal because Juvenal lived in a dangerous age. Writing something about a contemporary could've been fatal for the satirist. The only other differences are ultra specific to their regions and time-periods.
FROM BEOWULF TO THE SEA OF TROLLS
Farmer's The Sea of Trolls takes the original Beowulf, adds the religious element (like the scribe's Beowulf) and also greatly alters the story. Farmer takes Grendel's mother, gives her a name (Frith) and background, and gives her a sister. This sister is the central character of the reworked story. The bard in The Sea of Trolls claims that the reason Hrothgar's hall was attacked was that all good things had to come to an end. The bard reasoned that if things were going too well for too long, it meant it was time for it to be put to an end by an outside force. The bard asserts that all religions are possible which is different from the scribe's version of Beowulf. The scribe's version only asserted the Christian religion which, of course, also differed from the original version of Beowulf that covered the concept of wyrd.
Frith wants revenge on the bard because in Farmer's version, the bard cast a spell on Beowulf so that he could breathe underwater for a certain amount of time in order to battle Grendel's mother. This drive for revenge brings about the end of a good era for a small Saxon village where the bard is staying. This leads to him telling his apprentice, Jack, the story of Beowulf and Hrothgar's hall. He also tells Jack how Frith sent the dragon to kill Beowulf. All of these elements in Farmer's story take the concept of wyrd out of the picture since they explain why everything happened. It also makes the Christian focus shaky since it validates several other religions through Farmer's creation of the Tree of Life. Each branch is a different religion in existence and the bard tells Jack that a person goes to whatever afterlife they chose.
Farmer's version also differs from the former tales because instead of focusing on a good ring-giver, it focuses on a terrible one. This ring-giver is King Ivar the Boneless who is married to Frith because he was fooled by her beauty (synthetic). It is proposed in the story that he is called Boneless because he lets Frith do whatever she wishes, even if it negatively impacts those who swore fealty to him. It is also mentioned, however, that Ivar used to be a great king until he went to the land of the trolls and was tricked by Frith into marriage. Since Ivar's people had been prospering for too long a time under his rule, Frith served as the end of such a glorious era.
FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ TO WICKED: MOVIE TO BOOK
Fleming's intent in The Wizard of Oz was completely replaced in Maguire's retelling, Wicked. Fleming's movie asserts that there is no place like home and an idealistic black-and-white depiction of right and wrong. Maguire's book takes the Wicked Witch of the West, gives her an actual name (Elphaba) and makes her the protagonist. In the movie, the Wicked Witch of the West is just Dorothy's dream version of the mean old woman who wanted to take her dog away. In Wicked, Elphaba is actually for Animals' rights and is trying to see if animals can be taught to talk. In this world there is a distinction between Animals and animals because Animals can talk while animals cannot.
Maguire also added an element of religion not unlike Christianity. In Wicked, Elphaba is green and allergic to water because her mother had been unfaithful to her husband and their god was punishing her. Elphaba's sister (who got a house dropped on her) has no arms in the book and her red slippers actually were spelled so that she could stand and walk without assistance. Their brother was born normally after their mother stopped being unfaithful in her marriage. In The Wizard of Oz religion is not mentioned at all and really doesn't have any more depth really than to persuade the viewer to appreciate their lives.
In The Wizard of Oz, the Wizard of Oz is depicted as a great ruler with adoring subjects and great knowledge. Everyone in Emerald City is happy and believes they can depend on the Wizard for anything. He basically is depicted as a great ring-giver in the movie. In Wicked, he is described as a despotic emperor who neglects the average citizens of the empire in favor of the noble class. He is basically the Richard II of the story. Elphaba has noble blood in Munchkin Land, is popular amongst the average citizen and Animals (less than citizens) and defies him at every turn. She often speaks of how Emerald City is just a pile of corrupted filth and how she would like to leave, like Johnson and Juvenal.
To rid himself of this threat to his power, the Wizard summons the ignorant Dorothy. Like Juvenal, Elphaba should have been more discreet and should not have mentioned any contemporaries since she lived in a dangerous age. Dorothy's house then falls on Elphaba's sister and the Good Witch Glinda (depicted as a spoiled airhead) takes her shoes and gives them to Dorothy. Dorothy goes about her duty without knowing she was supposed to and kills Elphaba by throwing water on her. In the book, Dorothy thought she was saving the witch by putting out the fire from her broomstick which had spread to her robe.
This adaptation of The Wizard of Oz by Maguire has nothing to do with the original intent of Fleming to persuade the viewer to appreciate their lives but expands on all the elements offered in the movie, much like how Shakespeare took the Chronicles and expanded upon it with more embellishments. While Shakespeare mostly sticks rather closely to the history as it happened and added a few things to the Chronicles, Maguire only sticks to the basic time frame set up by the original story and lets his imagination run rampant with the rest of it.
I really don't know where I'm going with it
That is the way Stephen King writes. He says he never knows how stories will end until they end. Other writers say you need to know where you are going in order to get there.
With composition, both methods can work. I like to come up with a thesis sentence after I look at all the paragraphs I have written, and then tweak the topic sentences accordingly.
Okay, reading it now...
Wow, I am impressed. I kept googling selections of the essay to see if you had copied it from some professionally written article. sorry I doubted you. :-)
So... the thing to do now is use this excellent set of observations to generate insight. What observations can you make about the similarities among these retellings of stories at various times in history? Write a fascinating intro paragraph that tells about something they all have in common or something you observe by comparing them.
