Comparison and Differences That Exist between the Book and Film Film Shane - Essay Example

?A Comparison Essay on the Book and Film “Shane” The literary work behind the ic novel and Hollywood film Shane is one that is steeped in much American history and a love for the pioneering way of life. Set against the backdrop of the Wild West, Shane was originally published as a short story in 1946 in the magazine Agrosy. The full novel form that has become the toast of the classic literary town did not come into full form until 1950 when it was first published as a full length literary novel. Catching the eye of the reading public, the powers that be in Hollywood knew that there was money to be made from the film adaptation of the book. Producers began to scramble in order to get the rights to film the movie version of the movie. But this paper is not about the way producers came into possession of the literary work. Nor is this about the history of the author and his inspiration for the book. Rather, this paper is all about the comparison and differences that exist between the book and film versions of the story. The basic premise of the book and the movie does not stray from the original formula that was written by Jack Shaeffer. We find the main story in both the book and movie centering upon the Starrett family. Together with some other homesteaders, they find themselves being trapped by a local cattle baron into surrendering their land to him as he slowly usurps property that is not his. The cattle baron is named Fletcher and he does not mind being at war with most of his neighbors over the cattle range that should have existed for all of them to benefit from. The main character, Shane, comes into the story right smack in the middle of this war. While the conflict in the book takes place mostly in the second half of the book, the film version, owing to time constraints and censorship considerations, found itself fast forwarding within minutes of the opening scene into the thick of the action. This is one of the main points that shows the difference between the book and the film. Whereas the book had enough time to flesh out the conflict and character development, the film had to abbreviate such development points in lieu of screen time. The film, which was shot in 1953 did not leave everything to one's imagination as the novel did. Rather, Director George C. Stevens took great pains to re-create what was about to become the finest western film in Hollywood into reality on film. The cinematography matched the grandness of the verbal descriptions and looked quite true to life in an era that did not have High Definition, Blu-Ray, or CGI technology to help polish its look. Character description wise, the film differed from the book in such that the main character, Shane, first arrived at the Starret ranch, according to the novel, wearing an all Black outfit while he wore a Tan outfit in the film. Character wise, the film also took the liberty of renaming some of the characters as in the case of the character of Bob in the book, who became Joey in the movie. The cattle baron who was named Fletcher in the book, became Rufus Ryker in the Hollywood version. While the book took its time in developing character relationships during the first half of the story, allowing the reader to come to a deeper understanding of the story and its main protagonists and antagonists, those who watch the film without having read the book will be treated to a different version of character development far from the original vision and intent of the writer. The movie, perhaps thinking it would make for a far more interesting tale on screen found itself dealing with a combined storyline that allows for a rushed version of the back story between Shane and the family that took him in, and the action from the latter half of the movie that seems to be introduced within the first ten minutes of the film. This sense of screen time and film footage used is probably the reason why we find the characters doing things in the movie that were done by other people in the book. For example, Tory, who was supposed to be the one involved in the suicidal gunfight with Wilson according to the novel, found himself replaced by Shipstead in the movie version. In an effort to film on the director's perceived highlights from the book, we find ourselves suddenly thrust into the trigger fro the climax of the story. The fight between Joe and and Shane. While both versions end with a pistol firing at Shane's head coming from Joe's pistol, the movie version ratchets up the conflict between the two men by involving them in a cinematic fist fight prior to the gun going off. This in my opinion, is one of the greatest differences between the book and film. Finally, we have the very different ending between the book and film versions. While the book decides to show us the after-story or life after Shane left the ranch, the movie decidedly ends on a more dramatic note which moviegoers of the time lapped up. The movie “rolls the end credits” after the dramatic plea from Joey for him to stay because everyone at the ranch needs him. Historically speaking, it is important for all Americans to be familiar with the novel and book versions of this story as it depicts an almost forgotten part of American history. That period in time when the country, still on the cusp of being born, was embroiled in family feuds rather than civil wars for the right to claim possessions. Homesteading was the method by which America became great yet very little is discussed about that aspect of American history in our social studies. This movie and the book gives the people a chance to capture, imagine, and see such an important part of American heritage. Works Cited Schaefer, Jack. Shane. New York: Bantam, 1983 Print. Shane. Dir. George Stevens. Perf. Alan Ladd, Jean Arthur, Van Heflin, Jack Palance. Paramount Home Video, 2000. DVD. Read More