By: Wakhidatul
Sisca Putri Anggraini - State University of Surabaya
Review: Raval, Vikas (2012). The Namesake: Comparison of The Cinematographic Text with Its Original
Written Text. International Journal of English: Literature, Language &
Skills.
Dr.
Vikas Raval is the author of “The Namesake: Comparison of The Cinematographic
Text with Its Original Written Text” whose background is in academic writing specially
in literature scope. He is an assistant professor whose professional
backgrounds are on Indian English Literature and Contemporary British Fiction (Mackiwg). International Journal of English:
Literature, Language & Skills (IJELLS) published this article firstly on
April in 2012 in which it is considered as a kind of journal article. The most
appropriate audiences are both film producer and script writer or both fiction
and non-fiction writer including novelist, short story writer and so on. The
main claim for this article is that a novel transformed movie is not as good as
the novel itself. Therefore, the aim of the writer is to persuade the reader in
analyzing about how effective written text (novel) transformed into a
cinematographic text (movie) is.
Raval argues
that novel and movie are two different literary mediums which can be connected
to facilitate the audiences in depicting every single detail in the movie, that
may be difficult to be understood in its written text. He assumes that not
entire details in a novel will be completely well changed into a movie by
proving evidence from Jhumpa Lahiri’s statement as the writer of the novel, The Namesake, which Raval chooses to be
analyzed. He states that there are two main difficulties in creating movie
based on novel; they are how to understand the script perfectly the same as the
novel and how to choose the most appropriate characters, actor and actress,
according to the novel. In fact, Raval has found several details eliminated in The Namesake movie by Mira Nair which
are considered as essential parts in the novel.
Raval’s
arguments have strong evidence because he has put quotation in every single
point he states. His decision to use quotation as evidence is quiet right in
which using quotation means that there are the same perspectives from other
researches. Raval also uses sub-chapters, Impact of Bollywood, The Film
‘Namesake’, The Comparison with Book, that may be to line the limitation of his
critiques. He also points out the conclusion well which mentioning the positive
side of The Namesake specially for
anyone who feels the tag of two cultures, Mira Nair’s own reaction to the film,
the conclusion about visual text and textual text which are the points of the
topic explained, and Indian Diaspora in the west. Raval’s arguments are
constructed clearly which is so far from long-winded statements. He directly
inserts his critiques in every point that he needs to be criticized, such as in
sub-chapter “The film ‘Namesake’”, he has balanced the summary of the film with
his own critique. First, when Raval describes the opening scene of the film in
the last paragraph in page thirty-four, he slips his critique about Gogol the
Russian author; “That has perhaps two meanings, one less literal than the
other.” Second, after he tells about foreign landscapes in the same
sub-chapter, he starts to criticize Nair’s film: “Unfortunately, Nair builds up
the emotional intensity and symbolic moments early and too often in the film,
making it difficult to journey or experience a revelation alongside her
characters”. Third, Raval explains about traveling between two major
metropolises in page thirty-six in the first paragraph, however he also says :
“But in the film, there is no connection between the Russian writer’s original
work Overcoat and characters
developed by Nair in The Namesake film.”
Of course, he argues with evidence inside.
However,
there are several words which can not be found in any dictionary even in
Cambridge dictionary, such as diasporic, deterritorialized and flockled. Those
words have no meanings because they can not be identified by any dictionary.
Even if those are typos or
small mistakes in the text made when it was typed or printed, it should not
happen in professional essay like Raval’s review. Diction is the most important
thing that must be considered well by the writer in order to drive the reader
in the right position, knowing that the aim of the writer is to
persuade the reader in analyzing about how effective written text (novel)
transformed into a cinematographic text (movie) is. When the readers get
confused because they find any fault or unidentified words in dictionary from
the text, it may influence the readers to stop reading the essay.
Several
statements that he uses need further explanation and evidence. This statement :
“South Asian diasporic cinema negotiates among the two largest global
cinemas-those of Hollywood and Bollywood-as well as individual national cinemas
including British, Canadian, alternative U.S and India”, needs evidence to
proof that Hollywood and Bollywood are actually the two largest global cinemas.
It is to avoid subjective argument knowing that Raval is Indian. He also states:
“Film is the most popular and significant cultural form and commodity in the
transnational South Asian Cultural and Political economy” that can be an
exaggeration because Raval does not tell why and which one cultural and
political economy that are influenced by the film in which it will be a weak
evidence.
Raval’s
inconsistency in mentioning “the novel” drives the readers to get more confused.
As we know that it directs only one meaning that is The Namesake novel. However, he has mentioned it as “the novel” in
the very beginning of his essay after he appears The Namesake novel: “The film is based on the novel of the
same name by Pulitzer Prize Winner Jhumpa Lahiri, herself the child of
immigrants, who grew up in London and Kingstown, Rhode Island”. Then, he begins
to transform his term “the novel” into “the book”: “But there are scenes, where
Nair disagrees from the book”. In the page thirty eight, he continuously
calls the novel as “the book”. “The movie is simply unable to bring out the
complexity of the novel, for example; in the book it is clear why
Gogol leaves Maxine” and “The novel is dense in details and many
incidents that occur in the book do not find a place in the film” are his
most confusing sentences. He has put two terms whose meanings are the same, The Namesake novel, in a single
sentence. Those terms are so ambiguous whether both “the novel” and “the book”
are The Namesake novel, or “the book”
mentioned is another book which is not really The Namesake novel. Generally, it certainly navigates the reader
into misdirecting perspective and supposition.
Raval’s writing
style is always putting the full quotation he needs, but he neglects to put the
background of the speakers in his several quotations. He puts their names only,
such as “Stuart Hall remarks” and “according to Jigna Desai”. Actually, it is
important to inform the reader what the last education of the quotation
speakers, what their job and how well they know about the topic described.
Those elements are needed to strengthen the evidence because the readers will
be easier to be convinced when the quotation speakers are researcher, experts
and such kind of things. The source of the quotation must be also put in order
to make it clearer and can be accepted by the reader. In the references (work
cited), Raval writes the title of the book, web site, and others, but those are
not mentioned in his essay.
Raval
is not quiet good in English specially in grammar. It can be proven by several
mistakes in that review essay, for example, “Literature and film are... because
of cinematic considerations certain changes are incorporated” – page 31
paragraph 1. The reader will be difficult to reach the point because he does
not put the adjective and the noun well. “Cinematic” is adjective,
“considerations” is plural noun of “consideration”, “certain” can be adjective,
determiner or pronoun, and “changes” in that context is plural noun of “change”.
There should be A+A+A+N+Be rather than A+N+A+N+Be (A is adjective; N is noun;
and Be is tobe). That sentence is extremely unclear whether he states about
considerations or changes because of his bad grammar structure. Raval uses
present verb form after putting “has” in which does not deal with the right
pattern of the grammar. After “has”, he should put past participle form of the
verb. “First Commercial International film Awards, held in London in 2003, has
provide that Indian ... the nation-state” – page 31 paragraph 2 – must be
“has provided”. However, it should use “has” or “have” is confusing because
Raval writes “Awards” as the plural noun not “Award” as the single noun.
Actually, the noun form determines the use of “has”, dealing with singular
noun, or “have”, dealing with plural noun.
Raval even has written a sentence without using any verb inside; “How the
fragrance of Jasmine can take them to the family garden, how a strand of old
filmy music can transport them back home” – (page 32 paragraph 1). The use of
“how” indicates that the sentence is a dependent clause which needs any verb
there. It can be put with other sentences to change it into the right sentence
or Raval must eliminate it because it will be difficult to be understood by the
reader.“This might happens to most immigrants away from home – (page 33
paragraph 1)” is false if we pull it into the right grammar patterns. “Happens”
there must be “happen” because there is past modal verb of “may”, that is
“might”. When “might” meets a verb, the verb must be present form without using
–s suffix in the end.
In
conclusion, Raval’s faults in his essay about The Namesake are not too fatal. He just makes mistakes in
unidentified dictionary words, weak evidence, inconsistency, quotation
speaker’s background (the source), and the grammar. Those should be obeyed by
Raval to perfect his critical review. So far, he follows the strucure of
writing review well because his essay is clear enough to be understood by the
reader about what his purpose actually is, how he transfers the arguments, and
how he delivers every single point to convince the reader. “The Namesake:
Comparison of The Cinematographic Text with Its Original Written Text” by Dr.
Vikas Raval can be recommended for producers, film makers, script writer,
directers, immigrants and also everyone who feels the tag of two cultures.
Reference:
No comments:
Post a Comment