https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi Is this film version of Wilde's satire true to his satirical vision? What are its strengths and weaknesses? en-us 2018-11-02 17:48:31 UTC 2025-12-28 19:48:29 UTC hello@padlet.com 19messierl https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302005734 This film version of Wilde's satire is not true to his satirical vision, because the tone of the lines from some characters do not match the story. How I interpreted the tone of some of the lines was much more sarcastic rather than melodramatic. The strengths are that I can visually see how the play represents the tone of characters and applies physical humor and irony. It helps me better understand the feelings exchanged between characters and the situational irony/sarcasm/humor. Some weaknesses are the over-exaggerated Hollywood style of movie. The constant scene changes that are not mentioned within Wilde's play make the film not true to Wilde's IoBE. The film takes a more serious tone, with small scenes of over-exaggeration, and the film makes Cecily seem less interested in Algernon that she seems in Wilde's play. The film also seems to skip over many parts of Wilde's play.]]> 2018-11-08 12:33:47 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302005734 19petrarcad https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302012948 I believe that this film version of IoBE is not true to Wilde's satirical version.This film version seems to be more serious compared to how I had interpreted the play while reading which makes it difficult to pick out the satire aspects (overstatement, irony, mockery, etc.). One weakness of the film version is that there are some scenes and some instances of dialogue that are not true to Wilde's original play (Chasuble sneezing, dialogue between Gwendolen and Cecily, Jack reading, Jack and Algy singing). This being said, the film does have strengths including the portrayal of characters, entertainment for the audience, and a true setting compared to the play version. The characters were easy to follow and well- developed and really entertaining and grasped the audience through their humor and dramatics. Also, The settings in the film (mainly the houses) stayed true to the original play and helped to give an accurate view to the social statuses of the characters which is a huge part of the story line (image of Jack;s country house linked below). Overall, the film version was similar to Wilde's satirical version. However, it was a bit different in its representation of Wilde's satirical aspects due to its serious tone and therefore was not true to his satirical version.]]> 2018-11-08 12:52:46 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302012948 19hanashiann https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302014763 After viewing the film version of Wilde's IoBE, I don't believe that the film stayed true to Wilde's satirical vision. Overall, the film displays a more serious concept due to the actors' serious tones. Due to this, it is hard to pick up on the humor Wilde intended for his audiences. However, the film did have strengths such as the movie's plot and characters were easy to follow and understand especially if I had not read the play beforehand. In addition, the movie, overall, stayed true to the setting. On the other hand, one weakness I found was the movie seemed to skip over some scenes of Wilde's play, with the inclusion of lack of original dialogue. ]]> 2018-11-08 12:57:09 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302014763 19gramajob https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302021401 The film version of The Importance of Being Earnest is not completely true to Wilde's original satirical vision. In Wilde's version, he sets up the scenes to have a comedic and humorous pay off through the witty and satiric dialogue. The text is less focused and concerned with the plot and more on the use of the satirical elements to satirize the aspects of society and people that disturbs Wilde. However, the film stresses the plot and flow between scenes unlike the original text. The text would be better served as a play because the film version feels the need to be more cinematic and inject scenes that do not serve the satire of society, of which was Wilde's purpose. The serious tone and portrayal of the characters does not create the comedic moments and thus the satirical elements do not come through. Overall, the film does have strengths and weakness. The strengths are the setting, budget and costume desgin. These aspects  feel of the time period. The weakness include the strange placements of scenes and dialogue not in the original text and some of the missed humorous dialogue. ]]> 2018-11-08 13:12:04 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302021401 19madonnat https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302021731 The film version of the Wilde play is not true to his satirical vision. In the written play, there is a much less serious tone and is more based on witty humor and satire rather than the actual plot. However, in the film version there is a much more serious tone, and it is harder to pick up on the humor that Wilde used in his play. The film focuses more on the plot itself. One strength of the film version is that it is easier to follow the character's and help's you understand what is happening better. The film version also allowed the audience to see the setting and it is parallel to the play. Weaknesses involve that the the dialogue used is not identical to that used in the play. Another weakness is that it did not accurately portray Wilde's vision for the play as a satirical play, but rather treats it with a more serious tone. Overall, I believe that the film is good to watch to help understand the play, however it does not mirror Wilde's vision for how the play should be shown.]]> 2018-11-08 13:12:51 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302021731 https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302038053 The film version of Wilde's satire is not true in my opinion, to his satirical vision. The characters in the film seem to be more serious and not as playful as how I perceived them to be in the play that we read. I thought the choice of actors for the characters was a strength in the film but there were many weaknesses. One example of a weakness that I saw was that it was not easy to determine where his satire was put in certain scenes, where in the book, it was easy to pick out and very enjoyable to read. There was added dialogue in the film that was different from what was in the book that I felt was kind of unnecessary to add. I think the film should have stuck to the plot that the play was written on because the book seemed much more enjoyable.]]> 2018-11-08 13:42:18 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302038053 https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302038739 I believe the film version of Oscar Wilde's "The Importance of Being Earnest" doesn't hold true to Wilde's written play. I believe the characters were much funnier in the book, because I saw them as much more exaggerated and witty as they mocked British culture. The film version tries to hold true but the characters aren't as funny and satirical as they are in the story. In the beginning of the movie there were scenes that weren't from the story which caused confusion. Algernons character in the book was very satirical and easy to read, however in the film the character wasn't easy to understand when it came to satire. Jack was a boring character in the film, but I believed in the story he was more likable and funny. ]]> 2018-11-08 13:43:31 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302038739 19denucciom https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302039537 After viewing the film of "Importance of being Earnest" in class, it is easy to conclude the production is not how Oscar Wilde intended it to be portrayed. Oscar Wilde's play was intended to be comical and provide the audience with laughter, but the film had more of a serious term, which made it difficult to pinpoint the areas where there was comedy present. Additionally, the failure for the characters to add emotion to their dialogue made the identifications of satiric devices more difficult opposed to the story. The film entirely lacked the implementation of satiric devices, but its overall strength was providing a visual to the story and putting a face on the characters. 

]]> 2018-11-08 13:44:51 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302039537 https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302040851 This film version was not entirely truthful to the text. I much enjoyed the text better than the film just because I was able to have my own take on the story. I thought the acting was okay and the way they changed the scenes was okay.. however I really liked the original play like form in the book. There was almost strange placements of the scenes and everything made more sense in the book. I think that the way it was written it was easy to understand the satiric devices expressed... however in the movie it was not. Bri D’ambra ]]> 2018-11-08 13:47:01 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302040851 19adamsz https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302258661 The film falls victim mainly to the strategy that is so often found in the adaptations of literature: trying too hard. Due to the light music and camera panning, the director seemed to be trying for melodrama, but ultimately fell flat. Wilde's satire works so well on the page due to the lack of inflection. When simply read, the lines all appear entirely dry, which gives the impression that the characters actually believe what they are saying. When portrayed by modern actors, it's hard not to notice their social awareness coming through otherwise oblivious characters. The dynamic improved once Colin Firth's character (Jack) arrived. In terms of casting, Jack (Firth), Gwendolen (Frances O'Connor), and Miss Prism (Anna Massey) were satisfactory, but Algernon is more of a clown than the domineering, deep-voiced Rupert Everett (who is most know for his villain roles in kids films, such as Shrek and Inspector Gadget). Overall, the film missed the mark (as demonstrated by its 57% on RottenTomatoes), in terms of capturing Wilde's vision of aristocratic society.]]> 2018-11-08 18:48:34 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302258661 https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302584811 Although the film lacked one of the important and unique traits about Wilde's play (that is -- the fact that all the characters seem to take themselves too seriously, thus adding to the satire of themselves because they are all at least faintly ridiculous) it did manage to remain true to Wilde's satirical vision; the actors brought to life the hilarious contrast of their characters' personalities and values, and often added another layer or two of satire simply with their expressions and inflections. All in all, the film did a very good job staying true to Wilde's satirical vision, even if the plot's humor seemed a bit thinly stretched by the end of such a long film.]]> 2018-11-09 14:48:54 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302584811 19furtadom https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302919312 As in most cases when a piece of written text is converted into a film format, the story loses some of it's key aspects. In this case, The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde lost some of it's satirical elements which seem to be the most important elements of the play. More specifically, the movie seemed to take itself too seriously, the written form of the play was full of as many satirical devices as Wilde could think of but the movie seemed to rely primarily on the characters being too serious about trivial things, but the director took that too far so it lost it's comedic value. Overall, the satire in the text was felt comical but in the movie it missed it's mark. On the other hand, the aspects of the movie that can't be portrayed in the text, such as cinematography, set design, music etc. seem to be well done, which I believe partially makes up for lacking how Wilde intended his play to be portrayed.]]> 2018-11-10 22:56:49 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/302919312 https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/303504422 Reading the book version of IoBE first allowed the reader to create their own visuals in their head. After viewing the film version of IoBE, the visuals in my head were different than the movie. This was expected as the movie version of most literature works usually misses or lacks details that are present in the text. The most lacking aspect was the films use of satire. Oscar Wilde intended for his literature to be humorous and witty yet the film had a more serious tone to it and missed some of the satiric points that show up while reading. Wilde took serious situations and made them trivial and humorous. The film misses some of these humorous points and shows more focus towards the cinematic features. The cinematic features that the play possesses, however, are well done and seem to match the Victorian time period. The film's strength was the accuracy of the Victorian setting while it's weaknesses are attributed to the lack of satire, evident in the text, which is why the film was not entirely true to the Oscar Wilde's text.]]> 2018-11-12 22:44:50 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/303504422 19andrewsd https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/303505235 The film version enhances the story line but ultimately Wilde's original satire is more effective and more comedic as well. The dialogue in the film is serious and requires either a background knowledge in the original story or close attention to inflection. Reading made it easier to see the humor and thus made the overall story more engaging. Meanwhile the movie contributed to the actual story line with the establishment of detailed settings.]]> 2018-11-12 22:49:45 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/303505235 https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/303562844 Although I found the film quite entertaining, I think it lost what Wilde had originally intended for his play. The satire, which is bountiful in the book is somewhat lacking in the actual play. Lines that are supposed to be funny are said seriously, losing their effect in the performance of the actors.  If this film was a devoted comedy I would find it much funnier. However, I still think this movie was a good adaptation of the book and captured the characters personalities and helped visualize what took place in the book. It not only helped me enjoy the book more by visualizing the settings and characters, but helped me understand it more as well. ]]> 2018-11-13 03:59:43 UTC https://padlet.com/boylejulie/5uvkrqf59xxi/wish/303562844