Holes Novel by Louis Sachar vs Movie Analysis

The folllowing sample essay on Holes Novel discusses it in detail, offering basic facts and pros and cons associated with it. To read the essay’s introduction, body and conclusion, scroll down.

“Digging” for evidence as to whether or not the film adaptation of Holes was good Holes is a book by Louis Sachar that was first published in 1998. The film adaptation of this novel, also titled Holes, was released in 2003. These two literary works have many similarities and differences that can be easily compared, or contrasted.

The film adaptation, directed by Andrew Davis, successfully represented the original novel by Sachar. Holes is the story of a young man by the name of Stanley Yelnats. Stanley is convicted of a crime that he was not the culprit of and, as a result, he is sent to Camp

Green Lake. This camp is a Juvenile detention camp; the children there are required to dig holes every day as their punishment. While at Camp Green Lake, Stanley makes friends with a boy named Zero.

These two become good friends and, one day, Zero runs away from the camp. Stanley decides that he should run away to in an effort to save Zero from certain death. When Stanley finds Zero they are both very weak; despite this, Stanley carries Zero to the top of a mountain by the camp and they survive off of onions up there for about a week.

Holes Movie

After this week, they decide to go ack to the camp in hopes of finding a treasure that is storied to have been located there.

Get quality help now

Bella Hamilton

Verified

Proficient in: Entrepreneurship

5 (234)

“ Very organized ,I enjoyed and Loved every bit of our professional interaction ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

A few days before escaping Stanley found a lipstick tube in his hole, which may be a clue of where the treasure is located; so the boys return to this hole and dig. Soon they find a briefcase with the name “Stanley Yelnats” on it. This is the suitcase of Stanley’s great grandfather who caused there to be a curse on the family. The way that he caused there to be a curse was by not keeping a promise to a woman named Madame Zeroni.

He promised her that he would carry her to the top of the same ountain that the boys climbed in return for a pig. Unfortunately, he forgot about this promise and Madame Zeroni puts curse on his family for it. Zero is Madame Zeroni’s great grandson and when Stanley carries him to the top of the mountain he successfully lifts this curse. So when the boys find the suitcase they are discovered by the warden. She claims that the suitcase should be hers, but, unfortunately for her, Stanley’s lawyer comes to the camp and says that he was proven innocent.

The lawyer also says that Stanley is allowed to take the suitcase with him when leaving. In he suitcase there are many valuables that bring the family’s of Stanley and Zero riches. In the end of the book both boys get to go home. Stanley goes back to his newly curse-less family and Zero goes back to his long lost mother; they are both very wealthy as a result of the treasure. The representation of some characters was good from the book to movie, but other characters were poorly represented in the film.

This, in some situations decreases the validity of the adaptation; overall, though, the characters were adapted to the film well. One poorly represented character is the main character Stanley Yelnats. The creators of the film did not do a satisfactory Job of representing this character’s physical attributes in the film. In the book he is described as a more heavy set child, but in the movie Shia LaBeouf, who is casted as Stanley, is very thin. The film makers also did fail to represent a lot of this character’s physiological attributes. According to 21 centurylibrarian. om, “l felt the book went into much more a ou Stanley Yelnats’ Inner tnougnts ana Teellngs wnlcn aaaea numor not transferred into the movie”. The novel shows him as seeming to be threatening, but n the movie LaBeouf is very meek and calm in most situations. One physiological attribute of Yelnats correctly represented in the film is his awkwardness. Shia LaBeouf does an acceptable Job of showing this undeniable awkwardness. This inaccurate representation effects the film negatively because the viewer has an incorrect representation of how Stanley really is, thus changing the viewers entire outlook of the story.

Most other characters, however, are casted well in the screenplay. The actor that plays Zero was similar in stature to how Zero was described in the book, and his attitude was very much the same. The emotional side of Zero was probably his most important attribute; Khleo Thomas, the actor that plays Zero, is successful in showing this emotional side. Other smaller characters have good casting, too. All of the actors who play these roles realize each characters major attributes and do a great Job of showing them in the film. For example, Noah Poletiek plays Twitch.

As his name shows, he is a little bit crazy and Poletiek does a great Job of showing that Twitch may do anything at any second. He does a first-class Job of showing passion when Twitch speaks of cars, as well. This may have been the most rucial part of the role of Twitch. The actress who plays the Warden does an excellent job in every aspect of that role. According to TheBespectacledLibrarian. com, “Sigourney Weaver was absolutely amazing as the Warden, intimidating and frightening while also believable as someone who had pinned her whole life on the search for treasure. Two more characters were represented in both the book and the movie. These two characters are Kate Barlow and Sam the Onion Man. These two are represented with great detail in the book, and the movie does an excellent Job of staying true to their appearances. Much of these two characters appearances is through expression, not physical form. For instance, a good casting of Kate is an actress that can go from being a simple school teacher to a cold-blooded killer in the matter of one scene. Patricia Arquette, who plays Kissin’ Kate Barlow, does this exceptionally.

An actor who plays Sam the Onion Man must be able to play the charming man that wins over the teacher. Dule Hill, who plays Sam, does a satisfactory Job of this in the film adaptation. One last character was Madame Zeroni. Eartha Kitt, who plays Madame Zeroni, does a very convincing role of the woman who ast the spell on the Yelnats family. The ways in which majority of the actors play their roles and represent their characters enhances the films overall effectiveness. Of all these roles, only one was unsatisfactory when compared to the character in the novel.

The current day plot in the film had many similarities and differences when compared to the original book by Sachar. These plot changes made the movie a good adaptation due to the fact that many were minor and would have added many unnecessary details to the plot . There are many miniscule details in the plot that are changed in the movie for differentiating reasons. In the book there is a character by the name of Sarah Miller, she is the wife of Elya. In the movie the writers neglect to mention her existence. Since she doesnt affect the plot, her existence wasn’t vital in the film.

Something else that occurs in the book is an incident between Stanley and Zigzag. Zigzag hit Stanley on the head with a shovel and he gets a large gash. This gasn Is tnen Danaagea Dy Mr. Sir ana everyone seems to snow concern Tor Stanley’s well being. In the movie, Squid is the attacker and Stanley is still the victim. No one seems to care for Stanley in the film during this incident; Zero is the one to assist him nd Stanley doesn’t receive a gash, or even a cut. One final small detail that changes from the book to the film is when Stanley reaches the mountain.

In the book he struggles to find water and must dig to reach it. In the movie, there is a stream that he and Zero drink from. This, obviously, means that no digging is required. If they were to dig for water it would have taken up time in the movie and would have dragged the movie on. All major points in the current day plot, however, remain true to the novel. In both Stanley is sent to camp and cures his family curse, along with all other major plot points. Staying this true to the plot helps make this film a good adaptation to the book.

This story also has an abundance of flashbacks that add validity to the plot of the present day. The representation of these flashbacks in the movie was satisfactory due to the fact that the movie included all vital flashbacks, only changing details in them. These flashbacks occur in the film as well as the original book written by Sachar. Unfortunately, in the film adaptation there are a few flashbacks that cause this movie to incorrectly represent the book. For instance, Stanley Yelnats has flashbacks of being bullied when he was back home.

This is mentioned in the book to help show that he had a tough social life, but the movie does not show these flashbacks for some reason. Also in the plot of Holes, there are countless flashbacks to the times of Kissin’ Kate Barlow and Sam the Onion Man. Although the film does include these flashbacks, it makes a few mistakes in detail when mentioning these flashbacks. For example, when Sam and Kate kiss in the book they are outside and it is raining. In the film when they kiss it is inside the school house and it is not raining outside Another flawed flash back including these two characters is when Sam is hot.

In the book when he is shot they are both out on the boat together; in the film Sam is alone in the boat, but Kate is by the shore and witnesses this murder. The changing of these flashbacks did decrease effectiveness of the film, but not enough to drastically change the film’s quality. There is one more detail from the past that the movie changes. This detail involves the amount of money in the treasure that the Yelnats family receives in the end of the story. In the movie there is one bond that was worth twenty five thousand in nineteen hundred and five. This would be equal to illions in present time in the story.

In the novel, on the other hand, there are multiple bonds worth close to one million dollars. There was also a presence of jewels worth about twenty five thousand in total. This small detail doesn’t have a big enough effect to effect the adaptation’s validity, but could have easily been represented correctly. Despite all these minor changes, the film does accurately show the big picture in these areas. The cinematic version overall does show the novel’s intentions for the flashbacks successfully. Conclusively, there are many factors that show whether or not the film adaptation f Holes was “good’ or not.

Conclusion 

Based on these chosen factors, the film, directed by Andrew Davis, did accurately represent the novel Considering all factors, the film adaptation was one of high quality. According to TheReadventurer. com, “As this movie went from scene to scene… following the book almost to the word on some pages… malntalnlng almost everytnlng… even tne trlcKy T lasnoacKs wnlcn I was 1 sure that theyd never be able to duplicate in film… even the food served in the cafeteria… ‘ realized that this was actually the most faithful film adaptation of any book I’d ever seen. EVER. Works Cited Catie. Book vs. Movie: Holes by Louis Sachar. ” The Readventurer. The Readventurer, 26 February 2012. web. 5 October 2013. Holes. Dir. Andrew Davis. Walt Disney Pictures, 2003. Film. Joy. “Book vs. Movie: Holes. ” The Bespectacled Librarian. The Bespectacled Librarian, 19 February 2013. web. 5 October 2013. PaJtas, Margaret. “Holes the Movie vs. the Book. ” 21st Century Librarian. 21st Century Libranan, 27 February 2009. web. 5 October 2013. Sachar, Louis. Holes. New York: Yearling, 1998. Print. Sachar, Louis. “Holes the Book. ” Louis Sachar. Louis Sachar, 2002. Web. 18 October 2013.