Correction/ texte
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En basCorrection/ texte
Message de jadee55 posté le 16-02-2014 à 18:02:53 (S | E | F)
Bonjour à tous !
Je dois répondre à des questions au sujet du film de Roman Polansky. Pouvez-vous m'aider à corriger? Merci beaucoup
1ère question : Parler un peu des personnages de l'histoire..
For many characters, there is no really differences between the book and the movie. However, for some characters, I can note some differences. Mr Soberwery, in this book, is bad, tall and slim. In this movies there is more details. He is not bad, but he is submissive to his wife. He is very old. He has glasses and white hair. In the book, Nancy has got long hairs. In this movie, I can see that Nancy has curly hair and she is very pretty. In the book, Jack dawkins is a strange boy with big ears and little eyes but not in the movie. In the movie he is rather cute and has blue eyes. But, generally, Roman Polansky, respect the physique and the caracters of the characters.
The characters who are missing are :
- Rose maylie,Doctor losberne and monks.
Parler de l'adaptation Polansky. Que penses-tu ? Que manque t'il
I think Roman Polanski did great respects to the story and to Dicken. However, The plot is more detailed but some scenes are missing. Roman Polanski choosed to remove some scenes of the book;And, he choosed to add scenes as:
When a chimney sweep want buy Oliver.
The scene in the tribunal after the theft of oliver
The scene in the prison when, oliver do farewell to fagin.
Roman Polansky kept the main scenes of the book : "Young Oliver", "sowerberry's shop", "Oliver walks to London", "Fagin's strange game", "Mr Browlow", "Nancy's secret", "London bridge"
The scenes who are missing are:
When Oliver steal in the house of rose Maylie. When Rose accommodate Oliver in this house, When, monks want kill Oliver and when Monk demand the ring of the mother of oliver twist to Mr Bumble.
Que peux-tu dire de fagin ?
In the book, fagin is ugly, has red hair and the red beard. In this movie, fagin is still ugly but we have more details. Fagin is hunchbacked, he is very old and has got a frightening face with the dark rings under his eyes. He is more violent, for exemple, when he hit Oliver or when Oliver see the jewels box of fagins, Fagins threat the boy with a knife. In the movie, I can see that Fagin is dominated by Sicks. and sometimes, for exemple at the end of the movie, Fagin appear insane. In the book, He is less coward than in the story. In the movie, Fagin is ambiguous, at times , I don't know if he is sincerely nice with Oliver or if he is manipulative.
Que penses-tu de ce film ?
The vision of Roman Polanski is an interesting vision because we can rediscover the characters, the plot with changes. This is a very good adaptation of the classic. Her vision is nice: Even if I read the book, in look this movie, I was startled and moved. And, there are new scenes who aren't in the book. I love the vision of Roman Polansky because she liberate the emotion of a best way that in the book. Some scenes who are sad in the book are funny in the movie. I love this and it's a daring vision. He did choose to change the story so much because Many people know the book and he want surprise the public and want revisit the story. It's important, for an adaptation, of don't respect totally the original version because, otherwise, the film would be boring. In my opinion, I think that he wanted add his personnal touch for give in the story again more of intensity and success.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 16-02-2014 18:15
Message de jadee55 posté le 16-02-2014 à 18:02:53 (S | E | F)
Bonjour à tous !
Je dois répondre à des questions au sujet du film de Roman Polansky. Pouvez-vous m'aider à corriger? Merci beaucoup
1ère question : Parler un peu des personnages de l'histoire..
For many characters, there is no really differences between the book and the movie. However, for some characters, I can note some differences. Mr Soberwery, in this book, is bad, tall and slim. In this movies there is more details. He is not bad, but he is submissive to his wife. He is very old. He has glasses and white hair. In the book, Nancy has got long hairs. In this movie, I can see that Nancy has curly hair and she is very pretty. In the book, Jack dawkins is a strange boy with big ears and little eyes but not in the movie. In the movie he is rather cute and has blue eyes. But, generally, Roman Polansky, respect the physique and the caracters of the characters.
The characters who are missing are :
- Rose maylie,Doctor losberne and monks.
Parler de l'adaptation Polansky. Que penses-tu ? Que manque t'il
I think Roman Polanski did great respects to the story and to Dicken. However, The plot is more detailed but some scenes are missing. Roman Polanski choosed to remove some scenes of the book;And, he choosed to add scenes as:
When a chimney sweep want buy Oliver.
The scene in the tribunal after the theft of oliver
The scene in the prison when, oliver do farewell to fagin.
Roman Polansky kept the main scenes of the book : "Young Oliver", "sowerberry's shop", "Oliver walks to London", "Fagin's strange game", "Mr Browlow", "Nancy's secret", "London bridge"
The scenes who are missing are:
When Oliver steal in the house of rose Maylie. When Rose accommodate Oliver in this house, When, monks want kill Oliver and when Monk demand the ring of the mother of oliver twist to Mr Bumble.
Que peux-tu dire de fagin ?
In the book, fagin is ugly, has red hair and the red beard. In this movie, fagin is still ugly but we have more details. Fagin is hunchbacked, he is very old and has got a frightening face with the dark rings under his eyes. He is more violent, for exemple, when he hit Oliver or when Oliver see the jewels box of fagins, Fagins threat the boy with a knife. In the movie, I can see that Fagin is dominated by Sicks. and sometimes, for exemple at the end of the movie, Fagin appear insane. In the book, He is less coward than in the story. In the movie, Fagin is ambiguous, at times , I don't know if he is sincerely nice with Oliver or if he is manipulative.
Que penses-tu de ce film ?
The vision of Roman Polanski is an interesting vision because we can rediscover the characters, the plot with changes. This is a very good adaptation of the classic. Her vision is nice: Even if I read the book, in look this movie, I was startled and moved. And, there are new scenes who aren't in the book. I love the vision of Roman Polansky because she liberate the emotion of a best way that in the book. Some scenes who are sad in the book are funny in the movie. I love this and it's a daring vision. He did choose to change the story so much because Many people know the book and he want surprise the public and want revisit the story. It's important, for an adaptation, of don't respect totally the original version because, otherwise, the film would be boring. In my opinion, I think that he wanted add his personnal touch for give in the story again more of intensity and success.
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 16-02-2014 18:15
Réponse: Correction/ texte de violet91, postée le 16-02-2014 à 20:41:18 (S | E)
Hello ,
Déjà bien respecter l'orthographe du nom de Roman Polanski who is more an English speaker than an American one ( a movie
/ a film 
surtout qu'il s'agit de l'adaptation d'un très grand auteur anglais Charles DickenS 
. Mettre des majuscules à 'Oliver Twist ' que vous devriez citer, en tant qu' œuvre , dès la première question ainsi qu'à tous les noms propres . quand vous parlez du héros , vous écrivez Oliver Twist sans guillemets . Structure il y a - there is + 1 sg # there are + pluriel . / this + nom sg / to choose et autres verbes irréguliers ( la liste )au simple past - colonne 2 / conjuguez vos verbes au prétérit ( simple past ) régulier ou irrégulier / le présent simple 3ème pers sg porte un 's' ou 'es de terminaison / orth : for example) / c'est un lâche : he is a coward ( avec article ) / the scenes which ( neutre)/ the tribunal ? - at Court> a trial : un procès / utilisez des génitifs déterminatifs - Oliver's ..., Fagin's ../ respectez un temps utilisé : ne mélangez pas présent et passé : tenez-vous à ce que vous avez choisi / vouliez -vous dire meilleures que ( better than) ou les meilleures ( the best ) /
Polanski seems to turn some sad scenes into funny ( humorous) ones / his vision ( poss.masculin ) , its adaptation = neutre ) , to want to ( 3ème p.sg présent simple avec 's'...
PS : il y a quelques très justes adaptations filmiques de grandes œuvres littéraires qui suivent le travail de l'auteur très fidèlement et qui sont de toute beauté . Vous ne pouvez asséner que suivre une œuvre est 'boring' . On peut être déçu ou dégouté de la trahison ou d'un film qui n'est pas du tout à la hauteur de l'œuvre .
Réponse: Correction/ texte de jadee55, postée le 17-02-2014 à 19:24:21 (S | E)
Tout d'abord je vous remercie beaucoup de votre réponse et de votre aide.
J'ai donc suivi vos conseils et retravaillé sur le texte en respectant,cette fois, également l'orthographe des noms propres. Pour les adaptations, je suis tout à fait daccord avec vous, c'est pour cela que j'ai enlevé le passage concerné.
Je vous remercie encore de votre aide
Bonne soirée
Jade
Je vous mets ci-dessous le texte, si vous voulait jeter un coup d'oeil
1ère question : Parler un peu des personnages de l'histoire..
For many characters, there are no really differences between the novel and the movie. However, for some characters, I noted some differences:
.Mr Soberwery, in the book, is bad, tall and slim. In the film, he is not really bad, but he is submissive to his wife. He is very old. He has glasses and white hair.
.Nancy, in the novel, has got long hair. In the movie, I can see that Nancy has curly hair and she is very pretty.
.Jack dawkins, in the book, is a strange boy with big ears and little eyes, but not in the movie. In the film, he is rather cute and has blue eyes.
But, generally, Roman Polanski respects the physique and the caracters of the characters. He only added more details. The characters who are missing are :
- Rose maylie,Doctor Losberne and Monks.
Parler de l'adaptation Polanski. Que penses-tu ? Que manque t'il
I think Roman Polanski did respect the story of Charles Dickens. However, the plot is more detailed and some scenes are missing. Roman Polanski choosed to remove some scenes of the book and, he choosed to add scenes as: .When a chimney sweep wants buy Oliver. .The scene at court after the theft of Oliver .The scene in the prison when, Oliver does farewell to Fagin. Roman Polansky kept the main scenes of the book : Young Oliver, sowerberry's shop, Oliver walks to London,Fagin's strange game,Mr Browlow,Nancy's secret,London bridge. The scenes who are missing are: When Oliver steals in the house of rose Maylie. When Rose accommodates Oliver in this house, When, Monks wants kill Oliver and when Monks demands to Mr Bumble, the ring of the mother of Oliver twist.
Que peux-tu dire de Fagin ?
In the book, Fagin is ugly. He has got red hair and the red beard. In this movie, Fagin is still ugly but there are more details: - Fagin is hunchbacked and has got a frightening face with the dark rings under his eyes. He is more violent, for exemple, when oliver wants flee, Fagin hit Oliver. In the film, I can see that Fagin is dominated by Bill Sikes and sometimes, for exemple at the end of the movie, he appears insane. Not in the book. In the novel, he is less a coward. In the movie, Fagin is ambiguous, at times , I don't know if he is sincerely nice with Oliver or if he is manipulative.
Que penses-tu de ce film ?
The vision of Roman Polanski is an interesting vision because we can rediscover the characters, the plot with changes. Even if I read the book, in looking this movie, I was startled and moved, further there are new scenes who aren't in the book. I love his vision because she liberates the emotion of a better way than in the book. Roman Polanski seems to turn some sad scenes into funny ones . I love this and it's a daring vision. He changed many scenes because many people know the book and he wanted to surprise the public and revisit the story. In my opinion, I think that he wanted to add his personnal touch for give in the story again more of intensity and success.
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
