1968: january 26
steroids and baseball

oscar run ix: persepolis

Whenever I teach a book where there's a movie version, I wonder whether my students are actually reading the book or just "taking the easy way out" by watching the film. I'm not certain this matters with Persepolis, which I happen to be teaching just as the movie version is released to theaters. For one thing, the book, a graphic novel, doesn't take very long to read (the film, and the most recent publication of the novel in the U.S., contains the entire batch of Persepolis books), so students might as well read the book. For another, the movie is actually a fairly accurate representation of the graphic novels, enough so that if you only see the movie, you've probably got the basic sense of the books (but don't tell my students).

The animation is appropriately sparse, drawing on the illustrations in the books, which were equally spare. Not to say ineffective ... the animation works quite well. But it works on pretty much the same level that the books' drawings work. It is neither an expansion nor a reduction of the art of Persepolis. The voice acting seems just fine, but since it is in French, I can't really tell how good a job they are doing. It's one thing to watch actors speaking in another tongue when we can see their faces ... when we only see drawings and we don't understand the words, it's almost impossible to evaluate the quality of the voice actors. And so, again, at least for non-French speakers, the movie complements the book, but doesn't really add or subtract much of import.

In short, Persepolis is a movie that will please fans of the book, which isn't always the case, of course. I am one of those fans, and so I think Persepolis would also please people who don't know the books. It is a strong coming-of-age story, perhaps a bit hurried in the film version but not overly so, with an illuminating historical background.

I would point out only one difference I found in the film compared to the book, that seemed important, although looking again at the book's drawings, I'm not positive I'm right about this. Without spoiling too much, there is a scene where the heroine identifies a man to the police as someone who is bothering her. In the book's drawings, as I see them, the man is just sitting in the background until the police roust him. Since the heroine only reports him to escape from her own police problems, her actions seem very self-centered, given that we can only imagine what will happen to the man. In the film version, the man very clearly gives the heroine a look before everything happens. Thus in the movie, what the heroine reports to the police really happens. Her actions are still cowardly, but they aren't reprehensible the way they seem in the book. A minor point, to be sure, but one I've been obsessing about.

Comments

Julie

I'm reading this book right now. Chris gave it to me for Christmas and suggested I get it read before the movie comes out. I went and saw a movie last week and there was a preview which reminded me I better get on it. I am a quarter into and really liking it. Sounds like I should check out the movie too.

Carolyn

in response to your snippet:
"I would point out only one difference I found in the film compared to the book, that seemed important, although looking again at the book's drawings, I'm not positive I'm right about this. Without spoiling too much, there is a scene where the heroine identifies a man to the police as someone who is bothering her. In the book's drawings, as I see them, the man is just sitting in the background until the police roust him. Since the heroine only reports him to escape from her own police problems, her actions seem very self-centered, given that we can only imagine what will happen to the man. In the film version, the man very clearly gives the heroine a look before everything happens. Thus in the movie, what the heroine reports to the police really happens. Her actions are still cowardly, but they aren't reprehensible the way they seem in the book. A minor point, to be sure, but one I've been obsessing about."

i totally 100% agree. i feel that after watching the film today, hollywood sterilized the main character for their viewing audience. the book depicted her in that specific scene as a self-serving person who was willing to divert attention off of herself at the expensive of involving someone who didn't have any type of interaction with her at ALL. the film takes away from that scene in the book by giving the viewer the impression that the man was not as innocent as he was in the book. in the book the man was minding his own business reading the paper. he was 100% "innocent", meaning he wasn't at fault b/c he didn't do ANYTHING. in the film he was obviously lecherously staring at her behind and therefore the element of innocence is kind of taken away and waters down the effect of the speech the grandmother berates her with about how her grandfather died for innocents. in the book the main character knows the way of life in iran. she knows far too well the consequences that will occur as a result of her accusation, yet she chooses to involve a complete stranger in her diversion. the book effectively communicates the man's desperation with his pleading to her as he is taken away. the film loses this moment entirely by not only depicting the man to be not as "innocent" as his book's character, but the film also fails to even show the man pleading as he is taken away.

i was completely annoyed by this change of scene b/c it is significant in pointing out the main character's dark side and willingness to involve someone completely innocent and uninvolved out of her own fear.

gah.

why does hollywood always have to sterilize things?? :|

Steven

While I agree with your take, I can't agree with your blaming Hollywood. The movie was made in Europe, and the book's author helped make the film. Whatever its flaws, Hollywood wasn't involved.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)