Even in the TV version we discover the end of Billi, I think that the little story is better. On the TV version we see how are the characters, but in the book we can imagine Landlady's face, Billy's appearance or animals' pose. However, it is true than in the TV version we discover things than in the book are not answered, but although the TV version gives more information, the book has more details.
I was pleasantly surprised by the Hitchcok's version of Landlady. I usually prefer the book that the film because you can imagine the characters and the scenery. However, in the short story I didn't know the end of Billy although I can expect it.The character of Bill made a different impression on me. I thought he was naive and a bit immature in the book and I saw him arrogant in the film. christelle
They are different because in the film, we discover scenes the book doesn't mention; the most important examples are: The film starts with a group of men in a bar talking about crime in the village, later, when the landlady is going to have tea with Billy, she told him that the burglar had been caugth. And the end of the film, when the landlady says the last phrase it's clear that Billy's dead; it isn't so obvious in the book (I think). In the film, Billy ask the landlady to meet the other two guests and she answer him that she'll introduce them after the tea, because also they're willing forward to meet Billy (more scarer than the book). I prefer the book because it let our imagination run away. The gist of the story doesn’t change.
I think that I prefer the book because in the tale you can imagine everything in another way not so obvious and in the TV programme you can't imagine anything. Everything is clear.
About the differences, in the TV programme Billy looks like less smart and older than in the book. Besides, the first scene in the TV is new and unnecessary and it doesn't contribute to nothing for the story.
Okey, but suspense films almost always are better than suspense books. Why? Perhaps because seeing the characters makes you feel much more "in" the situation.
I prefer the book version mainly because I understand the speech much better than what I can understand in the video.
I could appreciate some diferences. These are some of them: - The begining is quite diferent in the video. Billy goes into a bar or a pub and he talked to the waiter. - The Bed and Breakfast announce was on the wall in the video version instead of on the window (book version). - The landlady takes the guest book to billy to he sign it in the video version. - Billy passed the night and had breakfast in the lodging while he didn't in the book version. - The video reveals the end while the book has an open finish.
I am sure, after reading the book, everybody prefer their "own version", but people who previously had watched only de movie could have a different point of view.
In fact I think Hitchcook also prefers "The Landlady" in his mind but he can translate your mind to your film, do you? splendid!
Miracle is the word, first Roalhd Dall and ... before Alfred.
What about me?
Me?
I agree with me, of course. Please, rereading the first paragraph.
I think the film and text are complementary, the text has a richer vocabulary, however the film through dialogue between the main characters, helps us improve our pronunciation, our agility of thought, etc. if I have to choose between one of them I'll choose the movie but if it's possible with subtitles. As for the differences between the movie and the book, the age of the main characters is different, and they are older in the film, the house is different too, and I think,It's more dark and gloomy in the book, and the intention of the woman is obvious
I prefer the original version to the film version. On the one hand, the original version is more interesting because the story contains lots of details about the characters, the town and the places where the action unfolds. On the other hand, there are some differences between the two versions. I have realised some differences.
1. In the film, the action begin in a pub instead of in a train station.
2. Mr. Weaver never read the advertisement "BED and BREAKFAST". In the film it is not shown why Mr. Weaver chooses that hotel.
3. Mr. Weaver is twenty-two years old in the film. In the book, he was seventeen years old.
4. Finally, in the film, the death of Mr. Weaver is shown clearly. In contrast, in the book the author only suggest that the Landlady kill to Mr. Weaver with poison.
Although in the TV version whole story is more obvious, more evident than in the book version, you can feel more tension, more suspense in the first one, for instance as the film camera came up to the door the intrigue is much bigger. Other tensional moment is when the actor is having the cup of tea and you know that it is poison but you can do nothing to avoid it. In this scene the face of the actor is wonderful. I believe the performance of the characters give to this little tale an enormous richness of sensations. Regarding the differences of ages between both versions, I mean, the landlady may be sixty years old, and the man about twenty, It is more credible the movie version. Eventually, I think I prefer the Hitchcock’s programme because for any reason he has been called the king of the frightening movies.
Even in the TV version we discover the end of Billi, I think that the little story is better. On the TV version we see how are the characters, but in the book we can imagine Landlady's face, Billy's appearance or animals' pose. However, it is true than in the TV version we discover things than in the book are not answered, but although the TV version gives more information, the book has more details.
ReplyDeleteI was pleasantly surprised by the Hitchcok's version of Landlady. I usually prefer the book that the film because you can imagine the characters and the scenery. However, in the short story I didn't know the end of Billy although I can expect it.The character of Bill made a different impression on me. I thought he was naive and a bit immature in the book and I saw him arrogant in the film.
ReplyDeletechristelle
They are different because in the film, we discover scenes the book doesn't mention; the most important examples are:
ReplyDeleteThe film starts with a group of men in a bar talking about crime in the village, later, when the landlady is going to have tea with Billy, she told him that the burglar had been caugth. And the end of the film, when the landlady says the last phrase it's clear that Billy's dead; it isn't so obvious in the book (I think).
In the film, Billy ask the landlady to meet the other two guests and she answer him that she'll introduce them after the tea, because also they're willing forward to meet Billy (more scarer than the book).
I prefer the book because it let our imagination run away. The gist of the story doesn’t change.
I think that I prefer the book because in the tale you can imagine everything in another way not so obvious and in the TV programme you can't imagine anything. Everything is clear.
ReplyDeleteAbout the differences, in the TV programme Billy looks like less smart and older than in the book. Besides, the first scene in the TV is new and unnecessary and it doesn't contribute to nothing for the story.
Okey, but suspense films almost always are better than suspense books. Why? Perhaps because seeing the characters makes you feel much more "in" the situation.
DeleteI disagree with your opinion but I respect it. Is deppends on the book and the film. Not always happens that. For example, in this story :)
DeleteP.S.: Why is not there a button of dislike in this blog? :P
This is not Facebook, that's why!
DeleteDon't be mean! she was just asking...
DeleteI prefer the book version mainly because I understand the speech much better than what I can understand in the video.
ReplyDeleteI could appreciate some diferences. These are some of them:
- The begining is quite diferent in the video. Billy goes into a bar or a pub and he talked to the waiter.
- The Bed and Breakfast announce was on the wall in the video version instead of on the window (book version).
- The landlady takes the guest book to billy to he sign it in the video version.
- Billy passed the night and had breakfast in the lodging while he didn't in the book version.
- The video reveals the end while the book has an open finish.
I agree with you about differences. (Said Alfred...)
DeleteI am sure, after reading the book, everybody prefer their "own version", but people who previously had watched only de movie could have a different point of view.
ReplyDeleteIn fact I think Hitchcook also prefers "The Landlady" in his mind but he can translate your mind to your film, do you? splendid!
Miracle is the word, first Roalhd Dall and ... before Alfred.
What about me?
Me?
I agree with me, of course. Please, rereading the first paragraph.
Alfred said.
In fact I think Hitchcock also prefers "The Landlady" in his mind but he can translate "your" mind to "his" film, do you? splendid!
DeleteAlfred said again.
Antonio Miguel Jiménez
ReplyDeleteI think the film and text are complementary, the text has a richer vocabulary, however the film through dialogue between the main characters, helps us improve our pronunciation, our agility of thought, etc. if I have to choose between one of them I'll choose the movie but if it's possible with subtitles.
As for the differences between the movie and the book, the age of the main characters is different, and they are older in the film, the house is different too, and I think,It's more dark and gloomy in the book, and the intention of the woman is obvious
I prefer the original version to the film version. On the one hand, the original version is more interesting because the story contains lots of details about the characters, the town and the places where the action unfolds. On the other hand, there are some differences between the two versions. I have realised some differences.
ReplyDelete1. In the film, the action begin in a pub instead of in a train station.
2. Mr. Weaver never read the advertisement "BED and BREAKFAST". In the film it is not shown why Mr. Weaver chooses that hotel.
3. Mr. Weaver is twenty-two years old in the film. In the book, he was seventeen years old.
4. Finally, in the film, the death of Mr. Weaver is shown clearly. In contrast, in the book the author only suggest that the Landlady kill to Mr. Weaver with poison.
Although in the TV version whole story is more obvious, more evident than in the book version, you can feel more tension, more suspense in the first one, for instance as the film camera came up to the door the intrigue is much bigger. Other tensional moment is when the actor is having the cup of tea and you know that it is poison but you can do nothing to avoid it. In this scene the face of the actor is wonderful. I believe the performance of the characters give to this little tale an enormous richness of sensations.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the differences of ages between both versions, I mean, the landlady may be sixty years old, and the man about twenty, It is more credible the movie version.
Eventually, I think I prefer the Hitchcock’s programme because for any reason he has been called the king of the frightening movies.
In this version you can see what happened to Christopher Mulholland and Gregory W. Temple. If you can watch it follow this link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEz39MfsLXQ