Having finished reading the novella and watching the cinema version you may have noticed differences in the characters, setting, plot, imagery and symbolism.
Please post your opinion and analysis about two differences. Specifically, indicate the differences you found and explain what you think they did to change the theme or author's message.
The movie and the book were completely different in many ways. In certain parts, the movie added scenes that were not even mentioned in the book. For example, in the movie, the one-legged men "falls" off of the cliff. In the book, there's no mention of a one legged man or of a person falling to their death. The creators of the movie most likely included this part to build hate inside the viewer for the doctor and his cronies. At other times, the movie completely left out parts of the book. The most outstanding part that they left out happens to be the part that changes the message of the piece. The movie left out the death of Coyotito at the end. Along with that, they failed to include the depressing end in the book. In the book, Kino and Juana return to the village with Coyotito's dead body. All of the community peeked through windows and such but never came out and greeted them. Than they throw the pearl into the ocean. In the movie, the family returns with no casualties and are given a hero's welcome home. They than, similar to the book, throw the pearl into the ocean. The message is completely flipped on it's head. Steinbeck's original message was that the poor are never going to be able to move up the social ladder in the US government. He has shown this by ending the book on a negative note. The makers of the movie show a happy ending, the opposite of the book. They most likely did this because ,generally, people like happy endings. Personally, I think the original book ending was by far better than the movie ending. I mean, one of the reasons that movie was good was because it was hilarious to watch the bad acting and because of how dramatically different it was from the book.
Reply
Ethan
3/14/2016 06:09:28 pm
Jake- I never thought about the existence of the one legged man like that. Until his death, I thought he was filler for a movie based on a 90 page book. When he did die, however, I thought it was going to change the plot a lot more than it did, making the rest of the story about Kino running from the townsmen because he was accused of murdering him. Other than that, I agree with you except for the fact that it was fun to watch the bad acting. For me, that was pretty torturous. I could write less awkward dialogue than that!
Reply
Joey C
3/14/2016 08:40:37 pm
I thought the same thing about the way they were welcomed home in the movie. It showed polar opposite meanings of the movie and the book. Also I like the way you put the one legged man into the perspective of the story. It agree that it did make me hate the doctor more because he caused the death of an innocent man. Perhaps making him handicapped showed that the doctor and his men did not care if they were hurting a helpless man.
Reply
Zach H
3/17/2016 03:19:43 pm
Jake- I never really thought of it like that, the way you described it made me feel like that was the movie makers intentions. Also I totally agree with the death of coyotito and the ending, at the end I don't even think they where trying to follow the book, and it was really irritating. I think if we directed the movie we could have done better. I agree with the happy endings part and think that event though they didn't follow the book, it would be better for the peoples enjoyment to make a happy ending
Reply
Michael Breslow
3/14/2016 04:18:13 pm
The movie was very off from the book. I agree with Mrs. LaFevre - The director completely missed the point of the book. Two things I felt were very important were the clothes that Juana and the doctor were wearing. In the book, Juana is wearing a blue shawl, which shows the reader that she is the mother Mary Madonna. This also tells the reader that eventually, her baby will die, just like Jesus. In the end of the book, the baby dies. Just as predicted. But in the movie. the baby doesn't even die! This completely changes the message because in the book, Kino ends up with nothing. His relationship with is wife is shaky, his child is dead and he has no friends because of his greed, but noooooo. The movie is completely inaccurate. The other thing that really bothers me is the fact that the doctor is not wearing red. Red symbolizes blood, war and evil. The doctor is the evil mastermind behind the entire civilization, and the entire book, so it makes sense that he's wearing the colors that match his personality. But of course, the director of the movie doesn't catch on to this, and makes the movie much more shallow than the book.
Reply
Julia F
3/14/2016 05:10:45 pm
I was going to write about the clothe too, but I started ranting and addressed a completely other topic. Oops. But i completely agree, especially with Juana and her blue shawl. That symbolism kind or spilled into the movie too, probably by accident. In the book, she had on her blue Mary Madonna shawl and we all knew that Coyotito was going to die. Since she didn't wear it in the movie it kind of foreshadowed that the baby wouldn't die, this might have been a directing fluke but it was kind of interesting how it played out. I also agree with the doctor wearing the red. He didn't seem as evil to me in the movie as he did in the book. The way he initially was described in the book made me dislike him and even made him seem a bit creepy. I knew this before I'd even learned of the terrible things he did. Definitely adding the blood red outfit into the movie would help the audience have a better understanding of how truly evil the doctor is.
Reply
Kaitlyn C
3/15/2016 04:54:50 pm
I agree with you both when you were talking about the blue shawl. Julia, I like how you said it foreshadowed that Coyotito wouldn't die. That's a really good point. The blue shawl took away the whole parable aspect of the story. But, I think the doctor was still portrayed as evil even without the red. His character was almost exact to the book and gave me the same impression as the book. But, other than that, I completely agree with both of your points.
Ethan
3/14/2016 05:49:54 pm
Michael, I agree that those were important things that were changed, but I don't think that they changed the theme or message of the movie. Those things were descriptive and foreshadowed the rest of the book, but if Steinbeck didn't writhe them, the theme would very much be the same. Without them, however, the majority of religious messages may have been overlooked by readers and Steinbeck's point would not have gotten through as well as it did. By changing the ending, the message changed. In my opinion, the greatest changes occurred when the plot changed. It changed the whole story when Coyotito survived to the end of the movie. It makes the message very different, from a message of hopelessness, to a message of lack of determination. Overall, the movie was so different from the book, it was almost unwatchable.
P.S.- Did you know that Dumbo was in The Revenant (haven't seen it but know he's probably more forgettable that a bird in the background) and Inception (guy who "is done and won't do anymore jobs")
Reply
LaFevre
3/17/2016 12:28:19 pm
I think Lucas Haas is also in Inception. I watched it the other night - at your suggestion, I think. It appeared that he was the first architect before they got the guy from Mumbai.
Lauren C.
3/15/2016 06:13:18 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with your viewpoints on the movie. It’s such a shame they took away the symbolism in the colors, especially the red satin gown. Another thing they changed with their clothes was that Kino wore the hat multiple times throughout the movie. While in the book, he only wore the hat on his way to see the doctor, feeling that he needed to dress up in the presence of someone so powerful. I feel that not making Juana wear the blue shawl detracts worth from the movie, and that the director focused too much on trying to make the movie entertaining, the quality suffers for it.
Reply
Allison
3/16/2016 03:20:42 pm
I completely agree. I don't think any of us really liked the movie adaptation, however, some of disliked it for more sophistifcated reasons. For one I didn't even think of the shawl! Her top wasn't blue and she wasn't even wearing a shawl. I find it funny how it was mentioned so often, as a way to carry coyotito and as the first description of Juana we have, how could the director have missed the symbolism?
Reply
Ryan M
3/16/2016 05:51:32 pm
Michael, I completely agree with all of those points, in fact, I even talked about the connection between Juana and Mary in the book and the lack thereof in the movie. I didn't talk about the clothes the doctor was wearing in the book, but, that is definitely true and interesting. Have you ever considered the effect these differences have on the entire movie as a whole? It's very interesting to think about how something seeming so minor could affect something on such a grand scale. Also, have you considered what the authors message or, in this case, the directors message has become overall?
Reply
Patrick Hanrahan
3/16/2016 07:34:12 pm
Michael- I definitely agree that having the baby stay alive in the movie was a mistake and changed the message. In the book, the baby is like Jesus, in which we knew from the first paragraph he will die at the end of the story. When the movie had him stay alive, one it was inaccurate to the book and two conveyed that through all of Kino's family's struggles, They are rewarded. In the book they throw back their wealth and lose not only that but the baby. I also agree with the clothes, in the book we are portrayed with a despicable doctor who wore the color of blood, and Juana who represented good and the Mother Mary. In the movie, Juana was vibrant, totally unlike Mary and the doctor wore white to show wealth. The doctor is not to be seen as wealthy but an awful human.The amount of mistakes in the movie whether it is the accents, wrong plot or whatever it is, the movie director sees the book totally different than us, whether we are right, we still need key plot like the baby's death.
Reply
Steph O
3/14/2016 04:43:16 pm
The movie was very off from the book. The movie missed the whole point of the book. Two of the major themes in the book were the ants and when Coyotito dies. The part about the big shiny black ants and then the little dusty ants was not included in the movie. One message the book showed us from the ants is that our class system is bad. We as humans class poor and rich into different categories, in comparison making the rich seem so much better. And making the rich think they have more power because they are in the higher class. Like when the doctor wore red in the book. Red symbolizes power and wealth, they did not include this in the movie. To continue, the author of the book made the rich seem bad, the color red that the rich doctor wears also symbolizes the devil and blood.
In addition to the ants, the movie left out Coyotito dying. By leaving this out it makes it seem like Kino got all he wanted and he was a good guy and he lived happily ever after and he is a true hero. No. Kino was as greedy as the doctor was, this is another message: that everyone is greedy when it comes to wealth and power. Kino showed animalistic traits throughout the book and little signs that he was changing because of the pearl. When he lost something at the end it showed him what he had become and that is why he threw the pearl back into the ocean, not because he thought it was a good gesture. By leaving both of these things out in the movie makes you want to read the book to fill in the empty holes that the movie left open.
Reply
Sabrina C
3/14/2016 04:51:36 pm
One difference I noted was the very ending where in the book Juana and Kino come back with a dead baby and the whole town resents them, but in the movie the town welcomes them back with open arms as if they are heroes. The whole point of having the family come back in pieces and destroyed was to show how much damage greed and evil can cause to the ones trapped inside of it. The movie made it seem as if there is always a happy ending and that is not what Steinbeck was trying to show. Also another difference I noted was when the film had the villagers get rid of the pearl, or the evil, and sail to a better future. Noting the fact that they are extremely poor, the ending of that movie was headed for an even bigger disaster. Conversely, the book ended with the demolished family staying trapped by the evils of greed in society even after they got rid of the cause, but what the book is showing is that you can't escape greed and evil once you have cowered down to it. It will control you and slowly tear you apart until you cant take it anymore. The movie completely contradicted Steinbeck's message in the ending with the town's reaction and the dead baby, and even the very last parts of the story.
Reply
Kayla C
3/14/2016 06:35:17 pm
I totally agree with you. I love how you mentioned that the movie kind of interferred with Steinbeck's intentions. The book was about greed, grief and pain, but the movie shows the importance of family and heroism. In your response you said that in the ending of the movie Kino sails to a better future. What do you think will happen? (I believe that Kino and Juana will be poor again, because they threw away the pearl.)
Reply
Julia F
3/14/2016 04:56:57 pm
First off, bravo to the director of this movie who managed to hire Dumbo as the lead. I never knew he was in any other movie, so congratulations that was an amazing accomplishment, but I hate the movie. No, I loathe the movie. Not only was one of the biggest messages in the book changed, but Coyotito didn't die. Sorry, but he needed to die in order to complete Steinbeck's message. The message was supposed to be that the less fortunate will never rise to become wealthy and well off. Even if they fight for the right thing they will forever be stuck in their social class. In the book, Juana and Kino walked side by side, with Coyotito's dead body, back to their community, in which they were not greeted in a joyful swarm of friends and family. In fact, almost everyone glanced towards the ground as they passed, either in disappointment or anger towards them, but they didn't care. Kino and Juana were broken, they had lost everything. They now knew why, the pearl. The pearl and all the evil it brought along with it had done this to them, so they threw it back into the water. They learned something horrific, yet true none the less. Bad things come to good people. BUT, in the movie none of that happened. In the movie Coyotito wasn't shot, and the family returned to their town to bring the news of the vanished ones. The were greeted as heroes with the love and respect of everyone they knew. Then, even though they didn't need to and they were being foolish, they threw the pearl back into the water anyway(I was so mad). In the book, they had an excuse, but in the movie they lived happily ever after and could have sold the pearl. On top of that big mess, Kino wasn't animalistic at all. In the book, you watched him slowly become a beast, getting crazier and crazier every chapter. In the end, he stopped waiting to be attacked to fight back, he made the first move as if he was stalking his prey. He was full on beast mode. In the movie, he was the same guy throughout the entire movie all the way through to the very end. They even altered the last conflict scene so that killing the trackers and the "geologist" was after he was attacked. I don't know if it was just the horrible acting skills of our friend Dumbo or the director didn't want it that way, but it doesn't matter they still messed it up. It was entertaining to watch the horrible acting, but the movie was just so wrong it irks me. When I found out Coyotito didn't die I literally wanted to jump into the movie and kill him myself to fix it, and I even started chanting, "Kill him! Kill him!" I know that's a horrible thing to say but considering the circumstances I'm okay with it, sorry Coyotito. And that's how much I hate the movie.
It was really hard to write that without any of these:
- Uggggggg
- Grrrrrrrrr
- Aaaarrrggghh
- Aaaggggg
- Eeerrrrrrrrrr
I feel better now:)
Reply
Michael Breslow
3/14/2016 05:03:13 pm
I completely agree with you that everyone lived happily ever after. That;s not even close to the ending of the book. The book is sad and gloomy but in the movie, there is no gloom. Also with the animalistic part, when Kino squashed the scorpion in the beginning, all he did was stomp his foot twice, showing almost no facial expressions. I also was not a huge fan of the movie. Most of the time, me and a few other kids just pointed out all of the faults in the movie. Really good book, horrible movie
Reply
Emily A
3/14/2016 05:59:25 pm
I completely agree with you. The director hired horrible actors that did not play the parts of the people to their full potential, and the director changed the whole ending of the book. With the director changing this ending it also changed to whole message like you said, the message being, the poor will never rise social classes was never shown in the movie and I got a very different message after watching this movie. I also agree with you in the fact that although it was a horrible thing to say the director needed to include a scene of Coyotito being killed. They should of done a scene like this instead of putting in a scenes that had nothing to do with the book, (a.k.a. most of the scenes). I really was surprised this director was able to produce a movie and I hope she or he does not produce any more because this movie plainly sucked. I wasn't happy that the director did not show Kino being animalistic. This was a big part of the book and we talked about it for over 10 minutes in class so to see that there was no really big part of this in the movie was kind of upsetting and made me dislike the Director of this movie even more.
Reply
Holly D
3/16/2016 04:36:16 pm
I completely agree with you. The ending of the movie was very dissapionting. I'm usually one of those happily ever after ending types of people and even I thought that the ending of this movie was, frankly, pretty terrible. The director totally destroyed stienbecks vision and main message for the book. When you close the book you are supposed to have a feeling of hopelessness and dissapiontment. The movie portrayed the complete opposite of that. It really makes me mad because I know that people are going to watch this terrible movie before reading the book and think that the book is just as bad.
Reply
Rachel T
3/14/2016 05:35:53 pm
The movie and book are completely different things. The messages are different due to certain scenes that were cut out of the movie. First off, the movie did not have the ant scene where Kino watches with the "detachment of God". This scene in the book foreshadows what happens with the doctor and Kino. It also shows that the wealthier, and cleaner you are, you have more power. However, in the movie, the director did not make it clear that the doctor was the one trapping Kino until Kino had the pearl and the doctor poisoned the baby. When the movie didn't have this scene, I knew the movie's theme was going to be different from the book. Also, another part in the movie that is different is that Coyotito didn't die. In the movie, Kino kills the three people hiding in the woods and saves Coyotito's life. The theme of the movie is essentially if you fight back hard enough, you will succeed. In the book, however, Coyotito dies. John Steinbeck is trying to tell the person that riches and wealth eventually can ruin someones life and bring anger, sadness and greed. This happens to Kino, as he is just trying to get the best price for the "pearl of the world", which costs his son's life. The movie does not mention this theme at all. I personally think the director missed the point of the book.
Reply
Ethan K
3/14/2016 05:39:54 pm
There were many differences between the movie and the book. For example, Steinbeck never described Kino's ears bigger than Dumbo the Elephant's, or ever gave half the characters white people accents and half of them bad Mexican accents. Also, the movie kept Coyotito alive when, in the book, he was shot. I think this was done by the director to keep the movie's tone lighter, but didn't realize that this changed the message of the story. Steinbeck was commenting on the class system, and saying that people can't move up in society. By keeping Coyotito alive, Kiko defeated the trackers and anyone out to get him, providing a completely different message that is further enforced when they throw the pearl into the ocean- the only reason people are in poverty is because they throw away their opportunities. Another really big change was that the movie made the pearl out to be some evil thing. In the book Kiko's paranoia caused him to commit all of the terrible actions, but in the movie, all of the bad stuff that happened to Kiko and his family was suddenly the pearl's fault. By doing that, the movie infringed on Steinbeck's message of human flaw and free will.
Reply
Kira W.
3/15/2016 12:36:59 am
I completely agree with everything you said. Aside from the bad acting, I agree with what you said about the pearl getting thrown back into the water. I didn't think about the director wanting to put a lighter tone to the movie. I also agree with you about the different messages about the pearl. I want to suggest that Steinbeck might also be hinting at expectations and our desires versus what we need. Kino wanted marriage, education for his son, a rifle, new clothes, and a harpoon. He expected to get these things from the money that the pearl would bring him. Of course his needs wouldn't necessarily include all the things he expected. Well done though, you helped me to see more ideas.
Reply
Emily A
3/14/2016 05:47:46 pm
The film and the novel were very different. In some parts it had seemed we were not watching the movie based off of the novel the Pearl but almost like we were watching a whole new story. The movie had added and changed a whole bunch of scenes that were not included in the book. Some examples of times when the director of the movie added or changed scenes when making the movie are, the scene when the Captain told Kino he couldn't go on the boat to the mainland, he would have to go on foot since his canoe was broken, this never happened in the book. The whole scene with the one-legged man also never happened. One thing that really bothered me is the whole ending. In the ending in the book Kino and Juana walked by, Kino holding a rifle Juana holding her dead baby. They walk back into the town and the neighbors basically don't make a big deal of their return and just keep on doing whatever they were doing, as if they were not there. Then Kino and Juana walk over to the cliff and throw the pearl out back into the sea. Book over. Yet in the movie, Kino and Juana come back into town, on horse and with Coyotito alive. The neighbors rush around the horse treating Kino like a hero. Then the whole town goes to the cliff with Kino and Juana and watches Kino throw the pearl into the see. The doctor who is also watching wants his assistant to shoot them so he can have the pearl but the assistant refuses. Then the residents of the poorer part of town burn their houses and set sail assumingly to the main-land or to another town to start over. Movie Over. The changing of the ending changes the whole final thoughts of this piece. In the book I was left under the impression that the poor will never rise up in society no matter how hard they try, and trying may cause the ones your closest to abandon you, yet in the movie I was left thinking the poor people won. They would find a new land to settle on and start completely over. Personally after reading the book and watching the movie I prefer the book more then the movie.
Reply
Kayla C
3/14/2016 06:27:20 pm
There was a variety of differences from the book and movie. The difference that stood out to me the most was the ending of the movie. Steinbeck ends the book by Kino throwing the pearl into the ocean. The town won't speak to him, and his baby is dead. Steinbeck intended the message of this book to be about greed and grief. But, the ending in the movie was tremendously different. Kino and Juana return to the town on a horse and Coyotito is perfectly fine. Kino also discovers the vanished ones, which is important in the movie. He rides back with the staff like object, the town praising him. The bizarre part of the ending was when Kino and his neighbors burned their houses down and began to sail to the main land. This doesn't make any sense because Kino tossed the pearl into the ocean. Kino and Juana would be poor again, so their trip to the main land won't be successful. The ending of the movie shows forgiveness and heroism, two things that Steinbeck wasn't trying to show. Steinbeck lived in the time period of depression, so it was basically impossible for him to write a happy ending.
Reply
Izzy DePaola
3/15/2016 09:44:49 pm
I completely agree with you. The ending of the movie was very different from the end of the book and frankly, the book's was better because it really reflected the authors thoughts on capitalism. I also agree with you that how the village burned down there houses and began to sail to the mainland. I feel like the writers just put that in for a dramatic ending, or just to push the whole "happy ending" idea. Overall, I decently agree on your thoughts on the ending of the movie.
Reply
Allison
3/14/2016 06:38:36 pm
Steinbecks grim, however true, portrayal of our capitalist reality was very well written into the book. The movie, not so much. For as a disclaimer I was sick and subsequently missed the first half of the movie. Also as much as I would like to bash the movie as I typically do (I'm looking at you Percy Jackson movies) that is not productive in reaching the goal assigned. So in my calm civilized manner I start with the finding of the pearl. The director of the movie immediately suggests danger as kino risks his life for the thing as he would many times. Shortly after find the pearl the heavens open up and out breaks a thunder storm. In the book it is not that obvious, the pearl starts good, like the apple in the biblical stories about Adam and Eve. It is a sign of happiness and as soon as kink finds it his son is cured. I would have respected the directors choice in full if it were not for the nonsense, contradicting, mess that followed. In the book, despite seeking good and happy, many many misfortunes fall on kino as the pearl drives him further and further into his aggressive animalistic behavior. When the couple and the baby flee to the mountains kino pays the worst price he could- not his own but watching his son die. Unfortunately, in the movie none of this message is presented to us. The pearl is foreshadowed as bad and yet the child doesn't die! They ride off into the sunset happy as clams (no pun intended) and after all the events the town welcomes him with open arms. He is not cast out- forced to get rid of his pearl like the message suggests. Oh wait, he does. Even though the pearl has brought cinematic kino no trouble he throws it into the ocean (poorly if I might add) and the towns folk cheer! "Yeah! Yay! Whoop! You threw out the money!" As you can see steinbecks message is clear and important call to our attention about how the poor are treated and how the misfortunate are simply unlucky folks. The directors message is not. There were many ways that he could have gone even if he had not stuck to steinbecks original message but failed to do any of them. Therefore, leaving this movie in my opinion underwhelming and a disappointment
Reply
Luke B.
3/14/2016 07:11:42 pm
To me, the movie ruined the themes, and replaced the themes that don’t make any sense. These are the biggest reasons to me why the movie ruined the magnificence of John Steinbeck’s masterpiece, The Pearl:
Cinema Juana:
In the pearl, Juana was used to help show how much Kino has changed, and that Kino is wrong. Juana does this in the book by telling Kino that he has gone insane, and that he should dispose of the pearl. These two actions help further show that Kino has became inhuman by the pearl, and is now an outcast in society, due to Kino’s own wife/supporter, Juana not finding Kino human. However, the cinema version of this tragic story ruins Juana, thus ruining Kino’s animalism. Instead of finding Kino inhuman, Juana is a supporter of Kino to death. Cinema Juana also takes some of the most important lines from Novel Kino that show that he is an animal, the best example of this being that Juana calls Coyotito the “little one” (Kino calls Coyotito the little one in the book). As well as that, Juana ruins the theme of The Pearl. The themes of the novel is that it is hard to climb up the ladder of wealth, and that greed will turn you inhuman. Cinema Juana makes the greed theme swap out with another theme that we all hate: PERSEVERANCE. She makes the theme PERSEVERANCE by supporting Kino throughout his journey of finding and keeping the pearl, instead of calling Kino a monster. Cinema Juana also does not mention disposing of the pearl that much, which also affects the theme, as well as confuses everyone on why they threw the pearl at the end of the movie.
Cinema EVERYBODY ELSE:
Kino should not be having an army of citizens at the end of the movie, nor should those citizens have much development in movie, as well as general appearance in the movie. As much as they showed population in the movie, they are too characterized. Take the doctor’s servant at the end of the movie. At the end of the movie, the assistant has turned against the doctor for SOME REASON NOBODY UNDERSTANDS, and they don’t need to (because he is irrelevant for the most part). The population that Cinema Kino has on his side at the end of the movie is tearing the theme of animalism and social wealth. It shows that you CAN climb the ladder of wealth, even if you threw your money into the middle of the ocean so a crab can inhabit the money. It shows that society will forgive you for you inhumanness, even if you murdered a group of people, as well as took their weapons and transportation. Overall, the residents took too much screen time to make you love them, as well as make you forget that the themes do not make sense at all.
Side note, where does the burning of the villages and the moving of the capital come into theme?
Side side note, what happened to the doctor? Did he go with them, or did he die?
Side side side note, why burn the villages? It’s a waste of material and can damage the environment.
Reply
Kaitlyn C
3/14/2016 08:24:29 pm
In The Pearl, John Steinbeck was trying to portray a message that good people receive bad things, and bad people receive good things. The movie was an entirely different message. It was trying to say, if you work hard, you can over come evil and greed. I disagree when the other people say the message is stupid, because it's not a stupid message. It's a good motivation, but unfortunately its fictisous and doesn't fit the story. The book shows the message in a powerful way, when Coyotito is killed. The book does not mention anything about the baby dying. The importance of this death is extreme, it shows how the "Pearl of The World", indeed did uncover something, but not as great as the town thought. The pearl showed the real world, and how greed and fortune can take over anyone. The pearl was supposed to give Kino everything he thought he wanted. But instead it took everything away that he really had. It took his relationship with Juana away, his son, and it took a mans life. When Coyotito didn't die in the movie, John Steinbeck's message was weakened. Now, everyone welcomed Kino back into their village like nothing happened. Also, the movie created the character of the one legged mad. I am not entirely sure why they put him in the movie, but I believe it was too show even more anger. This anger might've been directed at the doctor, or too show that even why you try to help and be a good person, you will always get "pushed down". Literally, this one legged man was pushed to his death when he was trying to help Kino go to the mainland. Once Kino found the pearl, the doctor and villagers were pushing Kino until he was broken. It's not that the movie was bad, it's just the message was entirely different from Steinbeck's and they took out important pieces yet added pointless ones.
Reply
Joey C
3/14/2016 08:31:26 pm
The first major difference I noticed was when Kino and Juana returned to the village. In the novel the people of the town are angry at them. Some people wouldn't even talk to them. This gave the book a more sad ending that Kino and Juana would never be let back into the community that they were once a part of. It also is supposed to show how the pearl has ruined there lives. In the movie, however, when they return to the village people are happy and celebrate. Instead of having the sad, tragic ending from the book they made the ending happy and made it so Kino and Juana lived a happy life. With the change in ending this takes the complete meaning away from the book. The meaning was to show the pearl ruined there lives but in the end of the movie there lives aren't ruined. This turns the whole movie upside down and shows nothing of what Steinbeck wanted to show. The second thing I noticed was that in the movie Coyotito was not shot. In the book that was one of the most significant ways to show how Kino and Juana have lost everything. In the movie when he was not shot it continues to contrast from the meaning of the novel. If Coyotito was shot and killed in the movie there would be a completely different message from it. In conclusion what happened after Kino and Juana went back to town and Coyotito not being shot turned the movie into a completely different story line that showed a very opposite message.
Reply
Shivani
3/15/2016 07:17:52 pm
I agree with you on this, when he came back from the village in the book was totally different from the movie. The point of making the villagers hate them when they came back is to show that the greed Kino was consumed with destroyed everything that meant a lot to Kino. The Village is his home, he has lived there his whole life. And the villagers respected him, they thought he was a good, kind person. But when he came back everyone hated him for what he had done. This adds to the main message of the book that greed will destroy everything that you love. And the movie did the complete opposite making this a happy ending.
Reply
Kasey P
3/16/2016 12:25:08 am
Joey, I made very similar points in my response. I too thought that the happiness throughout the movie was completely inappropriate if the goal was to base the movie off of the book, which ended in tragedy, which was necessary in the portrayment of the overall message(s). I also thought that the death of the baby was one of the examples of Kino's loss. Being that those two essential components of the story were not included in the movie, the two pieces told two totally different stories. I definitely agree with you saying they were opposites of each other, that is a perfect way to describe the movie and the book.
Reply
Julia E
3/14/2016 09:34:16 pm
In the pearl it was easy to contrast the many differences from both book and movie. One big difference that stuck out to me was the ending. For one thing, the baby doesn't even die. This defeats the purpose that the author of the book was displaying, which was to show how Kino only lost and suffered from the pearl. However, having the baby live in the movie is telling a different message. It's setting the mood that everything is happy and will likely go back to normal, and Kino is only gaining things that he lost in the book. Another part at the end which I thought was a poor choice on the movie's part is to have the community burn down their whole town and just sail away in canoes. To me, this represented hopefulness and the becoming of new beginnings. After reading this book you would never take away that message after finishing. The book ending was sad, Kino lost a relationship not only with his wife, but with his entire community, while losing his son and never forgetting his murderous crimes. The end of the movie was over all very happy and peaceful, and I did not agree with the choices because it defeats the whole purpose of the book.
Reply
Maya M
3/15/2016 06:06:12 pm
I agree that the movie ending took away from Steinbeck's original ideas (he even gained a horse at the end!). The ending of the novella was peaceful too, but it was an eerie, empty kind of calmness because Juana and Kino were so disconnected from their community. However, I don't think he lost his relationship with his wife as she was loyal to him even when he abused her. It was disheartening to see Kino dismiss her and hurt her for taking away the pearl, not only because it was horrific, but her idea to destroy the pearl would have ultimately saved their child from his demise.
I found what you said about the symbolism of the burning of the community interesting because I had never stopped to consider any of the new symbolism in the movie. I was confused with exactly why they burned their houses down as they gained nothing out of it, but maybe the characters themselves were attempting to be symbolic. Or maybe it was in honor of Kino and Juana and their lose of their house.
Reply
Amravi
3/15/2016 09:18:23 pm
I never thought about 'new beginnings' being the theme but you are completely right! The canoes at the end of the movie further differ from the book because that kills Steinbeck's point even more. The movie barely relates to the book.
Reply
Danielle S.
3/14/2016 09:45:54 pm
The overarching theme in the novella, The Pearl, is the repression of the poor and their inability to rise up in society. Steinbeck believed that even if someone poor were given something good, they would not benefit from it. Kino was “given” the pearl, but in the end, it caused him to lose his most beloved – his son. The pearl was a harbinger of evil that turned his community against him and put a target on his back.
The movie, however, depicted a completely different theme. Poor people were able to take advantage of opportunities provided to them. This cinema version entirely missed the mark, losing most of the symbolism in the book.
Greed is a recurring theme in the book that was not represented in the movie. For instance, Kino’s transformation into a greedy animal is integral to the book’s theme. However, this transformation is totally ignored and not shown in the movie. The parallel between the doctor and Kino, who were both lusting for the pearl, is not shown as well. In the movie, the doctor is represented as mild-mannered individual instead of a conniving trickster. He did not wear any red garments, which took away the Satan symbolism.
The director even changed Juana’s character in the movie. Juana, who seemed like a strong woman in the book, was portrayed as a weakling, a follower of Kino to the death. She did not make any negative comments regarding the pearl, as she did in the book. In the movie, Juana seems more supportive of Kino’s discovery, rather than boldly questioning his motives.
The differences between the novella and the cinema version are drastic and take away from the central themes. I find the movie to be an adaptation, rather than something the book should be compared with.
Reply
Jonathan F
3/14/2016 09:47:38 pm
One of many major differences between the book The Pearl and the movie is that the movie added multiple characters, but not long were they extra people, these added people changed the plot of the story. The first added character who is Kino's father, he had only one leg and his contribution to the story is that Kino needed to find a new partner to travel with when going to the city. Another added character is the appraiser who also killed the Vanished one as well as hunting down Kino. This character, in my opinion is the movie is drastically different from the book. This character made they viewer focus more on the story on the Vanished ones than the actual meaning about animalism. He then comes back in the story later when hunting Kino and Juana do kill them for the pearl, he follows them all the way up to a cave that Kino recognizes from his recurring dream. They twosome then kill him and return home where they are recognized as heroes.
This leads me into the next flaw, the ending. In the book Coyotito is killed off and Kino and Juana return, no one talks nor speaks to them, this is again very different. The director makes all three of them return healthy and are celebrated, this is not the book at all, this is the director trying to change the story to his liking. Overall not much in this novel was portrayed correctly when creating this movie.
Reply
Ryan O
3/15/2016 10:11:31 pm
I completely agree with what you said. Steinbeck was very poetic with everything he wrote, and every little thing he put in the book had a purpose. However, the creators of the movie did this awfully. They took some of the carefully done poetic parts that Steinbeck wrote in the book, and just shoved them in the movie for no apparent reason. I did not see the part when the man with one leg was killed, but it seemed to do nothing. If Steinbeck were to put someone with one leg in the novel, it would be to show a theme. However, the producers of the movie shoved him in the movie for no reason, and it had no reflection on the theme whatsoever.
Reply
Maya M
3/14/2016 09:52:29 pm
The two main differences I saw between the movie and the book were (1) the endings and (2) the character development.
First of all, at the end of the movie Kino doesn't lose anything. The most obvious thing he doesn't lose is his child, Coyotito, but the movie goes so far as to make him gain more when he acquires the hose. He also doesn't lose his community. In the book the people who he had once been closely tied to in his community “let them [Kino and Juana] pass and did not speak to them” . Kino and Juana are so disconnected from everyone because of what had happened to them that they can never be a part of the village as they once were. Whereas in the movie, Juana, Kino, and Coyotito stride into the town on their horse like royalty where the village rushes up to them and looks up at them like heroes from a long journey.
Juana and Kino appear to come out stronger in the movie from the misfortunes that have happened to them. They are pictured towering above everybody else with the sun shining down on them. However, in the book it says “they seemed to carry around two towers of darkness” and “carried pillars of dark fear with them”. This is why I was so surprised why they tossed away the pearl in the movie. They had survived the pearl without losing anything and still they decided to toss it into the ocean for no apparent reason.
The ending in the movie changed the book's messages from “Even if you receive wealth you cannot survive the traps of poverty” to “If you are dedicated you’ll come out the other side stronger”. The second message may be happier and a bit more pleasant, but it makes you think a lot less which is why the movie was so less moving and powerful than the book.
Second, the setting and characters in the movie are completely static. In Steinbeck’s novella, at the beginning Kino is a honest, hardworking family man. But by the end, Steinbeck turns him into an animal. It says Kino “edged like a slow lizard”, “hissed like a snake”, and bared his teeth. By contrast, in the movie, Kino remains the same, dedicated and loving towards his family.
Along with not becoming animalistic, Kino also does not become violent. Everything he does in the movie can be easily excused as an act in self-defense or merely to protect his family. Even when Juana takes the pearl, he hits her only with an open hand and the scene is skipped over as if nothing happened. The novella was much more horrifying. It says he “struck her in the face with his clenched fist, and she fell among the boulders, and he kicked her in the side”. This was the moment when evil truly took over him and there was no turning back. This was when he hit and kicked the wife he loved and cared for at the beginning because he was so entranced by the pearl. But the movie completely skipped over the transition Steinbeck had created so that Kino was the same throughout the film. At the very end it also says “in the moonlight he could see the frantic frightened eyes, and Kino aimed and fired between the eyes”. In the movie he only kills for self-defense or in protecting his family, but it does not seem like Steinbeck was trying to make it seem like Kino was just doing what he needed to do to protect his family at this point.
Without the change in characters, the movie basically said that wealth brings a few issues but ultimately it's worth it. Whereas, Steinbeck says that wealth changes the very core of your values, and it is not worth it. It forces those who are good and humble to become power hungry and animalistic.
In conclusion, the movie’s static characters and new ending ultimately changed the themes and messages Steinbeck created in his novella.
Reply
Evan Glas
3/14/2016 10:08:12 pm
There were many differences between The Pearl book and movie that had numerous effects on each piece’s theme and message. Two major differences were the ends of the pieces and character change or lack of change. To start, the book does not have a happy ending. In the movie, Kino returns from his journey with his whole family alive and as a hero-like figure. The town surrounds him while he rides on his horse triumphantly. In the movie, the poor also realize the doctor was the one controlling the village. Even his servant was visibly happy that he did not get the pearl. In the book, Kino and his wife arrive at the village scarred, solemn, and changed. As written on page 88, "they (Kino and Juana) seemed to carry two towers of darkness with them." Their son is dead and they have no future in sight. By changing the plot in the movie, the creators altered the theme of the story drastically. In the novel, Steinbeck is trying to show how the poor are trapped and can never leave their situation. With the changes, the movie is showing the opposite, which is the poor can escape their situation and defeat the evil rich people. Furthermore, in the movie the characters are static. Throughout the whole piece Kino and Juana show almost no signs of change taking over them. They never leave their values or personalities. On the other hand, in the novel, Kino goes in as a man and out an animal. By the end of the novel both Kino and Juana, "seemed to be removed from human experience; that they had gone through pain and had come out on the other side..." Kino had even murdered several people. By implementing these changes, the movie takes away Steinbeck's message that wealth will never lead to any good. In the book, Steinbeck shows how after Kino finds the pearl, he becomes greedy and animalistic.
Reply
Amravi
3/15/2016 09:23:38 pm
I agree with your differences to a certain extent. I do think that Kino changed through out the movie but barely. He did slap Juana (which, I know, is nothing compared to the book, but as much as I hate to admit it, it is something). He also threw the axe and killed three people. So he was a little bit animalistic but quickly recovered and went back to being pure and loved. Again, I do think Kino changed for the worse a little bit before getting better again.
Reply
Kira W.
3/15/2016 12:21:11 am
One major difference for me, was the fact that the movie never developed Kino's animal behaviors. In the book, these characteristics and behaviors were a key part in the development of Kino. Some examples are like when he "edged like a slow lizard down the smooth rock" or when he bares his teeth on page 5. These all show that humanity isn't some high powered, super force in nature. It shows that humans are no different than any other animal and can take on all the characteristics of animals. That, in the end, we are all just another breed of animal in nature. We completely missed this in the movie. He didn't bare his teeth or slip down the rocks like a lizard. They strayed from the book and focused more on action that wasn't in the book. They didn't bring in the noises that Coyotito was making that led to his death in the book.
Secondly, the movie completely missed all symbolism of the clothes. From the doctor wearing red, to Juana wearing a blue shawl. The doctor seemed weird in the movie, but was not even close to being as cruelly portrayed as he was in the book. We lost the connection between the doctor and the devil, and how evil, greedy, and ignorant he was. We also lost the biblical aspect from Juana not wearing the blue shawl Mary Madonna. She had one at the end, but by then it had been too long since the beginning of the book to really embrace the theme. Also, Juana changed outfits multiple times in the movie which took away from the fact that her community, including herself, were poor and couldn't afford new clothes. In the book, that was one of Kino's wishes, that the pearl would be able to buy him new clothes. All in all, the two major themes that were lost were that humans are animals and act like a whole mixture of them, and that the rich are powerful, greedy, and cruel, while the poor people are trapped beneath them.
Reply
Caroline W
3/15/2016 03:52:31 pm
Let's get one thing straight from the very beginning: the movie was nothing compared to the book. Steinbeck's original message was drowned in big ears, bad acting, and pointless plot changes.
For instance, the writers and director of the film decided to cut out Juana's headscarf, the most symbolic object in the whole novella. Doing this not only interrupted the story, but completely screwed up the message and symbolism. It was hard to decipher the whole biblical connection when Mary wasn't even wearing blue!
However, the movie also told a completely different story by the end. I mean, Coyotito didn't even die! I know, I know, I sound cruel, but come on! That burned a whole through all the messages that Steinbeck was trying to convey. Nice job, Director.
Well, the film couldn't screw anything else up, right? Wrong. Kino killed two extra people, was congratulated for being corrupted by compacted sand, and kept a stoic expression when his house was being burned down. There are so many differences between Steinbeck's Kino and Kino from the film, that they could be from completely different planets.
The only thing that pleased me throughout this movie was the doctor's character, for he was played brilliantly. Aside from the random rifle scene at the end, where he urges his assistant to shoot Kino, and the village's blaming the doctor for the horrors of the pearl at the end, his character stayed quite similar to the book.
Aside from this awful retelling, The Pearl will remain a story of hardship, love, and loss forever. Who knew that all it would take was sand and saliva to show us how messed up society is?
Reply
Kaitlyn C
3/15/2016 04:50:50 pm
Caroline- I whole heartedly agree with you! The directors corrupted the message Steinbeck was trying to tell the reader, just as the pearl corrupted La Paz. I also, agree that the blue headscarf should've been worn on Juana because it is a strong symbolic item. Without the idea of Juana being Mary, the whole parable inspiration was completely destroyed in the movie. Finally,we all loathe the doctor. The actor in the movie played the doctor brilliantly, and almost exactly as the book described it. I am not sure why they put the rifle scene in at the end, but otherwise he was very good.
Reply
Kira W.
3/15/2016 05:28:05 pm
I could not agree with you both more. You are both absolutely right. I mean how hard is it too find a blue head scarf. Kaitlyn, great connection to the pearl and the directors. Although I missed half the movie, so I didn't see much of the doctor, it sounds like he was the best actor there. It seems to me that the directors, made no connection what so ever to any deep messages. It's as if they just rushed through the book and didn't take time to evaluate it. The parts that I did see, including the part where Coyotito lived instead of dying, frustrated me because they left so much out and brought in pointless other things.
I could not have said that any better. Everything you listed I feel was one of the main components in making the movie a waste of time. Your statement about the blue shawl is totally correct, like how hard is it to get a blue shawl for Juana to wear.I do agree that the doctor was portrayed well, but the director left out his red robe. His robe represented the devil in him and his riches. Once again, how hard is it to find a red silk robe. In all, I believe your statement about the ridiculous movie version of The Pearl.
Reply
Danny Corbin
3/16/2016 06:43:00 am
Ha ;) I forgot the part about bad acting, but I couldn't agree with you more. Personally I thought Kino was the worst, but I think Juana wasn't far behind with the "no" at the end when Kino wanted to go on to lead them away. She was just like "no" in a really weird accent, It completely missed the point of that part, that Juana wanted to face everything together, and she didn't want the pearl to split them up.
Reply
Abby G
3/15/2016 04:21:00 pm
Throughout the movie there were several differences from the book. To begin, towards the end of the book, Kino's son Coyotito dying, which never happens at all in the movie, totally changing the full ending. In the book, Kino's community totally leaves him and Juana to walk back by themselves, basically in shame. But on the other hand, in the movie, Kino and Juana return on a horse with a rifle and their community swarming them with joy. Two totally different ways how they return.
Also, the character qualities are so different in the movie and novel. In the book, Kino is so animalistic, killing and attacking people a lot, but in the movie his attacks could easily be disguised as ways to protect his family or show self defense. The clothes both Juana and the doctor wore in the book were completely symbolic but not even showed in the movie. Juana, from a biblical perspective was dressed like Mary, wearing her blue shawl, but she did not wear that in the movie, totally taking away how Steinbeck wanted the book to be like a parable. Also, in the novel, I thought the doctor was dressed in red because he was like the Devil, greedy and evil, but I did't get that message through the movie. Overall, the movie was completely changed, taking away the meaning, symbolism, and overall making it worse to watch.
Reply
D Corbin
3/15/2016 05:34:29 pm
The book and movie were very different. Firstly, the doctor was portrayed as a wealthy, cruel, gross, and ugly man in the book, without directly saying he was the pearl buyer and that he was evil, it was left to you to interpret. In the movie, there is none of that (his eyes are not hammocks of flesh ;). In addition, the end of the book and moive were very different. The end of the book was sad, saying that the poor could not escape. Kino loses everything in the book, while in the movie he returns a conquering hero, emerging unscathed with his dignity, his son, and proof that the doctor was behind everything. Whether the movie make truly thought this, or whether it is just molding The Pearl to the Hollywood formula, the movie got the ending all wrong.
Reply
Camryn R
3/15/2016 05:51:43 pm
To begin, there are many differences between the book and the movie. The biggest one I think involves the theme. In the book, Steinback depicts the book is going to show more of a Garden Of Eden theme with the beautiful paradise like town That kino and Juana live in. Then the pearl like the apple in the garden of eden tempts Kino with education, weapons, marriage, and new clothes. But the pearl ends up bringing evil upon Kino and Juana, killing their newborn son. Just like in the garden of eden after they ate the apple god made them leave their beautiful life and live one of torture. The movie does not show this AT ALL. The movie shows the theme of overcoming hardships and that the good people always win, which in the book Kino obviously did not win. Also, the movie showed that no matter how poor or unlucky you are, your not trapped. You can still overcome things and show the upper class your worth, but in the book it strongly enforces you have to stay where you are. If you are born poor you can not turn rich or evil will come, just like in real life. Just like Kino had his baby taken from him.
Reply
Gabi Tamayo
3/15/2016 07:02:53 pm
I agree with you that there are numerous differences between the novella and the movie. But, when you say that the book shows that the pearl brings evil upon Kino and Juana I have to disagree. I believe human nature had brought this upon themselves. It was only the temptation of the pearl that had made Kino turn into a monster. How could the pearl kill their son and bring evil? It was that Kino, like any man, got sucked up into the the greatest weakness. Money. I believe that the movie DID show that the pearl was evil, but the book did not. I find it interesting that we got the complete opposite takes on this. On the other hand, I completely agree with you that the book shows that poor people will always be trapped but the movie shows that poor people can overcome this obstacle. I also think that in the movie, when Kino throws the pearl in the ocean it did not make any sense. The movie producers had a totally different take on the novella than what I believe Steinbeck was trying to say.
Reply
Michael P
3/15/2016 05:52:21 pm
There are many differences in the movie and the book of The Pearl. These differences affect the meaning and messages Steinbeck wanted in this story. Originally John Steinbeck wanted this to be a movie but in my opinion, this movie was very poorly made and did not represent the messages and themes Steinbeck wrote. One main difference is in the movie there was no ant scene. Through the ant scene, Steinbeck was saying the higher class is trapping the lower class. This is a message throughout the book and it happens to Kino. This was not presented in the movie. Another main difference is the endings of the stories. The movie went against the book and ended the book in a happy way. At the end of the book, Kino has nothing left. His son died, he beat his wife, he killed someone so his village is searching for him, and he throws the pearl back in the ocean. But at the end of the movie, Kino has everything he wanted. Coyotito did not die, his wife still loves him, his village sees him as a hero, and he even has a gun. Overall, the book and movie had many differences that lead to the movie not being made like Steinbeck’s writing.
Reply
Adam S
3/15/2016 09:56:14 pm
Michael I kind of said the same exact thing as you said. I completely agree with you that the movie had absolutely no symbolism. I also agree with you that the movie completely ruined the message of the book. Steinbeck wanted this to be a four star movie, but he ended having a movie that was not even close to his book.
Reply
Ryan O
3/15/2016 10:04:51 pm
I completely agree with what you said. The creators of the movie did a poor job of recreating the book, and destroyed the purpose of all the symbolism in the book. The movie ended with Kino not losing anything, and everybody likes him. The movie was done very poorly, and was awful at showing that wealth will make you end up with nothing.
Reply
Lauren C.
3/15/2016 05:59:20 pm
The directors of the movie strayed completely from the original storyline, changing the overall feel of the book. While there are many differences, two particular ones stood out the most.
At the end of the novella, Kino is left with nothing. Instead of gaining things with the “Pearl of the World” he has lost so much more. He has thrown the pearl back into the ocean, and his canoe that he inherited is destroyed. His house was set ablaze, and all of his personal possessions were burned. He lost important pieces of his family, Coyotito was killed when he attempted to flee his home town. He kicked and punched Juana, and their relationship will never be the same. The people in Kino’s town did not welcome them, instead they “let them pass and did not speak to them.”
However in the movie, Kino was more of a hero figure. He had successfully killed the trackers, and saved Juana and Coyotito. He came back to his town, not in shame, but triumphantly. He was riding a horse, and carried a rifle. Everyone in town welcomed them, and was overjoyed to see them.
The movie also changed the theme of the story. John Steinbeck painted a clear picture of his views. Greed corrupts people, and changes what once was a kind, caring man, into a wild animal.
The movie depicted the theme as, good always triumphs over evil. It’s a shame that they decided to drastically change the movie to have a happy ending, missing the major theme and skipping over lots of symbolism. All in all, the movie couldn’t hold a candle to the book.
Reply
Jennifer
3/15/2016 10:35:20 pm
I totally agree with you that the directors of the movie missed the point of the book and what Steinbeck was trying to say. I felt the same way about how Kino was left with nothing in the book, but in the movie, he lost nothing. Both of those endings have different messages to go along with them, which completely changes what Steinbeck wanted the reader to get out of it. Also, a lot of symbolism was left out of the movie as well. Some examples include animalism, the ants that represent people was left out, and the doctor's red silk pajamas that represent the devil. Clearly, the movie's theme and the book's theme weren't on the same page, because of the lack of symbolism in the movie and the different messages. That's not even to mention all of the scenes taken out. Overall, I agree with your ideas.
Reply
Christian S
3/15/2016 06:36:38 pm
As we all can agree, the movie was a firestorm scrambled ideas that were sewn together with little care. One idea that was left out in the movie was the fact that Kino did not seem to turn into an animal, he more or less stayed as flat as still water and did not turn into the "preying upon humans" Kino that we know in the book. Either it was poor acting or just a poor script, no matter what way the message of Greed leads to corruption and decadence was thrown away like the pearl was thrown back into the water. And the pearl, how could one not mention the pearl in this. The pearl was the center piece to the book, representing a man's wants and what happens when you get succumbed by the Greed inside. In the movie, however, the pearl seems to just be passed along as only monetary value to the character. In the book, Kino punches Juana to give him back the pearl which signifies a bond with Kino and the pearl which does not happen in the movie. The fact that Kino is not obsessed with the Greed, completely sucks out the air of the whole, greed is not to be messed with, message. All in all, the movie was not a well managed movie and did not have nearly enough elements to include the multitude of messages that Steinbeck delivered in the book.
Reply
LaFevre
3/15/2016 08:53:39 pm
Christian, Your language here is stunning. The voice is powerful and coercive, and the vocabulary stands to demand agreement. It was a lot of fun to read your analysis.
Reply
Ryan M
3/15/2016 06:50:08 pm
There were many different things between the movie The Pearl and The Book The Pearl. First and foremost, the author Steinbeck commented on many different aspects of our world. For example, Religion, Society, and maybe the United States Government. When the Director strayed from these ideas, completely changing, the ending, and other specific parts of the book. As everyone knows. The book ended with Kino the main character’s son dying, along with the character losing many of his other possessions. In the movie has a happy ending where the son does not die and all is well. This ending the movie has completely changed Steinbeck’s message for arguably for the worst. At the beginning of the movie the setting is portrayed as the Garden of Eden, and the wife of the main character is portrayed as the Virgin Mary. This part of the movie also removes any connection or message about religion that was in this book. It removes the possibility for any close reading or, in this case, close watching to be done. I would say the movie made many changes that were in fact for the worse, changing the meaning of the book and anything Steinbeck was trying to say about a variety of different things.
Reply
Gabi Tamayo
3/15/2016 06:51:28 pm
After reading the book and watching the movie, I have noticed that the movie took a different path on what I believe Steinbeck wanted to say. The movie downplays the scene where Kino brutally hurts Juana. In the novella his attack was described as, “He struck her in the face with his clenched fist and she fell among the boulders, and he kicked her in the side. In the pale light he could see the little waves break over her, and her skirt floated about and clung to her legs as the water receded” ( page 59). This scene was very intense and monumental because it showed just how animalistic Kino could get. There were many hints throughout the novella where Kino was described as an animal but this was one of the biggest hints. When Steinbeck has Kino act as if he were an animal it shows that the evil was not in the pearl, but in human nature. When man sees fortune he turns back time in evolution and becomes greedy, selfish and revengeful, such as an animal. In the movie, Kino barely strikes Juana. His animalistic qualities are not shown in the movie, because of this the message is completely different. The message in the movie was that the evil was in the pearl. That the pearl was the one making everything go wrong and Kino was defending his family. Of course, I believe this is the complete opposite of what Steinbeck intended the message to be.
Also, In the end of the novella, the baby (Coyotito) has his head shot off and dies. When Kino and Juana come back to the town they are isolated and in poverty, once again. What I think Steinbeck was trying to say was that the poor could never escape poverty. They will always be “trapped”, Steinbeck even says at the beginning of the novella, “Kino watched with the detachment of God while a dusty ant frantically tried to escape the sand trap an ant lion had dug for him”(page 3). I believe that Steinbeck purposely put that microcosm there to hint to the reader that it connects to the poor and rich people, the rich people trap the poor people. Similarly, Kino is trapped into poverty by people like the doctor. For example, the doctor was in connection and overpowered the pearl buyers, that was why Kino was not able to get offered the right price for the pearl.Therefore the rich people trap the poor people and overpower them. But in the movie, Coyotito lives and Kino’s family lives a happily ever after. Kino and his family ride into town on a horse and this completely changes the message to the viewers. The message from the movie is that poor people are not trapped and can overcome the barriers set by the rich people. The producer of the movie completely missed what Steinbeck was trying to say about the wealthy and the less fortunate.
Reply
LaFevre
3/15/2016 08:59:01 pm
Great job seeing the idea of the microcosm in the second section of your answer and the evil being in humans and not the materialistic objects we own. Your answer is on level with any strong high school student in honors. Well done
Reply
Kristina Natale
3/15/2016 10:17:39 pm
Gabi, I completely agree with everything that you said here. I absolutely think that Steinback was focused on the differences between the wealthy and the less fortunate. The key parts that you pointed out here show that it really made a divide between the movie and the novella. I really like the connection you made to the ants. I think that really connects Steinback's messages through the whole book.
Reply
Nihar
3/15/2016 06:59:15 pm
The book and the movie were different in many ways. There were two ways, though, that I thought made them more different. One way the movie and book were different was that the way the other people responded to Kino and his family coming back was different for the book and the movie. In the movie, when the family comes back, everyone rushes to them with excitement and joy. It seems as if them coming back was the most joyful thing in a long time. It also seems that Kino is very happy and feels triumphant. They all go to the shore together and watch as Kino triumphantly threw the pearl back into the sea. All of that completely changes the whole theme that John Steinbeck was trying to show. In the book, when Kino and his family come back, some people go over, but everything just goes on normally. No one seems excited that he has returned. It doesn’t even seem like there is any joy at all. Then, when the family gets off the horse and walks to the shore to throw back the pearl, nobody comes with them and instead, as the family passes, everyone just tries to ignore them and make it seem like nothing happened. Those two endings are extremely different and make the story have different meanings. Steinbeck wanted the theme to be that having all this greed will just end in bad things. No one would want to be with you and you would have nothing left. Another reason the book and movie are different are that in the end, Kino is left with different things. In the movie, when Kino returns, he comes back with the baby, a rifle, the staff from the others that died, and they are all safe. In the book, when they return, the baby is dead, they don’t find anything that could help them, they didn’t have a horse, they were so exhausted, and they didn’t even get anything out of the pearl. Those two differences really change the theme Steinbeck was trying to deliver, just like with the other differences. With the things in the movie’s end, the theme becomes that with great determination comes good luck and the good will always defeat off the evil. With the things in the book’s end, the theme is that with all of that greed, you will never get anything out of it, and you will have to suffer.
Reply
Shivani
3/15/2016 07:01:05 pm
The book and the movie where completely different. At the end of the movie Coyotito lives, when the director/writers did this they defeated the whole purpose of the book. The book shows how greed will destroy you and your loved ones. The movie's message is totally opposite it shows that if you believe and work hard enough your problems will be solved. Even if the end of the book is depressing doesn't mean that the director should have gotten rid of it.
One main thing the movie should have portrayed better is the character of Kino. In the book there is a dramatic change with his character. At first Kino was a selfless man doing his best to provide his family, but after he found the pearl he started to behave like an animal. He hit Juana when she tried to get rid of the pearl, he also killed people without even thinking about it. In the movie the actor couldn't portray Kino well at all, he barely hit Juana and his behavior wasn't animal like at all.
Reply
Mia D
3/15/2016 10:27:48 pm
Shivani,
I am in total agreement with every point you made in your writing! I was, just like you as frustrated by the way the film makers demolished steinbecks whole idea. The movie doesn't even come close to touching the picture Steinbeck left in our minds, he painted such a vivid picture that in the movie it was so evident what they had left out or added in.
Reply
Anneliese
3/15/2016 07:10:20 pm
Did the writer of the movie even read the book? How could one even write a movie about a book and take out most of the symbolism. One of the many things the writer took out was not dressing the doctor in a red silk pajamas. The color red is known to be the color of the devil but of course, the wardrobe crew put him in blue. Blue is the color of the shawl Mary Madonna wore. The doctor was an evil guy and he should of wore red. He even wore white when Kino and Juana came back in the movie. White is the color that represents Angels! Why is this awful man wearing colors that are the total opposite of what he is. Angels are nowhere near evil and here is the doctor who's poisoning a baby to get a pearl while wearing white. It just doesn't make sense. I understand that the writer read the book and said, " Wow this book is quite depressing" but you can't just go and ruin everything. Steinbeck gives such great description about everything in the book it paints a picture in your head with ease. There was really no reason to make a movie.
Reply
Julie H
3/15/2016 08:21:43 pm
I thought I was the only one bothered by the doctor not wearing red! It was preposterous that one of the main characters, the antagonist, the representation of the upper class, was not wearing the color of the devil. The doctor just screams red. Even though I agree with this I'm confused about the color of angel. I understand that white is the color of angels but I always thought that angels were advertised as evil protectors. I may have thought wrong, but overall I still agree with you.
Reply
Anneliese
3/16/2016 04:05:16 pm
Yes, it was quite bothersome to me that the doctor wasn't wearing red as well. (LOL) Like you had said before the Angels do protect people from evil and that's where I got my point about him wearing white. He was being pure evil like the devil but wearing a color of peace. He wasn't being protected by angels from evil. Nor was he protecting he baby from evil either. It's not like he was a healer that was wearing white like an angel to heal someone, he was playing a very cruel trick on Kino, Juana, and Coyotito who were all too innocent to notice.
Emi M.
3/15/2016 08:03:02 pm
I felt that the novel The Pearl and the movie The Pearl were two very different symbolic views on life. I was disappointed how Kino in the movie got everything after all the evil he had done and for some reason got rewarded. The real thing that changed the book from the movie is the way Kino treated Juana and how he never really did that much dramatic things to Juana to make her be miserable with him. In the novel Juana was given no other choice, but to follow Kino, which set the mood and showed how evil the Pearl really was. In the movie Juana volunteered to go with Kino to sell the Pearl. Not only that, but Kino refused to take her at first, making the relationship with Juana and Kino stronger, but also making the Pearl symbolize true thoughtfulness and risks that may turn out great or poorly. This aggravated me by changing the whole meaning of the piece and how the Pearl is now a wonderful and beautiful thing on the inside and out, but really in the book it just brings evil. Though at the end of the movie, Kino has everything he said he wanted, and is left with great respect from everyone. In the novel Kino was shunned almost, and no one was pleased or thought highly of him or Juana. Juana and Kino are also different in moods, how at the end there is glumness and relief, but in the movie there is joy and hope for a new life. This is what really separated the novel from the movie.
Reply
Naima
3/15/2016 08:05:24 pm
The movie, The Pearl by John Steinback completely defeats the purpose and honesty behind Steinbacks message of the book. It is obvious that the movie completely twisted the ending of the story. Kino and Jauna have a “happily ever after” in the movie, they come back with a healthy child, money, fame, and a better future. In the novel Kino and Jauna had the opposite, a dead child, poverty,and community which turned their backs on them. The movie just teaches you that if you work hard enough for a goal you can achieve it, but Steinbacks real message wasn’t close to that. Steinback displays that acquisitiveness and unduly determination only lead you toward the wrong path. Speaking of the future for Kino and Jauna, Kino’s animalistic behavior didn’t really show through the movie. It is obviously hard to portray a character's conduct with bad actors (no shade to big eared Kino), but without those details the story can be totally flipped. Throughout the book Kino becomes more barbaric and even beats up Jauna which is definitely not seen in the movie. They obviously will never have the same relationship but in the movie their future isn’t thought out at all. Kino and Jauna will go through torture trying to fix up there once normal lives in the book ending but in the movie, burning down their village seems to be the key to a great new start. Basically, the only thing the movie got right was having a pearl because the whole outcome and message of the book was totally distorted.
Reply
Adam S
3/15/2016 09:52:08 pm
I completely agree with what you said. I also had in my response how different the two endings were. You really did a great job explaining how the movie completely ruined the message of the novel. It did not show Steinbeck's message at all and I think you did a really good job explaining that.
Reply
Bowie
3/15/2016 08:12:49 pm
The main themes of John Steinbeck’s, “The Pearl,” are that poor people are trapped in their unfortunate life, and that greed can corrupt even the most morally correct of people. Both of these themes were completely lost in the cinema version of “The Pearl”. One difference between the book and movie that caused theses themes to be lost was the ending. The novella, “The Pearl”, ended very tragically. Kino’s son, Coyotito, is dead, his relationship with his wife, Juana, is broken, he is shunned by his village, his canoe is broken, his house is burnt down, and he loses the pearl. At the end of the book, Kino has lost almost everything he once loved. The movie, however, has a fairly happy ending. Firstly, Coyotito does not die in the movie. Also, when Kino and Juana return to the village, they are greeted very heroically by their village. Finally, they sail away with their tribe towards the mainland. Kino does not lose anything in the movie. In fact, he prospers in the movie. Because of this, the theme that poor people are trapped is lost. It is changed to, with enough hard work and effort, anyone can better their situation in life. Additionally, the lack of animalism in the movie changes the themes in the book. Animalism is a common occurrence in the book. On Page 5, when Coyotito is stung by the scorpion, it states, “Then, snarling, Kino had it...his teeth were bared and fury flared in his eyes.” Also, on page 84, “Kino edged like a slow lizard down the smooth rock shoulder.” These quotes show how Kino is becoming more and more like an animal as the book progresses. They show how the greed of the pearl is turning Kino into something not human. On the other hand, none of this animalism is present in the movie. When Coyotito is stung, the camera isn’t even focused on Kino’s bared teeth. It is focused on his foot crushing the scorpion. Due to the lack of animalism, you lose the concept that greed turns people into animals.
Reply
Naima
3/16/2016 08:51:08 pm
ot right was having a pearl.
Bowie, I completely agree with you on the two points you made. The lack of representing the barbaric actions of Kino completely destroyed the point of the story. Steinbacks whole message is that greed and materialism takes away from human morals, but the movie does not show that at all. I think this shows that analyzing the text is so important because leaving little details out (like the director did) loses the point of the book.
Reply
Naima
3/16/2016 08:52:12 pm
(typo at the top,oops)
Julie H
3/15/2016 08:13:12 pm
Out of all the insane ideas put or taken out of the movie version of The Pearl, the two that bothered me most were the lacking of the ant scene and the fact there was no reference to the biblical stories. The ant scene was one of the most important scenes in my mind. Honestly I have no clue why the director left this scene out because it was symbolic of Steinbeck's social class theme. Each ant represented the different classes in the society. The big shiny ants represented the upper class and the lower class was represented by the small dusty ants. Even though I disagree with Steinbeck’s beliefs about the way the social classes work, the movie’s theme was changed completely without the ant scene. The social class theme was turned upside down, in the sense that the director thought that it is possible to break the system/society (that’s the only thing I agree with him/her on).
The most bothersome change in the movie verses the book was the lack of biblical symbols. Of course the director kept the pearl and the settings symbols, but he discarded the clothing symbols. In the beginning of the book Steinbeck includes a blue shawl on Juana’s head. The color blue in the bible represents Mary, the mother of Jesus. Having Juana wear this color even gives the reader insight on what's to come. Jesus was murdered under Mary’s care, so Juana's (representing Mary) only son, Coyotito will be murdered. Like parallel stories. The other clothing item that was overlooked by the director, was the doctor’s red silk robe from France. Red is often thought as the devil's color, so the doctor wearing this would suggest he was the antagonist of the story. Without the reference to the bible, the theme didn’t really change just the character development. To concluded, the movie version of The Pearl was nothing like the book, and was very disappointing when the director took out or added scenes. .
Reply
Amravi
3/15/2016 09:08:57 pm
Before I even start to rattle off all of the major differences that made me dislike the movie more and more, I'd like to say that if I hadn't read the book, and just read a brief summary of it, it would, in my mind, only loosely connect to the movie. To start, I think the movie shows the Doctor as all of the negative qualities that were supposed to be in Kino, this ruined the entire message of the book because Kino stayed pure for the entirely of the movie. Had Kino become the animal that Steinbeck was trying to portray him as, the movie would have been so much better! But the difference that bothered me the most was that Juana made no sense in the movie. In the book, Steinbeck at least explained Juana's trail of thought and got her to explain how and why she needed Kino and the reasoning behind her patience and why she never went against Kino. But in the movie, Juana takes the pearl and tries to get rid of it, but the next minute, she's helping Kino find and get the pearl back for no reason. This contributes to the theme because Juana could've stopped Kino and gotten rid of the pearl when Kino couldn't find it, but she didn't which made Kino lose is baby and everything he once stood for. And because the director of the movie didn't add this, the entire theme of the book is not in the movie. The whole point of writing the book was taken out by the director! Instead, everything ends up well in the movie, and the lesson intended by Steinbeck is not learned, the opposite lesson is learned, actually.
Reply
Adam S
3/15/2016 09:45:11 pm
Like most of my peers have already said, I believe that the book and the movie have a lot of differences. The first main difference is Kino's wife, Juana, and how she played a role in both stories. In the novel, Juana is completely against Kino about his opinion of the pearl. Kino sees the pearl as the most amazing thing, and that it will bring him great wealth. And Juana on the other hand, believes the pearl will cause chaos and brutal murder. And it ends up causing terrible things. In the book, Juana keeps telling Kino to throw the pearl back into the ocean, while in the movie, Juana is on Kino's side. She wants Kino to keep the pearl, and they never get into a fight about it in the movie. And while in the book Kino punches and kicks Juana because she tried to dispose the pearl. Also, the second main difference in the movie and novel is the endings. In the end of the book, Kino's son, Coyotito, is shot in the head. After losing his only son, Kino throws the pearl back into the ocean because he finally realizes that the pearl has brought him evil. In the movie, Coyotito is never killed, but Kino still throws the pearl back. When Kino does this, he takes away all the meaning and reason out of the movie.
Reply
Kristina N
3/15/2016 09:46:32 pm
The movie obviously did not portray the messages that Steinback created in his novella. In my opinion, it completely demolished the importance of everything Steinback is saying. In the movie, Kino and Juana stride back into town on a horse, looking as if they are heroes to the people around them. This scene develops a feeling of triumph, as if Kino deserved everything that happened in the movie, such as Coyotito being alive and defeating the trackers with ease. In the novella, however, Kino and Juana enter their town as the same people they were in the beginning of the book (from a social standpoint). They go back to living in poverty, and are looked down upon by the people in their community. This goes to show that the evil truly lied within the pearl and had a major effect on their lives. It also proves that the greed Kino developed made him feel superior over everyone around him, destroying his closest relationships. As his greed worsens, he gets closer and closer to becoming like the doctor. The second difference I felt was important is that Coyotito is shot and dies at the end of the novel. However, in the movie, he is completely fine. The novel clearly shows the greed that took over Kino because in the beginning of the novel, his main concern was healing Coyotito and keeping his family safe. At the end of the novel, his thirst for money drives him to be a different person. The movie does not show this, and gives him the image of importance. I believe that the fact that Coyotito dies show that the greed Kino encountered was inescapable. No matter what he did from that point on, he would only care about himself and money. He also shows that his family is becoming less and less important when he severely beats Juana after she tries to throw the pearl into the ocean. In the novella, he beats her even after he claims the pearl again. I believe that his view of himself being more important is shown in this scene also. Steinback is trying to say that these are consequences and Kino's punishment for having greed, which developed into clarity that money is not the most important thing in the world, and it does not overpower basic morals of life.
Reply
Dylan Chipelo
3/16/2016 11:16:21 pm
Kristina, I agree with your statements here when you say that Kino being so worried about the pearl and worrying about the pearl led to the death of his son. The power of the pearl did consume Kino he was once a very caring father, but then the power of the pearl got to him and Kino transformed into a money seeking monster. The director of the movie clearly didn't understand what Steinbeck was saying when he made Kino's world fall apart because of his obsession with the pearl the director did not portray this in the movie what so ever.
Reply
Ryan O
3/15/2016 10:00:34 pm
There were many differences between the movie and the book, which impact the theme tremendously. The book clearly showed that wealth is bad, many times. For example, In the book Kino gets his head bashed in when the robbers come to steal the pearl. However, he does not even get beaten up that bad in the movie. In addition, The Pearl got Coyotito killed in the book because Kino found the pearl. In the movie, Kino and Juana returned home, everybody liked them, and it was a happy ending. The movie also completely missed the part about Coyotitio being jesus, and Juana being Mary Madonna. The book clearly states that Juana is wearing a blue shawl, which is what Mary was wearing. This showed that if she was mary, her son was Jesus. In the bible, Jesus dies, so we knew in the book Coyotitio was going to die. Not only did they get rid of the blue shawl in the movie, Coyotitio did not even die. This clearly does not show that wealth will get you nothing, because at the end of the book, Kino had his baby killed, he had beaten his wife, and his whole town hated him. In the movie, he barely even hit his wife, he still had his baby, and the town liked him again. The Pearl symbolized wealth in the book, because it made him lose everything, but it did not even do that in the movie. In fact, it seemed pretty pointless to me when he threw the pearl in the ocean in the movie, because the pearl barely even did anything bad to him. I believe that the Pearl movie was awfully done, and did not show the messages that Steinbeck wanted to show in his novel. They took bits and pieces of the novel, and put them in the movie in a way that did not even make sense, and do not reflect the themes Steinbeck is trying to show in his book at all.
Reply
Brian T.
3/15/2016 10:04:33 pm
Although their was many frustrating differences between the book and the movie, such as the fact that the movie included scenes with absolutely no message to the book such as the part when the man falls off the cliff, the most frustrating of all was the ending of the two. First, in the book it ends depressingly and very sad, with the baby (Coyotito) being killed, and then to further worsen it when they return back to the town once again in poverty, and shunned from their tribe, which leads to the overall message that loyalty is very important, and money is the root of all evil, etc.
However, in the movie ending, the entire message of the book is completely torn apart to the point where it was almost like whomever made this movie did not even read the book. In the end of the movie, Kino defeats the people coming after him, and returns to the village via a groomed horse in full health and having the entire village praise him. This leads to a very different conclusion then the novel, and although the acting and quality of the movie was horrible, it would still have been way better if they got the right theme. Overall, the book and novel had many differences without a doubt, which obviously caused the endings and overall lesson of the book to be very different.
Reply
Mia D
3/15/2016 10:24:07 pm
Brian,
I defiantly agree with your points, I feel the same way about the differences between the book and movie! It most defiantly is frustrating that they add and leave out many parts in the book. As you will see in what I wrote I believe they do end up having totally opposite and contradicting endings. I felt you did a great job in expressing exactly that!
Reply
Mia D
3/15/2016 10:20:58 pm
The movie and book are completely different in my opinion. One way that this showed and stood out to me is when the baby dies in the book, but not the movie. Obviously in the book it was a heart renching feeling when the baby ends up dying. I believe In the movie they chose not to add this in because it is very sad and the movie would have no resolution or hope for anyone. I found these differences to be a very disappointing turn, I felt as though Steinbeck portrayed the book in a different way and went in a different direction then the film makers did. The movie had added parts the were insignificant in the book or just not added in the book. Such as the man falling off the clif, I feel as thought the film makers added this bizar part to add depth and hate towards the doctor. Also the endings of both the book and the movie were so different. In the movie the message they leave you with is that Kino had gone through hard ships and struggles but in the end persevered and was able to arrive back home with his family. While in the book they leave you with the fact of Kino going through hard ships and loosing very important things to him.
Reply
Izzy DePaola
3/15/2016 10:31:28 pm
There are so many differences between the movie. The biggest differences where in the end. And the moments that didn't match up with the book, damaged the original theme and made lovers of the book very upset (you should've seen my table while watching the movie.) One moment in the end that really messed up the theme was when they didn't kill the baby. My table was literally screaming at the screen. Part of the theme was suppose to be while Kino was fighting for a thing that he thought was worth value (the pearl) he lost something that really was the most valuable thing to him (his child.) It's kind of funny (not in a haha way, but an ironic way) that he wanted the pearl to help his child, when in the end he only hurt his child. Another difference in the movie that really damaged the theme is that they didn't really give Kino building animalistic qualities. One of my favorite themes in the book was how materialistic ideas can turn someone against there own family and beliefs, and i didn't see that in the movie! Sure there where small moments, but not a building animal in Kino. Overall, I was rather bummed by the movie.
Reply
Thomas Vick
3/15/2016 10:32:40 pm
The book and the movie are vastly different. I think the biggest and most theme changing difference in the movie is that Coyotito doesn't die and Kino and Juana come home as hero's who have triumphed over the rich. Steinbeck wrights pretty depressing stories and The Pearl is no different. Steinbeck shows us societies rigid classes and how the poor can never usurp the wealthy and corrupt. Everything that Kino loves is gone; his home, his child, and the pearl. On the other hand the movie shows the lower class usurping the higher, how good will win over evil. Coyotito lives, they have defeated the doctors scheme, and he is happy. Another difference is the one legged man. The movie uses him as a reason for Kino to hate the doctor. He thinks it suspicious that a one legged man would take a "shortcut" down a small cliff. The book does not need an event and the one legged man isn't even in it. The director of the movie just wanted to add more of and evil to the doctor and action and the book didn't need it.
Reply
Kasey P
3/16/2016 12:14:09 am
The movie and novel were two completely different pieces. The novel was written for a purpose, to teach a lesson and prove a point, if not multiple. Steinback covered many important topics describing the issues in our society, consisting of social classes (poor vs. wealthy), exponentialism, he even made us wonder what our purpose in life was, or if we had one at all, and much more. The movie completely defeated the author's entire purpose, and in my opinion, did not accentuate any of the main points Steinback wrote about. The biggest component of the movie that destroyed Steinback's teachings was the entire ending. Steinback was trying to show throughout the story that those who do not have as much as others are looked upon as having nothing, and being nothing. They struggle throughout life, and go crazy at times, but there is reasoning behind their madness and the ones who do not experience these hardships do not understand why they act as such. But, at the same time, he was showing his audience how acting selfishly will too get you nowhere, and wealth and greed lead you to that state. In the novel, Kino ultimately ended up with nothing, due to his narcissistic need for wealth and his growing obsession for his most prized possession, the pearl. He commonly would put the pearl before his family consisting of Juana and Coyotito. He abused his wife just to snatch his precious pearl from her delicate hands, when her intentions were only to help her family, ended up not paying as much attention to his son as he needed and deserved at such a young age, and his neighbors who were all of the friends he had now wanted nothing to do with him. Kino rid of the pearl, possibly expecting to gain his old life back, but found himself with even less than he had before, no family, no friends, no community, no canoe, nothing. In the movie, Kino had too thrown his pearl back into the ocean, but moved on, happily, to a better place along with his tight knitted family and friends. That end result portrayed a scene that was the complete opposite of what the author was trying to teach his readers and completely disappointed me. An additional crucial part in the novel that was not present in the movie was the death of Coyotito. Kino claims that his entire reasoning for wanting money in turn for the pearl so eagerly was in best interest of his son, in hopes of providing a better life for him. In the book, the baby was shot and killed, showing how Kino was paying too much attention to protecting the pearl, rather than his son, who was said to be the reasoning behind Kino's entire quest. With his son no longer present, the pearl was worthless and Kino had no use for it any longer. Steinback was trying to get the point across the his reader that money is not everything, what is most important is being surrounded by the people you love, because without them, what are you living for? The movie once again ruined his entire message by keeping the baby alive and making Kino seem as if he was a hero, when he was exactly the opposite. The novel introduced me to a whole new interpretation on life in itself, illustrating countless small yet important messages on each page that added up to one big overall statement, and the movie was a complete embarrassment to Steinback's work.
Reply
Jack C
3/16/2016 06:28:02 am
The movie and the book were two very different. First off the director in the movie misses the key message in the story on how it is so hard to climb on the social ladder.In the movie ,when Kino and Juana returned home from their long trip they got like a hero's welcome which showed they like beat the doctor's plan to trap the lower class. But in the novel when the couple return it was all quiet and no one came to great them. Also the director takes the emotional part out of the movie with the child not dying. Im pretty sure the book was supposed to him when he came back to have nothing. The one legged man part was added to the movie but was not in the book this part was to like build up more anger in kino as he thought the one legged man was killed by the doctor or on of his servants. The movie had some keep parts taken out and added parts that were not needed that is why the book was better on a whole.
Reply
Amanda F
3/16/2016 08:32:14 am
*3*
The movie and book are completely different. The book was good, in my personal opinion I wasn't to intrigued about it all. But the movie? I was extremely and profoundly disappointed in how it turned out. The whole meaning of the book was changed with the movie, and that was what really made the movie a let down.
First, I didn't even watch the part with the peg leg guy and he died. I've been reading other people's responses and heard other people talk about it . . . . Falling off a cliff? Really? Might want to be a bit more creative there. At least we saw it happen to SOMEONE. It's so expected though . . . .
Can we just take a moment to stop and give an applause the actor Lukas Haas for having the guts to go out and act looking like a monkey. Seriously, like Julia said, he's like Dumbo with a weird mustache. And he had the guts to off his shirt and strip down to the point where I thought his diaper was about to fall off. Nice scrawny body you'be got there. I definitely think you worked out in your spare time.
Another honorable mention to the person who was holding the hose during the scene when Kino is like, "I found the pearl of the world!" to all the townspeople? Seriously, was he drinking coffee or something at that time?
As mean as I'm sounding, I wanted the baby, Coyotito, to die. During the cave scene, there is literally Allison, Caroline, and (of course) Julia screaming. "Die, baby, die!" And I swore I saw Devil ears coming out of one of them. Just Kidding. But the thing is, it's reasonable to want The thing is, the baby dying was a huge part of the ending of the book. It was one of the reasons why the book ends/is depressing and a wake up call to society. One of the main meanings of The Pearl, is that having greed and power results of bad things happening. And the baby dying is A PRETTY BIG KEY EXAMPLE.
Oh, and having the villagers honor him as a hero, as he rode back into town on a horse with the rifle on his back while cheering hid name (which actual was the only thing that seemed right in he movie, him having the rifle)? That's not what's supposed to happen! He is supposed to be shunned by the people! Not be the Zorro of the town or something like that!
At least if you're not going to kill off the baby, KILL OFF THE DOCTER! He seemed even more hate-able in the movie. It's something about his raspy voice that really ticks me off, and the way he walks.
Anyway, you do need to take into consideration that this movie was most likely on a low budget.
NAH! You completely screwed up the plot if the story! And it's who meaning of it all together! That's the true reason as do why the movie was horrible!
Reply
Aubrey
3/16/2016 05:41:46 pm
I believe that the movie took a different path than Steinbeck. In the movie, the producers really underestimate the importance of the scene where Kino hits Juana for the pearl. In the movie, it's a little slap and the pearl rolls away, but in the book, it says "He struck her in the face with his clenched fist and she fell among the boulders, and he kicked her in the side. In the pale light he could see the little waves break over her, and her skirt floated about and clung to her legs as the water receded."(p59). This scene really brought all of Kino's animalistic ways to the surface, enough that he beat his own wife for a pearl that was tearing apart his family. There were other small hints throughout the novella about Kino's animalistic ways, but this scene really brought them all out. Steinbeck includes this scene because he is showing that evil is in human nature, and not in an object. People see fortune and it becomes all they can see. Greed slowly overtakes them until they no longer are human, but animals. Therefore, because the producers of the movie downplayed this scene, the message Steinbeck was trying to convey was lost to a pathetic little slap in the face.
The ending of the movie was also different from the ending of the book. In the end of the novella, Coyotito has his head shot off and dies. Kino and Juana come back from the mountains isolated, in poverty, and without their child. This happened because Steinbeck was trying to say that those who are poor cannot escape the poor. On page 3, "Kino watched with the detachment of God while a dusty ant frantically tried to escape the sand trap an ant lion had dug for him." Steinbeck purposely put that microcosm in there to show the reader the connection between the wealthy and the poor. The wealthy continuously trap the poor people in order to maintain their status. The doctor traps Kino into poverty by telling the pearl buyers to low-ball him in order to maintain his wealthy status and so that he can go back to France. So in conclusion, the movie producers completely missed the point of some of Steinbeck's most brilliant messages.
Reply
Patrick Hanrahan
3/16/2016 07:44:07 pm
How can you screw up a movie on a 90 page book? The movie adaptation is the only one of it's kind. It is the only movie about this book, but you would think that at least the baby could die. With all of the religion throughout the book and the family supposed to represent, Mary, Joseph and Jesus that the baby(Jesus) would die. We knew from the first page of the book that Coyotito was going to die, just like Jesus. In the movie they set up where the gun was fired by why was the baby not killed. Arguably the most important character who dies in the book is alive for the whole movie. Director, how hard can it be? I think the second biggest difference was the clothes. In the book Juana wears blue just like Mary Madonna. In the movie she wears vibrant Mexican styled clothes. This book heavily based on religion always depicts Juana wearing blue clothes. The Doctor is supposed to be wearing red, this shows is scheming behind the scenes and the killing of his wife. You would have to think that the movie director saw this. The movie was so unlike the book I can't believe they are based off the same novella.
Reply
Zach H
3/17/2016 03:36:15 pm
Patrick- I agree with everything that you said. In my opinion they would have been better of making this into a two episode TV special, at least then it wouldn't feel too much like we are watching a strange Spanish soap opera. And if they just let coyotito die I might have accepted the movie for what it was, but they just had to ruin it.
Reply
Dylan Chipelo
3/16/2016 10:57:27 pm
The movie was not the best representation of the book in any way. (Most movies are never as good as the book anyway) The movie portrayed everything Steinbeck was trying to say completely wrong. The book misses out on subtle, but important parts in the story. For example the part about the ants was left out of the movie. The importance of the ants was shown how ruthless society was and that important/bigger people will step on and sabotage anyone to reach their goals. This was important to the story because it portrayed the ultimate message Steinbeck was trying to tell that greed/wealth is the root of all evil and that it is better to stay poor than to be all money crazy. Details like this were missing in the movie. Furthermore, one of the biggest parts of the book when Kino and Juana return home with a dead baby and the towns people ignoring them and not even reacting to them coming back. In the movie however Kino and Juana return with the baby alive and end up unsaved from the horror that actually happened in the book. They were welcomed as heroes and people swarmed them and acted as if everyone was best friends with them. This was completely wrong with what Steinbeck was trying to say. Overall the movie was an awful interpretation of the book.
Reply
Zach H
3/17/2016 03:32:14 pm
The pearl was an amazing book and a great read, however the movie was a totally different story. First off, somehow they got away with making the movie almost completely different from the book without a word, an example of this being coyotito. One of the most important characters to the story, and one of the best actor in the movie, coyotito, was killed by kino at the end of the book which led to a tragic ending, but in the movie coyotito doesn't get touched and the character live happily ever after, Really? I wanted to see the tragic ending on the screen but all I got was some stupid scene that didn't even happen in the book where kino returns to the town with his family and throws the pearl into the ocean with no regrets like a hero. And secondly they added place holder character jsut to make the movie longer, such as the one legged man who in the middle of the movie dies, which made me wonder what on earth the directors where thinking. But the thing that made me the most mad was that it seemed like they took random people of the street to do the acting, for example all the men have straight English accents and kino looked like dumbo with a mustache. Over this movie to me is considered a failure of a production and should never be seen by a human eye.
Reply
LaFevre
3/17/2016 08:00:57 pm
Zach,
Glad to see your post. I agree the movie is a disappointment. Both parts you mention were very different between book and movie. I think you have the killing of Coyotito a little off though. If you get a chance you might check it out. I enjoy how passionate your voice is in your critique of the film. Thanks