Grains Of Paradise Analysis
Grains
Grains of Paradise was a short story created before it was adapted into a motion picture. In the book a man by the name of Cordell Hoyle went to Mexico to gather specimens to kick off his new chili business. When Cordell arrived he was eventually challenged to a chili pepper eating contest. He could have won, but he chose not to, he let the restaurant owner who challenged him win; this in turn helped the restaurant owner keep his dignity, and It helped his friend win the girl over. I believe that the movie was better than the book.
THEME
The theme of the story was doing the right thing is more important than winning; I thought the movie did a better job of showing this. I say this because, the movie showed the tension when Cordell’s …show more content…
My first reason is; the movie again had more visuals than the book. Expanding on this; the movie had more scenery to show the viewer where the story takes place. Additionally, the movie also showed the the time era it took place in through setting; this in turn gives the viewer a better idea of how to perceive the story in this aspect. Second the movie had the advantage of being able to show what was going on through setting. My first reason being the movie showed the position of the characters and their behavior; this in turn displayed the tension through setting. Moreover, the movie also showed the main character’s whereabouts better through visual transitions. Last but not least, the movie showed more setting changes than the book. The book could only tell the reader that there was a change in the setting; these are usually major changes; the movie could show the more subtle ones, adding to the quality of the experience. The movie also set the mood better than the book through setting changes or adjustments. Concluding this; I believe the movie expressed the setting better than the …show more content…
first, the characters could visually be seen eliminating any plot holes that the reader may have falsely perceived. For example, the reader may have envisioned an inactive character to not be in the scene and when they were mentioned it could be throw the reader off. Moreover, the reader could confuse the characters names because they have no visual reference to associate them with. Second, the characters had more personality expressed because they weren’t limited to being described by words. Furthermore, they were able to express moods and facial expressions visually. On the other hand, the book would have to describe these details. Finally the characters could express body language better than than in the book. The book was limited to only the use of words to describe what was going on, the movie was not making it easier for characters to express their reactions to
Grains of Paradise was a short story created before it was adapted into a motion picture. In the book a man by the name of Cordell Hoyle went to Mexico to gather specimens to kick off his new chili business. When Cordell arrived he was eventually challenged to a chili pepper eating contest. He could have won, but he chose not to, he let the restaurant owner who challenged him win; this in turn helped the restaurant owner keep his dignity, and It helped his friend win the girl over. I believe that the movie was better than the book.
THEME
The theme of the story was doing the right thing is more important than winning; I thought the movie did a better job of showing this. I say this because, the movie showed the tension when Cordell’s …show more content…
My first reason is; the movie again had more visuals than the book. Expanding on this; the movie had more scenery to show the viewer where the story takes place. Additionally, the movie also showed the the time era it took place in through setting; this in turn gives the viewer a better idea of how to perceive the story in this aspect. Second the movie had the advantage of being able to show what was going on through setting. My first reason being the movie showed the position of the characters and their behavior; this in turn displayed the tension through setting. Moreover, the movie also showed the main character’s whereabouts better through visual transitions. Last but not least, the movie showed more setting changes than the book. The book could only tell the reader that there was a change in the setting; these are usually major changes; the movie could show the more subtle ones, adding to the quality of the experience. The movie also set the mood better than the book through setting changes or adjustments. Concluding this; I believe the movie expressed the setting better than the …show more content…
first, the characters could visually be seen eliminating any plot holes that the reader may have falsely perceived. For example, the reader may have envisioned an inactive character to not be in the scene and when they were mentioned it could be throw the reader off. Moreover, the reader could confuse the characters names because they have no visual reference to associate them with. Second, the characters had more personality expressed because they weren’t limited to being described by words. Furthermore, they were able to express moods and facial expressions visually. On the other hand, the book would have to describe these details. Finally the characters could express body language better than than in the book. The book was limited to only the use of words to describe what was going on, the movie was not making it easier for characters to express their reactions to