Blow: Similarities And Differences

“Blow” Similarities and Differences This is a film that was adapted from Bruce Porter’s ‘Blow: How a Small Town Boy Made $ 100 Million with the Medellin Cocaine cartel and Lost It All’, 1993 publication. This was specifically written as a script for a screenplay that then translated into the American biopic film production of 2001 known by the same title. This is a book that centered on the life experiences of George Jung, Pablo Escobar, and Carlos Lehder Rivas. In the analysis of the movie, there are certain features that were changed and those that were maintained comparing it with the script as well as the real life events in the lives of the protagonists. This is especially about the setting of certain scenes, characterization and the
chronological flow of the plot. Being a portrayal of real life events of the main character George Jung, it was only necessary that certain elements about the highlighted aspects of the film be retained in the film as they happened. This film has factual elements about the time frame that George was caught when first meeting the drug Czar from Colombia.
In the film, a scene is shown of him cruising through modern suburban constructions. This is exactly coincidental with the time about which George was arrested with Cocaine and was convicted for the same (Porter 76). He served a jail sentence on this account up to the pioneering years of the 70s as is presented in the movie and scene. However, the suburban setting in the movie is not real as it was created in the late 70s and 80s. It is also not a consistent setting with what is in the text of the movie about the setting of this particular scene (Niemi 516). This consistency of chronology as well as imagination of setting that is unreal was meant to achieve the film effect to provide a blend of the real and the
fictitious.
Another case of consistency of script and movie was the scene when George was having a conversation with her daughter when he and Mirtha first go broke. Mirtha is disappointed in the movie, and he walks out of the room that was the kitchen (Porter 186). However, during the conversation, there is seen a constant image that is shadowy as if someone lurking about in the kitchen a number of times. This is true to the supposed setting of the scene even according to the script to display a realistic scenario of two people agonizing over the poverty that had struck them (Niemi 519). The image it does turn out is of a maid or cook continuing with her normal responsibilities representing a typical domestic setting. In an instance of the camera effects is the misperception that can be seen about the scene near the start of the movie as Johnny Depp is walking in the beach, when a background image of a ship going at a raking speed and producing what appear as constant amount of smoke.
This is just when the camera is made to shift at a firm yet slow pace to the right and capturing the people as its axis while the ship appearing on the opposite side of the pan to form an optical illusion which then fades as it firms its focus for the viewer to know what he is looking for. These camera illusions in a film of this nature serve to make perfect effects of vision while motivating more concentrated focus on what is captured. It is the infusions of a producer concerned to create effects in the film that have no relationship with events in real life or in the text that was adapted to make a
movie. There are also incidences of change in the movie that are different from the real life ones. An example is the use of the name Diego Delgado fictitiously to refer to Carlos Lehder Rivas. It is a question that could trigger debate over why one of the characters or others may be fictitiously dabbed other identities while others such as George are given consistent names to the ones they always have in real life, text and now in the movie. However, this is a feature that seems to be typical of movies that focus on the life of a person or several people (Niemi 432). That while realism of events, scenes, and chronology has to be in tandem with those in real life, production has to make it a movie interesting to watch. One of this is through disguising real characters in fictitious ones that become food for refection by viewers. In conclusion, “Blow” is one of the movies with an interesting plot that does not have much of dramatic changes, and that attempts a faithful relation of the lives and experiences of protagonists. However, this is not entirely the case as there are incidences of characterization, camera and scene portrayal and chronological readjustment into a production that has both elements of realism, as well as fiction.