The Story of Oedipus: Book vs. Movie
Oğuzhan Aydın
OEDIPUS
The adaption of the tragedy Oedipus The King to cinema is a big leap in the history of film making. However, there are certain aspects of the movie that could have been beter adapted. The main reason why these points have been missed may be due to the fact that Pier Paolo Pasolini meant to make a movie that carried a myth of the past to today and even tomorrow by starting the movie in Italy and carrying it to the past. What really bothered me while watching the movie was that Oedipus is too young compared to what we see in the tragedy and even more disturbing, he does not act like a king that he is presented to be in the tragedy. I am not criticizing the way how he acts before becoming a king because in my opinion that part of the tragedy is well adapted to the movie but the way how he behaves afterwards is not a good adoption of the text. The reason why I make this claim is because the king sounds more caring in the text. This change is not well demonstrated in the movie. Moreover, the costume that the king wears should not be presented that way. In my opinion Oedipus should have had a more glorifying costume than Creon but that was not the case. Another aspect of the tragedy that was not in the movie was the real reason why Oedipus was named after which is the club foot. It was missing in the movie. According to the tragedy Oedipus should have been nailed at his foot at birth and that is why he is given the name Oedipus which means swollen foot. Apart from these, I believe that the story was told in a way that it could not be told any better. Some may say that the story does not match the tragedy due to the lack of following the same storyline but in my opinion that is why it is a movie and not a demonstration of the tragedy
OEDIPUS
The adaption of the tragedy Oedipus The King to cinema is a big leap in the history of film making. However, there are certain aspects of the movie that could have been beter adapted. The main reason why these points have been missed may be due to the fact that Pier Paolo Pasolini meant to make a movie that carried a myth of the past to today and even tomorrow by starting the movie in Italy and carrying it to the past. What really bothered me while watching the movie was that Oedipus is too young compared to what we see in the tragedy and even more disturbing, he does not act like a king that he is presented to be in the tragedy. I am not criticizing the way how he acts before becoming a king because in my opinion that part of the tragedy is well adapted to the movie but the way how he behaves afterwards is not a good adoption of the text. The reason why I make this claim is because the king sounds more caring in the text. This change is not well demonstrated in the movie. Moreover, the costume that the king wears should not be presented that way. In my opinion Oedipus should have had a more glorifying costume than Creon but that was not the case. Another aspect of the tragedy that was not in the movie was the real reason why Oedipus was named after which is the club foot. It was missing in the movie. According to the tragedy Oedipus should have been nailed at his foot at birth and that is why he is given the name Oedipus which means swollen foot. Apart from these, I believe that the story was told in a way that it could not be told any better. Some may say that the story does not match the tragedy due to the lack of following the same storyline but in my opinion that is why it is a movie and not a demonstration of the tragedy