Twilight: The Book vs. The Film Version

I think Molly brings up some interesting points in her post, particularly that the film version of Twilight presents a more coherent and familiar narrative than that of Smith’s literary collection. Though I at first found the film more disorienting than the book – the monologues were shorter and paced faster, the use of actual footage from the riots was visually jarring, transitions between characters were often sudden – I, too, came to the same conclusion that the film presents a more familiar narrative. That familiar and cohesive narrative, then, does not challenge the audience; it does not force the viewers/readers to synthesize the events, characters, viewpoints, etc. to the same extent that the book does.

For example, when I was reading Twilight I was struck by the fact that two very different characters – Reginald Denny and Paul Parker – both wanted to dedicate a room to the riots once they got houses. Denny, in “A Weird Common Thread in Our Lives,” says,

Someday when I,

uh,

get a house,

I’m gonna have one of the rooms

and it’s just gonna be

of all the riot stuff

and it won’t be a

blood-and-guts

memorial,

it’s not gonna be a sad,

it’s gonna be a happy room.

(110)

Parker, who was chairperson of a committee to free Denny’s attackers, expresses a similar sentiment in “Trophies”:

When I finally get my house I’m gonna have just one room set aside.

It’s gonna be my No Justice No Peace room.

Gonna have up on the wall No Justice,

over here No Peace,

and have all my articles

and clippings and, um,

everything else.

I guess so my son can see,

my children can grow up with it.

Know what Daddy did.

(177)

Since these are the actual words of the people interviewed, Smith is not responsible for how wonderfully they echo each other: both men express desires to someday own houses, both want to set aside a room dedicated to the riots, both want to display paper evidence (letters, newspaper clippings, etc.) for other people to view (visitors in Denny’s case and his children in Parker’s). What Smith does control, however, is the placement of these two interviews. In the book, they are in the same section “War Zone,” but they are separated by numerous interviews and over sixty pages, making the connection less obvious.

However, in the film, the Parker and Denny interviews are alternated to create one scene – “I Gonna Have a Room” – in the “Losses” section. Theses scenes are intentionally combined and the mirroring of the men’s monologues is made explicit to reveal the connections between these two very different men.

I think it is interesting that I found the film to be more gut-wrenching and emotional than the book, while I thought the book was more thought-provoking and challenging in terms of an overall message. Obviously, the more explicit structure of the film allows for emotions to build up in a standard rise-and-fall sort of way, but I also think that having one woman play all of the characters adds to the notion of a shared humanity and a “unifying voice” (xxv) that Smith eschews in her introduction. The body beneath the represented character can never be fully ignored, especially when we know this is a one-woman show. If one woman can play all of these parts (male, female, African American, Korean American, white, upper class, lower class, etc.) then that points to a potential for a “unifying voice” that is perhaps a little too one-dimensionally hopeful than the book version seems to allow. Perhaps the reason the film has a more tangible and emotional effect is because it uses structures that are standard in social justice films, whereas the book challenges the reader by intentionally refraining from the use of such familiar structures. Ultimately, I think the book’s less obvious final message is one that should be grappled with by readers, that that struggle is an important part of understanding the message.