That brings me to one of the points of contrast between the book and movie. In the book they were truly orally passed down from one to another. At least that's the way O'Brien told it. However, the tricky thing with critiquing this book is that the stories are not true. So how do we know if anything in the book is true. For example, if Lemon had told a story, we know it wouldn't be true. But do we know if that Lemon had actually told the story to his fellow soldiers, or if that was a lie also. So for this essay, we are going to take that the soldiers told the stories as truth. We don't know if when Rat Kiley was telling the story of Mary Anne (Sweetheart of the Song Tra Bong) if he had changed some of the "facts" told to him than the story couldn't be far from the truth, but it is true to them. It is true to them because a true war story is not about war, as stated numerous times within this novel, it's about love. So does the fact that the stories in this book are not true make the stories mean less for us or for the soldiers that are hearing it? In Big Fish that was exactly the case. Although the stories were passed down from word to mouth, the stories were being changed, they were completely exaggerated and drawn out. William, as he grew older, obviously did not believe them. Difference from the soldiers. I'm sure that the soldiers knew that some of the stories were fake. Yet they took them to be true. Why? Because it is a love story.
Both stories were love stories. There are many different reasons that Ed Bloom did not tell the truth of his past. Maybe he was ashamed of it, maybe he just wanted to make it interesting for his one and only son. We will never know. That is a secret that died with Ed Bloom. However, what we do know is that he was passionate with his love for his son. The passion was practically punching you through the screen, especially as you watched the last scenes. In certain ways, Big Fish, is a war story. Ed was at war with himself. To not be truthful to the ones you love is a major conflict. Along with that, one of the people that mattered most in his life hadn't talked to him in years because of Ed's stories. Ed became at war with himself. The only way was to have his son tell him a story, so that he would know that his son loved him as much as he loved his son. This is the most touching part of the movie, because it is where I know that it is a true war story, because it is a love story. Just like The Things They Carried is a love story. O'Brien has love for his fellow soldiers. So he tells stories. He tries to make it better for him and his soldiers. So the truth factor doesn't really matter because as long as the deeper meaning is love, everything will fall in place.
Another point of contrast I had was that everything came completely full circle in Big Fish. The way Ed turned into the fish at the end of the movie, how Sandra was the naked mermaid in the lake. Big Fish became a complete story. The Things They Carried was more or less built on cliffhangers. You were left wondering with O'Brien, where Big Fish said, here it is, this is what it is, take it or leave it. Is this intended? If The Things They Carried hadn't left me wondering, I don't think it would have the same meaning to me. If it was extremely outrageous like Big Fish was, I think that it wouldn't have the same purpose of helping the soldiers and their post-war feelings.
The last thing I have, is another comparison. In almost every story, there was a deeper meaning. Wether it was to the person who was telling the story, the person they are telling it to, the person reading (or watching it for that matter) there was at least one story in both the movie and the book. They mean something. It's very hard to explain, because it's different for every person. There is no way to explain it. You have to read the book or watch the story to obtain the meaning I'm talking about.
In the end I think two quotes from the movie summarize the two completely. "In telling the story of my father's life, it's impossible to separate fact from fiction, the man from the myth. The best I can do is tell it the way he told me. It doesn't always make sense and most of it never happened...but that's what kind of story this is." Your never going to get any better. You need to figure out what is myth and what is man for yourself. But with the way these two stories are beautifully told, you know that the stories aren't true, but they are based off of truth which is the love that the author and director gives us. The second quote is this: "A man tells so many stories, that he becomes the stories. They live on after him, and in that way he becomes immortal." When you read this book, or watch the movie, you will see how every character becomes immortal in their own way. They each leave you with something memorable to take with you, and with that they give you the love of the very exaggerated and untruthful war story that you need to take and see the love.
Your introduce paragraph gets more interesting after your first sentence, possibly flip flop the order. You don't have a clearly defined thesis statement as your last sentence. What exactly are you proving?
ReplyDeleteOverall, organization is weak. You ask too many questions rather than answering them with your structured response. You need more clear topic sentences and planned points instead of rambling.
Interesting point about the love and war story. Your conclusion was strong and did demonstrate your understanding of the book and movie when you discussed those quotes.
84%