In 1916, Hugo Munsterburg wrote, The Film: A Psychological Study, which contained an excerpt, “The Means of the Photoplay.” In this archaic but relevant to the subject article, Munsterburg compared the psychological effects used in movies (photoplays) and that of art such as plays and literature. Throughout his article, he stressed many different items within these artworks that all play on ones “stream of consciousness.” They all have their own different way of creating a reality to their spectators. Though his main focus to compare in this excerpt is the theater, it still applicable to literature. Within his summary of the aspects of the artworks, two items are emphasized: perceived reality and expression. The main overall reason that Hugo

There are many ways in which literature and films are similar in promulgating their reality. Both have the same themes and motifs; however, they express them in very different ways. Literature presents you with a very vivid literary detail on the scene and the characters in the story, which allows your mind to project you into that situation as if you are watching it in person. This projection is done mostly through narration either by a character or possibly by an observer of the situation, however the author decides. It instills images into ones mind which in turn creates small, 3D “plastic” recreations, as Munsterburg says, which are used throughout your interpretation of the story. This is the object of reality within literature, if it is done well, through elaborate description and intricate adjective use. Though visual reality is a large part of the complete reality of a story, one must still identify with the characters through feelings and emotions.

ged man about to be hung for his wrongs against the northern army. Enrique establishes this, which is narrated in the short story, by forcing a close-up shot of his face and dress. Through this full-body descriptive shot, you can tell that the main character is one of a civilian planter, not a soldier. A close-up shot of his face, the worried look, the sweat rolling down his face, shows that the man is scared. The sound of the stream beneath his feet now amplifies as he gazes towards it, will that be his retched doom. At this point, Enrique allows the spectator to identify with the character, allows Peyton’s thoughts to be heard by the audience, the thoughts of his wife and home and even thought of escape. At this time, the spectator begins to put themselves in the shoes of the main character, they begin to think, “what if that were me?” Once the board beneath Farquhar’s feet is dropped, there is an underwater view of his body plunging to the bottom of he stream and shows the struggle that he goes through to get the bindings off of his hands so he can swim. Here the short story can better describe what is happening because of the lack of camera freedom. In the literature, it tells of Farquhar’s neck being bound so tightly by the noose that he can neither breath nor can water get in through his open mouth. Once Farquhar struggles loose and reaches the surface, his strife is shown by a heavy gasp for air and a look back at the soldiers whom just realize their folly. At this point, the story describes his struggles to avoid the bullets shot by the soldiers and how deadly close they were to Farquhar; however, in the film you can actually see how close the bullets are in the wate

Some topics in this essay:
Hugo Munsterberg, Farquhar Payton, Sir Walter, Creek Bridge, Means Photoplay”, Creek Bridge”, , Admiral Croft, Jane Austen, Psychological Study, short story, main character, film literature, sir walter, perceived reality expression, admiral croft, 3 dimensional, film beginning, characters film, wife home, characters feelings, film accurately depict, occurrence owl creek,