Contrasting “The Pearl” Movie and Novel

First of all I want to say that I am actually disappointed watching “The Pearl” movie. It is because of none but the story itself that does not reflect the whole core of the novel’s story. Since there are parts in this novel which seem blur and mysterious, there are many additional stuffs in the movie in order to make it clear, easy to understand by viewer, but the effect is that the movie is not better than the novel in bringing the story. Those are small parts of what will be discussed in this paper; I see some contrasts and divide them into three parts below.

The first part is about additional small stories/scenes and characters. In the novel, the story begins with the description of situation in brush houses when Kino awakens.  While in the movie there is little Kino and Juan Thomas scene, where Juan Thomas speaks to little Kino as an older brother giving knowledge and advice on a canoe in the middle of a sea. This story later is followed by the story of Kino and Juana in their childhood and their youth where they fall in love. Stories that actually do not exist in the novel. Another additional story, when Kino and Juana go to a “dukun” (indigenous medical practitioner) to treat Coyotito. This affects the character of Juana and it will be discussed later. Moreover Kino is pictured as a man who always has bad dream that signs something. A dream of someone killing some people using a riffle. Juan Thomas also gets part in additional story, where he got a big pearl but because the price is low in the hand of the pearl buyers, he gives it to the priest. After that he and his wife go to priest to take it back but they do not succeed.

Not just additional small stories occurring in the movie but also additional characters. For sure it is done by intention but in my accordance it is better not have those. There is, first, an old man who is willing to show Kino the nearest way to the capital, a man who later being murdered. What is the use to have him? In fact, Kino and his family still go through the desert and hills. The second additional character that appears is the doctor servant’s wife. I think the director wants to amplify the bad attitude of the doctor, because in the scene the servant’s wife exists, the doctor appears to have an affair or at least to make use of her. This supports the statement that the doctor has also one in France. The third additional character is the “dukun” as stated above.

The second part talks about the changes of some part of stories. This part begins with the existence of a “dukun”. The novel says that after Kino and Juana are rejected by the doctor, Juana has a role of Coyotito treatment, it is said that Juana takes some seaweed and applies those to Coyotito’s shoulder. In vise versa, the movie says that Kino and Juana later go to a “dukun”. The second change is about the finding of the Pearl of the World. Steinbeck tells Kino opens the oyster while he is with Juana and Coyotito on his canoe. But the scene writer of “The Pearl” movie create a new scene, Kino opens it at the seashore while there is brush houses community looking at him. The third change touches the existence of the person Kino kills at the shore, when Juana takes the pearl to throw it to the sea. Steinbeck only need a person as the victim of Kino’s murder at that time, but it seems that the director of the movie needs more people so that he pays three people to be the victims. And the last that I put my attention on is when Kino's house is burned, it is Juana who takes Coyotito, but the movie shows the person is Apolonia. Those in my opinion do not influence greatly the story, but disturb enough. 

Above are changes which are not too influential, here I want to discuss the very influential ones (in my opinion). First of all, Coyotito is not dead. I do not eagerly want a death of an innocent baby but (only in this case) this contributes great impact to the story. Again in my opinion the death of Coyotito is not just for the sake of being exist by Steinbeck. It has a big role. Let us try to remember the movie. When Kino and his family are in a cave, Kino found something that signs his tribe. It is skulls or stick if I am not mistaken. There Kino remembers the dream he always has since he was a child. In fact the dream wants to tell that the white killed his people, and Kino gets the evidence in that cave… No gun shoots in the cave as what Steinbeck’s ink puts the words on his papers. It seems that Kino murders the tracker because of the fact he already knows (that his people had once been killed by the white), not because he is totally furious hearing a gun shoots toward the place where his wife and child hide (like in the novel). It seems that Coyotito’s role decreases a lot in the movie. If this child is the main reason for Kino in doing anything in the novel, then in the movie this child shares his role with tribes’ war. And the reason (in the novel) why Kino throws the pearl back to the sea is because Coyotito is not alive. One whom Kino struggling for is dead, so the pearl is useless. Now, in the movie Coyotito is alive, so why must Kino throw the pearl? He can continue his journey to the capital. But why must he back? The movie shows that Kino and his family are back to the brush houses riding a horse, and speak to the community about the fact that their people has been killed by the white using a riffle. It is not about the pearl, but the tribe!!!! It is very unclear.

The second influential change is the fact that the doctor stands behind all these mess. I try to think why Steinbeck does not picture clearly the tracker or the people who attack Kino in his novel. It seems that Steinbeck does not want to focus on the attacker or the tracker, because the main point is that Coyotio will be dead and Kino loses his hope and plans, and finally throw back the pearl. A lesson for Kino and all the brush houses people, about punishment they will gain if they break the wall or walk outside the structure. But it seems that the scene writer or the director has -again- other thought. They apparently try to show the tribe war between the white and the Indian stimulated with the doctor’s greedy to have the pearl. What a sad fact happens to the novel.

The third part in this paper is about the character. In the movie, Juana seems weaker comparing to the novel. Like what I have written above. After she and her husband being rejected by the doctor, they go to “dukun”. Not like the in the novel. Other thing also in the movie that shows the weakness of Juana, is when he decides and tells Kino to find a doctor for Coyotito. Juana cries, while in the novel Steinbeck says that she is like a lioness. Juana cries while begging to Kino to call the doctor, while in the novel Steinbeck says that Juana directly takes a shawl and having Coyotito she makes her way to the doctor, in fact the people follow her. How strong she is in the novel, but not in the movie. Another thing about the character, Kino is not so bad in the movie especially when they are in the cave. Steinbeck pictures him as a machine, cold and deadly as steel. But I did not find it in the movie. After watching the movie I finally think that it is going to be OK, fine, alright or even so much better if there is no “The Pearl” movie. Unless the director or scene writer has excellent explanation or defence about it.

Do we converse differently ?

People interact one another at every moment. This is the manifestation of their nature as social creatures. One aspect that must exist in interaction process is the process of communication. Communication is a process of conveying and receiving message to gain understanding between the parties involved (sender and receiver). The process of communication consists of sender, encoding, channel, decoding, receiver, feedback and context. Sender is the source of message, encoding is the process of transferring message, and channel involves face-to-face meeting, telephone, ect. Decoding is the process of receiving data and receiver is the party that receives the message. This activity takes place in a context and consists also feedback. As noted in Wikipedia, there are means in communication such as auditory means, nonverbal or physical means and writing. Examples of auditory means are speaking and singing, whereas the examples of physical means are body language, sign language, paralanguage, touch and eye contact. 

Conversation is a communication activity which uses the auditory means. It consists of same sex (two women or two men) conversation and mixed sex conversation (involving one member of each sex). People are speaking when conversing one to another. By Labov and Fanshel (in Schiffrin et al. 2001:514) conversation is described as a matrix of utterances and action tied fastenly together by a web of understandings and reactions. We can see that in conversation there are communication aspects such as message (through utterances), encoding and decoding process (demand understanding), reaction (though feedback), context (included in the web), and the parties for sure. For that reason conversation is a communication activity.

Many researches and studies such as those which were conducted by Zimmerman and West (1975), Eakins and Eakins (1978), Deborah Tannen (1990), etc. show that men and women have their own characteristics when they are communicating orally particularly conversing, and these characteristics claim what so called differences. 

 Not only end up with the statement of differences but also the claim that these characteristics signal power. For example, based on Zimmerman and West’s research result in 1975, in mixed-sex conversation men produce many interruptions, whereas in same sex conversation men share almost equal interruptions. In this kind of conversation too, male speakers often control the topic by delaying their minimal responses, mostly as a signal they are not interested in or understand the current speakers’ topic (female). These result to a condition where men take control of the conversation. They have power on it. 

The fact that men tend to dominate the conversation when they are speaking to women is common among linguistic and communication researchers. Krupnick found in her research in 1985 over classroom discussion led by instructors at Harvard College that male students talked much in the predominant classroom circumstance: i.e., the situation in which the instructor is male and the majority of the students are male. Of the six classes (one quarter of the sample) in which this was the situation, male students spoke two and a half times longer than their female peers. Eakins and Eakins (in de Lange, 1995: 4) in their research over faculty meeting found that the average number of verbal turns per meeting for males was big and females’ average number was small. This does not happen only as man and woman become university students or worker, but this kind of behavior has already existed since they were in their child period. Maltz & Borker (in de Lange, 1995: 2) state that boys use speech for the expression of dominance when they are working and playing in same-sex groups and girls use it to build and maintain relationship. 

Back to the issue of conversation, in conversation there are several features exist such as; turn taking, interruption, topic control and quantity of talk. These are the mostly studied features by many researchers such as example above. Conversation takes place anytime and anywhere including in a classroom. It is simple, because classroom is also a social setting; an idea originates from Vygotsky’s idea in socio-cultural theory. What happens in the real world in terms of people behavior is demonstrated in classroom, for example the process of conversation. The characteristics of men and women conversational features in society occur when they are conversing inside the classroom during classroom interaction. 

 Classroom interaction has been described as the form and content of behavior or social interaction in the classroom (Marshal, 1998). This kind of interaction has also been viewed as a very functional and helpful tool in language learning process. According to Allright (in Consolo 2006:34), classroom interaction is the process whereby classroom language learning is managed. Also, classroom interaction is considered a productive teaching technique. Making use of classroom interaction has been expected to make an effective teaching and learning process. Interaction in language classroom is also believed to have contribution on learner’s language development since language classroom is seen as sociolinguistics environment according to Cazden, and discourse communities in accordance to Hall and Verplaetse (in Consolo 2006:34). There are many patterns of classroom interaction, such as group work, closed-ended teacher questioning, open-ended teacher questioning, individual work, choral responses, collaboration, teacher initiates and student answers, student initiates and teacher answer, full-class interaction, self-access and teacher talk. In full-class interaction students debate a topic or do a language task as a class where in the teacher may intervene occasionally, to stimulate participation or to monitor.