Does Cinematography Leave no Place for Imagination

Does Cinematography Leave no Place for Imagination The Novel and the Best Film Version The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is one of the most famous and most loved fantasy novels for children all over the world. The book reveals the magnificent and fabulous world of magic creatures struggling for their future. There have been various screen adaptations of the famous novel. Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Does Cinematography Leave no Place for Imagination? specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More However, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) is one of the most majestic versions. It is possible to state that it portrays the world described by C.S. Lewis. The filmmakers managed to reveal the specific atmosphere of the brilliant world. Admittedly, there are some discrepancies as there can hardly be a film version that totally coincides with its literary ‘ancestor’. Nonetheless, it is necessary to admit that the film is a high-qual ity version that focuses on the same ideas and highlights the major points. However, it is also necessary to note that the film has certain downsides. The novel leaves a lot of space for children’s imagination. Thus, the author does not highlight some events giving children the opportunity to co-create the story. As far as the film version is concerned, the filmmakers left little space for children to imagine or co-create. At least some people think so. Therefore, some may claim that the film leaves no place for imagination. Though, it is also important to pay attention to another point. The film reveals the story in detail, but it excites children’s imagination and encourages them to create their own stories. So, should children read the book or rather watch the film? It is important to find out whether the film ‘kills’ children’s creativity or, vice versa, inspires them to use their imagination. Particular Images Help Children to Create Their Wor lds Admittedly, children love books with pictures. They want to see images which help them to recreate the story in their heads. Some authors provide detailed descriptions of the characters. However, Lewis gives no particular description of the major characters only noting that Lucy â€Å"was the youngest† and Edmund â€Å"was the next youngest† (3-4). The reader needs to picture the main characters somehow. Apparently, the author’s description is not enough. When it comes to the film, the viewers see the characters and the magic world. Of course, some may claim that children are forced to see the world in the way the filmmakers see it. Nonetheless, after watching the films, the viewers can still find lots of ways to discover new places in Narnia, places which are not revealed in the film.Advertising Looking for essay on art and design? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Besides, the film cannot pos sibly cover all the events highlighted in the book. Therefore, children can use some images (modified by their own imagination) to picture events they read about. Thus, the film is a kind of visual aids which can be used while (or rather before) reading the book by Lewis. Things Lewis Left Uncovered Some of the most unforgettable events in the book as well as the film are battles. Lewis depicted a lot of battles in detail. Perhaps, this is one of the reasons why the book has become so successful. However, the author also left many things aside. For instance, the writer portrays the final battle when Aslan joins Peter’s army (Lewis 178). The writer only hints that Peter’s army was in a very difficult and dangerous position. The rest is left to the reader’s imagination. The reader is free to picture the beginning of the battle which was tragic, glorious, breathtaking, etc. However, the film reveals all the details of the battle. The entire battle was recreated by the filmmakers (The Chronicles of Narnia). It is a really majestic scene which is inspired by the novel itself. However, some may claim that the detailed depiction of the battle deprives the readers of possibility to recreate it using their imagination. Nonetheless, these claims are rather wrongful. The film provides the viewer with a specific sketch to be used while reading the book, or any other fantasy book. Children can modify the battle scene provided by the filmmakers to create their own battlefields. Hints or Particular Information It may also seem that the filmmakers changed the plot slightly when it comes to their life in the Professor’s house. The author did not mention that professor knew about the magic world, whereas in the film it is obvious that the professor was there at least once. Some may say that the filmmakers leave no room for any kind of intrigue. Nonetheless, it is clear that the filmmakers encourage the viewers to imagine the world the professor ha d discovered many years before the four children found it. The viewer is left to imagine the professor’s adventures in the beautiful magic world.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Does Cinematography Leave no Place for Imagination? specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Conclusion To sum up, it is possible to state that the film and the book create a majestic world that inspires children to travel across their own imaginary kingdoms. Though, the book provides more details and seemingly deprives children from the opportunity to use their imagination, it is obvious that the book encourages children’s desire to discover new worlds and picture numerous uncovered adventures. The 2005 film is one of the best adaptations of the book as it is a bright illustration of the novel that has made children travel their own magic worlds. Lewis, Clive Staples. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, New York, NY: HarperCollins , 2000. Print. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe. Ex. Prod. Andrew Adamson and David Minkowski. Burbank, CA: Buena Vista Home Entertainment / Disney. 2005. DVD.

How to Avoid Bias in Your Writing

How to Avoid Bias in Your Writing How to Avoid Bias in Your Writing How to Avoid Bias in Your Writing By Mark Nichol Gender and ability bias in language doesn’t register for many people, but that’s often because many of them do not belong to the classes who have been subjected to the bias. For example, many writers persist in referring to our species, collectively, as man or mankind, even though several reasonable alternatives exist: the human race, humankind, and humanity. Most (though not all) are men. â€Å"Get over it† is a common counterargument to the assertion that because half of mankind is womankind, a gender-neutral alternative is more sensitive to that fact; man and mankind, the reasoning goes, have sufficed for most of recorded human history sorry, I mean â€Å"man history† and everybody knows it refers not just to the breadwinner, the man of the house, the king of the castle but also to the weaker sex, the little woman, the housewife. Get my drift? Get over it, indeed. Man up, and join the human race. One justification for opposing gender-neutral language is that it can be so cumbersome. Why convolutedly change he, as a generic term, to â€Å"he or she,† or his to â€Å"his or her†? We all know he or his can refer to a man or a woman, and English lacks an inclusive pronoun. (Except that it doesn’t but I’ll get to that in a moment.) Yes, repetitious use of â€Å"he or she† or â€Å"his or her† is ridiculous, but it’s easy to mix it up with it, the magical indeterminate pronoun, or to alternate between he and she or his and her in successive anecdotes, or to pluralize a reference and use they in place of a specific pronoun. Or gasp! you can replace â€Å"he or she† with they. Kill the klaxon, switch off the warning lights, and think about it: They has been long used as a singular pronoun as well as a plural one. But not everybody agrees, so be prepared for pushback if you employ this solution. References to physical disabilities are even more fraught with risks to sensitivity. Such constructions as â€Å"confined to a wheelchair† identify people by their limitations, which is discriminatory. It’s more respectful to refer to someone who â€Å"uses a wheelchair.† What about, simply, â€Å"wheelchair users,† or â€Å"blind people,† or â€Å"deaf children†? These phrases violate what’s known as the people-first philosophy, which holds that any reference to a person should emphasize the person, not their disability. So, refer to â€Å"Smith, who uses a wheelchair,† â€Å"people who are blind† or â€Å"people with visual impairments,† and â€Å"children who are deaf† or â€Å"children who are hearing impaired.† And it should go without saying that references to a disability are extraneous unless it is relevant to the discussion. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Business Writing category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Comparative Forms of Adjectives15 Words for Household Rooms, and Their Synonyms48 Writing Prompts for Middle School Kids