Exploring the role of the Reluctant Hero

Alfred Hitchcock in both “Strangers on a Train” and “The Thirty-Nine Steps” explores the role of a reluctant hero, thrust into a situation far beyond his control. Both Guy and Hannay are unfamiliar with how to approach situations that will do harm to their person as well as their reputation: Guy's status and consideration of committing to murdering a stranger, and Hannay's reluctance to be part of a larger plot he is dragged into.  Both men resemble just how helpless it can be to be in a situation out of their control as these forces strangle them, making basic, everyday living nearly impossible.

Guy thinks that Bruno is a strange, but unassuming passerby that is talking in hypothetical extrapolations, not considering just how dangerous speaking in this way becomes during the progression of the story.  Hitchcock manages to take the supremely cerebral elements of Highsmith's novel and translates them very well to the screen. The film is a nearly shot-for-shot adaptation of the opening chapters of the novel, especially the tight, and claustrophobic cabin space.  Unfortunately for fans of the novel, the adaptation veers completely off course as Hitchcock takes the characters and puts them through the wringer in terms of psychological decay.  The trajectory of Guy is unique in the film as he manages to both escape his tormentor's threats by having Bruno die in the elaborate finale, but also manages to have a successful life after Miriam's murder.  This is similar to the novel as Guy nearly escapes his fate, but feels compelled to "do the right thing" and confess, implicating himself in the murder and damning his status and reputation in the process.  The cerebral and tense moments of Highsmith's novel are faithfully transcribed to the visual medium, though some elements are lost in translations to the detriment of the novel's trajectory. 

Furthermore, the novel of "The 39 Steps" yet again has many elements that are lifted from the novel and are made much better for it.  Hannay is still the uniquely bizarre and hapless character he is the novel, and continues the theme of the man on the run, seeking to find the answers to a larger conspiracy that has ensnared him in his trap.  Personally, I feel that Hitchcock's ending of the story was more poignant and entertaining, taking the notion of a global spy-network's conspiracy being the central plot point.  The film also manages to continue the themes of looming war as the 39 steps are revealed to be the mechanics of how to build a silent plane, a key element of changing global air battles in the process.  Hitchcock manages to take the best elements of Buchan's novel and translates them beautifully to the screen, managing to make this a very faithful adaptation of this novel.  Both are equally entertaining, and this adaptation is more powerful than "Strangers on a Train" as many of the themes and overall narrative are faithfully translated.  

Hitchcock's Adaptations - Blog #3

In Strangers on a Train, there are many very obvious changes. One of the main changes is the relationship between Guy and Bruno. In the novel, Patricia Highsmith has the two characters develop a friendship through the story line. Guy has concern for Bruno as a person and a friend and ends up being the one who tries to save him in the end. Hitchcock took an opposite approach, creating a drastically different relationship between the two men. Instead of being friends, Bruno ended up being some kind of stalker to Guy, following him from place to place and showing up unexpectedly, getting in to Guy’s personal life in various ways. Also, another huge difference was the fact that the novel had Guy actually going through with murdering Bruno’s dad, while Hitchcock kept Guy innocent. By doing this, I felt like Hitchcock changed the feel of the story line, keeping Guy’s character innocent and creating more negative feelings towards Bruno. Although, I have to say I enjoyed the way Hitchcock ended the film because he created a humorous ending with the crashing of the merry-go-round as opposed to the actual novel ending of Bruno drowning. It made Bruno’s demise comical, once again changing the ultimate feel of the ending.

When it comes to The Thirty Nine Steps, there are more differences between the novel and the film then there are similarities. Overall, Hitchcock was able to make a great deal of significant changes, yet when looked at as a whole, he remained on task with the storyline. I personally felt his version was much more rushed than the novel. It seemed Hannay went from hideout to hideout with much more haste than in the novel, making it a little more suspenseful for the viewer who was constantly keeping up with what was about the happen next. However, I really enjoyed his addition of the Memory Man as the keeper of the secret information about the thirty nine steps. It was almost a little more tangible for me as a viewer because I had an actual object (or person, in this case) to relate to the thirty nine steps. It was a very cool addition to the story. But one of the biggest things for me was the way Hitchcock incorporated female characters in to the story line. Even in the very beginning, the whole plot starts off with a female as the one being trailed by the secret information, while it all ends with a female being Hannay’s partner. It added a bit of romance, which enhanced the story that much more.

Even with all the adaptations made between both films and their partnered novel, Hitchcock remains loyal to the original story line. Although he adds some events and characters, he stays respectful of the author’s ideas. Instead of looking at his adaptations as changes, I actually see them as enhancements, making the novel’s transition to film even more successful.

The Hitchcokian Adaptation.

As we all know Hitchcock is a psychological and subjective director that plays by his own rules. This is clear and evident in his adaptations of other people's works and the liberties he takes with the authors' original concepts. A few exceptional examples of this would be in his rendition of the 39 Steps by John Buchan and Strangers on a Train by Patricia Highsmith. Hitchcock changes a few things in the 39 Steps and it is quite beneficial for the silver screen. Replacing Scudder with Annabella Smith allows for a more sexual and, in a sense, psychological element considering the majority of psychological concepts at the time were still Freudian and everything revolved around sex. This can be observed in their banter in the kitchen with allusions to sharing a bead and also in the door way when she implies she might be a lady of the night. Also adding Pamela to the mix sustains this sexual climate in the atmosphere of the film. As we are all familiar with saying "sex sells" it makes the more scrutinizing viewer wonder if the intention of adding these femme fatales was to accommodate the gaze of the audience or to add elements necessary to a man on the run film portraying our protagonist as a lady killer. Hitchcock also removes the scene where Hannay just happens to seek refuge in the home of the conspiracy's ring leader. This improbable and some what buffoonish segment of the novel was hard to believe. Cutting it from the adaptation made it seem less cartoonish and took a little of the campy MacGyver element out of it. As for Strangers on a Train completely changing the latter half of the story made sure that Hitchcock's spin on the concept would be distinctly different from Highsmith's, but it is quite possible that once again this was a change made to better suit the expectations of movie. While Hitchcock has many times deviated from the common conceptualization of a Hero, perhaps this was one leap he couldn't make. In all likelihood the change of having Guy not commit the murder was Hitchcock doing his own thing and making sure to make a distinction from the original text. This also allowed for a more definite good and evil, but this did not stop Hitchcock from maintaining the complexity of Guy and Bruno's relationship as evident in the scene shortly after Bruno goes into his strangle trance. All in all it can be concluded that Hitchcock did both what was necessary to get his subjection of the story across while simultaneously giving an audience what it wants, even if they didn't know they wanted it in the first place.

Hitchcock's Adaptations

When looking at Hitchcock’s overall style he is obviously a mastermind of suspense. The common thread that runs throughout both the films, Strangers on a Train and 39 Steps is the feeling of impending danger.

During Strangers on a Train, Hitchcock makes the bold decision to change Guy into a professional tennis player. By making this switch he puts Guy in a much more vulnerable state. He is now in the public eye and getting away with a murder would be a much harder task than if press and fans were not following him. This change also makes a change in the play with Guy’s name. The novel makes him appear to be a normal upstanding gentleman, in other words, an ordinary guy. Now that he’s a tennis player, his “normal guy” status is taken away from him. Hitchcock also tends to follow a specific object in his films that have significant meaning. In Strangers on a Train, this object is the lighter than Guy leaves in Bruno’s train car. The two ideas of Guy’s tennis fame and Bruno’s stolen lighter unite in the scene in which Guy is finishing a tennis match in order to catch Bruno before he frames him for Miriam’s murder. The suspense of the film is put at an all time high while the audience watches Guy bounce the tennis ball back and forth, meanwhile the camera literally bounces the audience back and forth between shots of Guy and shots of Bruno.

Hitchcock’s film, 39 Steps takes a somewhat similar approach to suspense. He changes one of the main features of the novel when he makes the murder victim go from male to female. Like Strangers on a Train, this change makes the film take a different feel. Since the murder was that of a woman it added a sense of vulnerability and even more hate (not that the murder of a man is any less gruesome, no offense guys). Hitchcock also adds a whole new character, Mr. Memory, who is the actual key to the 39 steps. This change makes the audience question though, are the 39 steps real? Can this man be trusted? Who can actually be trusted? One of the most suspenseful scenes is also one that Hitchcock decided to also add. While Hannay is on the run he goes to the cabin of a somewhat strange couple. This scene is often seen as the most suspenseful because it adds sexual tension and plays with the idea of being caught. Hitchcock focuses much of this scene around a newspaper found on the table in the cabin. Hannay tries to keep the paper away form the couple, for fear of his identity being divulged. This scene mirrors when he is sitting on the train with the three other gentleman and they watch him over the paper. There is the constant threat of his identity being found out, and then being found guilty for a crime he did not commit.

Post 3 - Hitchcock's Novel Adaptations

Hitchcock likes to take a story and change it to suit his intentions when it comes to making a film out of it. This is apparent in both his adaptation of Strangers on a Train and 39 Steps. In Strangers the film, Guy is a much more likeable and sympathetic protagonist than in Highsmith’s novel because he does not go through with the murder of Bruno’s father. Also, in the film, Guy’s disdain for Bruno and his crime is immediately apparent. In the novel, Guy has actually built such a bond and attachment to Bruno that he actually tries to save his life. Surely, Hitchcock’s Guy would have let him drown, feeling relieved to have gotten rid of his “Bruno problem.” Hitchcock, like other film makers, needs a likeable protagonist to pit against the unlikeable antagonist in Bruno. He needed to pit the two characters against one another to create conflict in the plot. Hitchcock’s version also leaves its audience with a happy ending as it seems that things will work out between Guy and Anne. Bruno’s death is the film’s resolution. Highsmith essentially has Guy fall apart after Bruno’s death in the book. He admits to the murder and gets arrested. Not a happy ending for a film, especially in Hitchcock’s time.

In 39 Steps the film, a drastic change made by Hitchcock is to turn the character of Franklin P. Scudder into a mysterious spy woman named Annabella. I think Hitchcock made this decision for a couple of reasons. Firstly, he wanted to play with the audiences’ expectations by creating sexual tension between Annabella and Richard Hannay in his apartment. Their interaction leads one to believe that she might be a lady of the night and that Hannay is pursuing her romantically. It also makes much more sense for Hannay to bring a woman home that night instead of a man which would create a much different mood. He plays with the theme of the woman in distress who needs help from a strange man before committing to the man on the run theme. Plus, it seems more likely that Hannay would undertake her task and see it through to the end versus doing it for some strange man who died in his apartment. Hitchcock is constantly playing with the audiences expectations in this film and turns situations upside down and inside out for shock and suspense which are much needed for a thriller of this type.

Blog Post 3

    Hitchcock as an adaptor of literature focuses on taking the bare idea of a work, such as the man on the run archetype from The Thirty-Nine Steps, and stripping away and refining the extraneous material to express his single idea. For example, in taking out the elaborate explanation of the 39 steps idea and changing it to a hunk of information in Mr. Memory's repertoire, he simplifies the outer trappings of the plot and turns it into a MacGuffin. What matters is not the information, but that the enemy will kill to keep that information from leaking. Another example of this approach comes with the change of Hannay from Scottish to Canadian. To intensify the man on the run idea and to inspire more identification with the protagonist, changing Scotland, the place where Hannay does much of his running around, to an unfamiliar place instead of his homeland accents the fact that Hannay is on the run and everything is foreign to him and out to get him. The most telling change is the addition of the love interest and the changing of Scudder to Anabella. Women are more unfamiliar to Hannay than men so his constant encounters with them make his journey more treacherous and sexually charged than if the cast had remained all male. I believe he respects the core of the original work, which is the appealing idea of an innocent man on the run with whom the audience can identify, while changing incidental details to heighten the suspense.

    In Strangers on a Train, the most startling and significant change is that the criss-crossed murder exchange is never completed; Guy does not kill Bruno's father. In my opinion, this ruins the plot. For me, the central charm of Highsmith's original novel is watching the slow psychological beatdown of Guy until he is dragged down to Bruno's level to the point where he considers him a brother. Hitchcock's approach as an adaptor of literature here is similar to that he used with Buchan's novel. He strips down and changes extraneous details (Guy is now a tennis player instead of an architect, Anne a politician's daughter instead of a designer) to come at the core of the novel. For instance, the change of Anne's career drives home the point that Guy has social standing to lose by going through with the murder. The loss of social standing as an architect lacks drama compared to that of a forfeited political career under Anne's father. However, I believe his approach fails here. While Buchan as a novelist has constructed a novel in which the man on the run idea drives the plot, Highsmith writes novels in which the subtle psychological interplay among characters creates conflict and moves the story along. In simplifying Guy and Bruno and having Guy ultimately shy from the murder, he removes much of what made Highsmith's novel great.

    The choices Hitchcock makes in adapting these two films reveal him as a director who values an idea and an archetype and the feelings these inspire over the details of plot and character. Film adaptation in general involves taking a story which exists on the page and making it visual enough to come alive on the screen. Therefore, the detailed psychological descriptions of Guy's capitulation are hard to translate without resorting to a thought voice-over and while a lot of complexity is lost, the change of Guy into a more standard hero for Hitchcock's film adaptation is the better cinematic choice.

Hitchcock's Adaptation

There are two differences that between the original Strangers On A Train, and Hitchcock's adaptation. There first being the characterization of Bruno. In the book, there was a clear sign of insanity. During the build-up to Miriam's death, the text is very disturbing. Bruno essentially dehumanizes Miriam into another piece of flesh. The text even reads how thrilled/relieved Bruno was after strangling her. However in Hitchcock's adaptation we loose that, and I feel that he leaves it up to the audience to classify how insane he really is. I believe because of this change, it fails to respect the original work. I do not think it matters, because Hitchcock wants mystery behind his "villains". I believe Hitchcock does this to keep the audience always on their toes, waiting for the next scene to happen.

The other difference between the two is a major plot change. In the original work , Guy ends up killing Bruno's father. However in Hitchcock's version, Guy decides against it and attempts to tell Bruno's father what is wrong with his son (Bruno finds this information out because he is hiding in the bed). I believe the reason why Hitchcock does it is to make the Guy character more relatable to the audience. This change also makes Bruno stand out much more as the clear "villain"/insane one. This change obviously fails to respect the original work, and it truly does matter. This is a story of somewhat of a flawed hero. Once we change the fact that Guy kills Bruno's father, he becomes your typical average-joe character caught up in a sticky situation.

Looking at these films and other films, Hitchcock wants his audience to think about what is to come next. If that means taking out character development of some characters, than so be it. Hitchcock also likes placing average people in not-so-everyday situations. Hitchcock's use of this makes it possible for audiences to connect closer to the character and feel the same fear/tension/stress the character feels.

Hitchcock and his Adaptations

From reading and watching both Strangers on a Train and The 39 Steps, it is evident that Hitchcock is a director that can take an idea conceptualized by someone else and make it into his own work. One element that Hitchcock toys with in both of these films is the introduction of main characters. In Strangers on Train, Guy is in his seat when a “young man opposite of him seemed to debate whether to start a conversation…the grey bloodshot eyes were looking at him and the soft smile came back.” This man is evidently Bruno in the book. In The 39 Steps, Scudder bum rushes Hannay in the hallway. He is jumpy and nervous and needs Hannay’s help. Hitchcock sticks to the basic plot of both of these introductions but he has altered them to make them his own. Bruno in Strangers is more straightforward. He immediately recognizes Guy and begins to talk to him incessantly, even though Guy is trying to read a book. In the book, Bruno seems to be fighting the urge to talk to him. He is also described with a large pimple in the middle of his forehead, this image producing a much scummier version of Bruno than we see in the movie. Hitchcock’s Bruno seems more approachable and even though he is more intrusive, he seems friendlier than the books makes him out to be.

Hitchcock completely remodeled the introduction to The 39 Steps. Scudder is no longer a man but now an attractive woman. This gender change, making the character a mysterious love interest changes the mood of characters interactions. Instead of it being a man bored to death and looking for excitement, leading him to help this man on the run, it is now a sexually fueled back and forth between a man and a woman who plans on spending the night.

Bruno, in the book, already has an odd relationship with his mother. The introduction to chapter 10 is Bruno cleaning the dry face cream from her face the next morning. Honestly, that is so odd to me and it creeped me out. In the movie, his mother is even more obsessive over him. In the scene where she is filing her nails, the only mood I could describe in her was manic. Every time she talks to Bruno, she ends it with a question about taking care of himself and how well he’s doing it. She’s completely obsessive. When Anne goes to talk to her about what Bruno has done, her only response is to laugh. Every other word out of her mouth ends with a chuckle as if the thought of Bruno killing anyone is too hilarious to think of. Hitchcock took an already awkward mother/son relationship and made it worse. It became that classis Hitchcock trademark.

Hitchcock changed both of the endings to the books, too. Honestly, I thought that was a great idea because I didn’t like either one of them. Adding a love interest to Steps made the storyline a lot more humorous and easier to watch. The addition of Mr. Memory also made the story line a lot more interesting. Finding out that “the 39 steps” wasn’t a crazy, government operated scheme at the end of the novel was a huge disappointment. Hitchcock’s added Mcguffin and intrigue made the storyline a lot more promising.

The way he turned Guy into more of the All American Hero was also a nice touch. Like Jimmy Stewart’s character in Vertigo, Guy is a reluctant hero. He does not want to play along with Bruno’s game but for the sake of her reputation he will. He then sets up a trap in order to catch Bruno and stop him from framing Guy-which works. All in all, Hitchcock adapted these films, putting his own spin on them but he also retained the classic storyline and the author’s originality.

Blog topic #3

Primary Post due 4-15 by midnight
Secondary posts due by 4-18 by midnight

You have now read two works Hitchcock adapted to the screen – one from 1951 and one from 1935. Employing your readings, provide some observations on how you would define Hitchcock’s choices as an adaptor of literature.

To focus this response, locate one or two novelistic elements from Strangers and Steps (plot points, characterization, use of locations, etc …). Compare and contrast Hitchcock’s techniques as an adaptor of literature. What has he changed? What seems to be his thematic preoccupations? How do you think he respects and/or fails to respect the original work? (And does this matter?) What do these two films tell us about Hitchcock and film adaptation?

Wellesian Crash

      Orson Welles is the master of the non-linear narrative, and
manages to craft tales that transcend time, and manipulate audiences
for the full dramatic effect. A film that is Wellesian in this sense
is the 2004 film “Crash,” a story told from varied perspectives to
show how small actions impact people in everyday situations. This
film shows how one action can have a ripple effect, damaging or
healing those in the process. Much like in Citizen Kane where the
story of Kane is told from many perspectives, and peers that had a
huge impact in Kane's life, the story is incomplete without the views
and actions of other people. In Crash each character has their own
lives to live and interact with others in, and racial stereotypes and
bigotry change the trajectory of everyday people. This film is told
in a non-linear manner, and this is illustrated clearly in the
trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=durNwe9pL0E
    

    This film is unique in the sense that it begins at the ending, much
like Citizen Kane where the undercover detective's brother is found
dead in a car under mysterious circumstances, leaving the audience to
piece together what has occurred over the course of the film. In one
memorable scene, Daniel Ruiz, a local Latino handyman is hired to fix
a shopkeeper's door that is chronically forced open by gang-bangers in
the neighborhood. Ruiz mentions that he cannot fix the door without
the proper parts, and will have to come back the following day. An
undercover detective's (Don Cheadle) brother runs with a rough crowd
and ransacks the shopkeeper's storefront, gutting the insides of all
valuables. The shopkeeper, Farhad takes the address of Ruiz's home
and goes to confront him, as his inability to repair the door causes
Farhad to lose his business. Farhad goes to shoot Ruiz with a handgun
(he purchased to protect his shop), until Ruiz's daughter jumps in the
way to protect her father. The audience assumes that Ruiz's daughter
has died, until we are relieved to discover Farhad had blanks in the
gun. This tense scene is Wellesian in two ways: 1) The actions of
many people have tragic and (nearly) unfortunate circumstances, that
all tie up in the ending sequences of the film. 2) The film
manipulates the audience's expectations and uses the (near) death of
an innocent girl for the utmost dramatic effect. This film is
gripping on many levels, and when viewing this film through a
Wellesian lens, we can see how modern films are still influenced by
this great director's style.

Welles and Nolan

Welles as a director is well known for his use of mise-en-scene’s low-key lighting in Touch of Evil and the diegetic time sequence consisting of flashbacks and flash forwards in Citizen Kane. He creates complex storylines which are slowly unraveled, but not fully until the end. Similarly, modern day director Christopher Nolan can be seen using some of these same concepts in movies like Memento.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vS0E9bBSL0

In this trailer of Memento, Nolan’s use of two parallel storylines which intersect at the end, one in black and white and the other in color, is similar to what Welles did years ago. Citizen Kane’s storyline is told mainly to Thompson the reporter through the use of flashbacks told by people who previously knew Kane. In Memento, the film’s story is pieced together by the main character Leonard who suffers from short term memory loss condition known as anterograde amnesia. In both movies, characters discover the storyline simultaneously along with the audience. The black and white shots can also be compared to Welles’s in Touch of Evil.

Touch of Evil features low-key lighting which creates stark contrasts between black and white. This use of mise-en-scene can also be found in Memento’s black and white shots making certain characters faces dark in concurrence with the character’s actions and the unfolding storyline. Touch of Evil can be viewed as James Naremore puts it, “Touch of Evil begins shifting back and forth between the legal plot and the sexual plot, between Vargas’s idealistic concern for justice and Suzy’s gradual descent into the Los Robles underworld.” Similarly, Memento has one chronological storyline shown in black and white and another storyline moving in reverse order shown in color. In both films, there is a scene towards the end which ties the parallel storylines together.

While not as complex as the story of Memento, Welles used this style of parallelism in his films to create dramatic thrillers years before Nolan was even born. Nowadays, many directors employ this use of multiple stories wrapped under a single overarching plot. Welles found ways in which the camera could add to a character’s persona such as through low-key lighting. The stark contrast between light and dark is used in Touch of Evil to amplify the evil in characters like Quinlan and Grandi and the good of Susie for example. If anything has become evident to me about Welles this semester, it is that he was a pioneer director who’s techniques and style have had a profound effect on the industry for years and will for the foreseeable future.

Welles vs Rosenburg

While watching Citizen Kane, the element that stands out to me the most is the cinematography and the lighting. Reading how Welles achieved some shots, such as cutting holes in the floor, is simply inspiring to me. Here is a clip that visually explains what I am talking about... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9KPd_HgoQw&feature=related... (the audio itself is dubbed, so you can just mute it while watching it). You can truly see how his technical skills and vision are able to intensify what is being shown on screen. Welles also was a master of lighting. Without the use of his knowledge of low-key lighting, Citizen Kane would not be as well known as it is. Just like his use of cinematography, he is able to increases the visual appeal of each shot, just by placing a single light in the correct spot. Take the scene in which Kane fires Jedediah... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UeqAXas-oA&feature=related... Notice the one light that focuses the audience's attention on Jedediah, but not to much to take away from Kane's ominous presence in the corner. Welles was both a master of cinematography and light, and truly opened the door for creativity in the film world.

The one director I think about when comparing Welles vs. another director is Stuart Rosenburg. If you do not know who that is, it is the director of Cool Hand Luke. I believe a lot of people's initial reaction to this comparison is that Welles and Rosenburg have nothing in common. Stylistically, Citizen Kane and Cool Hand Luke are exact opposites. However, I believe that each director shares one important quality, and that is creativity. Both of these directors came out into the film industry, and did things no one would ever think of. Rosenburg's main area of creativity came from his lighting. Take this video for example, around the 4:20 mark... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z8HqqCyO9E&feature=player_embedded#at=138... Rosenburg's use of over exposure is something no director would ever dare attempt. Despite that, his use of exposure amplified the audience's connection with the character. Rosenburg's use of obscure angles was also another sign of his creativity. I can not find a video of it, but anyone who has seen the film will know what I am talking about. There is a scene in Cool Hand Luke that reminds me of the shot from Citizen Kane of the broken snow globe reflecting the doorway. The scene is of the reflection of the glasses worn by "the man".

Both Welles and Rosenburg have one thing in common. Their knowledge of cinematography and lighting truly amplify the themes and moods the wish to express through their films.

Orson Welles and David Fincher

Even if your opinion of Orson Welles is less that complimentary, it is hard to say that he wasn’t a man of talent and vision. His still is unique and he is not one to be perfectly copied but he has left his mark in cinema history. This is a mark that many directors pick up on and try to mirror. I find David Fincher to be one of those directors.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QgFWXLN-ug

This is a link to the trail for Fight Club. Both Fincher and Welles took popular books and turned them into movies. If you’ve never seen Fight Club, the trailer sums up the premise. This is a man living a dull life and one day something extraordinary happens to him. New people come into his life and soon it becomes chaotic and confused. Most of all, it becomes dangerous and deadly. This is the same basic premise for The Trial, just under varying circumstances. Welles and Fincher have not only adapted these books onto the big screen but they have also put their own spin on it.

First off, both movies are against something common in society. In The Trial, it is the way the law works and how no matter how much one tries, it is hard to get around it. In Fight Club, the problem is society buying into corporate standards for clothes, cars and even coffee. The move hits on those who sell out to make money and attacks them. Both of these movies show a true passion for what the message of the book was. It plays just as well on screen as it does throughout the novels.

Fincher and Welles both changed pivotal scenes in their movies for courtesy to those watching. Naremore says that Welles changed the ending of the Trial from the brutal stabbing to the explosion because it was so close to the end of the Holocaust and Kafka, though not practicing, was Jewish. In Fight Club, there is a scene where Brad Pitt’s character and Edward Norton’s character are taking about homemade recipes on making a bomb. In the book, Cuck Palahnuik writes the real recipe out for readers. Fincher decided, as an element of public safety, to cut that out and put in a fictitious recipe. Both directors, without ruining the integrity of both scenes, made changes to the story out of common courtesy. Watching the movies, you would never know the difference. Both scenes are just powerful as the way they play out in the books.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ8imPmQ0js

This is another clip that I found interesting. It’s long, it contains some spoilers, but it shows how twisted Fight Club can get. Much like the scene in The Trial with the young girls eyes staring through the slates of wood. The character of Hastler and Brad Pitt as Tyler Durden play the same role in both of these movies. I have no proof that Fincher finds inspiration in Welles but the characters are portrayed in a similar light. In the movie, they are the voice of reason. They tell the main characters how it is or how it should be. Hastler, in the end, reveals the parable of the Law and K. becomes fed up, just like Edward Norton’s character does in the later scenes of Fight Club.

Lastly, a lot of the scenes in both of these movies are mind blowing. The confusion and paranoia resonates off of the screen when you view both of these films. When K. leaves Titorelli’s home and finds that it is connected to the law offices, it is not only mind blowing but so confusing and unreal. Near the end of Fight Club, there is a scene between Pitt and Norton that is so chaotic it’s hard to grasp what is really going on. I don’t want to give anything away just in case, but look it up. It’s fantastic. And I get the same feeling from that scene that I get from the scene from The Trial.