The Namesake: A Comparison Between the Book and the Movie
Cara Roth
Ms. Nicole Wilson
AP Literature and Composition A
2 October 2013
I have read and understand the sections in the Student Handbook regarding Mason High School's
Honesty/Cheating Policy. By affixing this statement to the title page of my paper, I am certifying that I
have not cheated or plagiarized in the process of completing this assignment. If it is found that cheating
and/or plagiarism did take place in the writing of this paper, I understand the possible consequences of the
act, which could include a "0" on the paper, as well as an "F" as a final grade in the course.
The Namesake: Prose Passage Analysis
As a young man returns home for his father’s funeral, he reflects on a trip they once took
to Cape Cod. In this passage from The Namesake, Jhumpa Lahiri uses contrasting imagery and
purposeful diction to embody the relationship between Gogol and his father and foreshadow the
role his father would play in his journey of self discovery. A journey that would eventually lead
him home.
As they journey to the breakwater’s tip, they pass, “fish spines as thick as pipes,” and “a
dead gull … freshly stained with blood.” These almost violent images that they pass on the
journey symbolize the hard parts of Gogol’s life to come. The heartbreak and the breaking of
bonds that he will experience. He allows his life to decay as a young adult, stuck in a dead-end
job, feeding off the glamorous lifestyle of his girlfriend and her parents. This is reiterated later in
the passage when they come across, “a cracked wooden buoy…wrapped with thin brown strands
of seaweed,” that his father lifts up to show Gogol, “a live mussel underneath.” Even though
Gogol is too young, too inexperienced to know, Ashoke is able to show him the life that can lie
hidden beneath that decay and ruin. Ashoke stands for Gogol’s chance to redeem himself from
the life he has been living. He is able to show Gogol that it is okay to stop running and to return
to his roots.
The importance of these roots is shown in Ashoke’s dialogue with Gogol at a young age.
As they travel down the breakwater, Gogol’s mother, Ashima, tells them to stop, to not go too
far. When he hears this, Ashoke turns to Gogol and says, “ ‘What do you say? Are you too little?
No I didn’t think so.’ ” He doesn’t allow Gogol to actually respond because he trusts in his son
and believes that he is capable enough to complete his journey as long as he has someone there
to help him. Which is exactly what Ashoke intends to do. He knows that there is a lesson to be
learned from this journey and asks Gogol, after realizing they’d forgotten the camera, to,
“remember that you and I made this journey… to a place where there was nowhere left to go.”
The journey is symbolic of the journey Gogol will later carry out as he makes his way back to
the family and the culture he grew up with. He is to remember the difficulty in getting there as
well as the reward in seeing the end result. And he is to remember that his father was with him
every step of the way.
Gogol’s seemingly innocent trip to Cape Cod is symbolic of the journey he has ahead of
him in life and a portrayal of his father’s undying support.
The Namesake: Mise En Scene Analysis
It is a cold, dreary winter day. A little boy makes a journey with his father to the far end of the
Cape Cod breakwater. In Mira Nair’s film version of The Namesake, this flashback employs
figure behavior and special camera angles to display the points of view of both Gogol and his
father, Ashoke, and capture the relationship they shared.
The scene begins with several long range shots to give the audience a sense of where the
characters are. The beach is cold and rather isolating as the Ganguli family is completely alone.
The medium range of most of the shots in the scene force the audience to then put aside the
details of where they are and focus on the interactions between Gogol and Ashoke. They stand
together at the end of the breakwater, partners at the completion of their journey. It is symbolic
of how Ashoke’s death, and therefore Ashoke himself, is what brings Gogol back, helps him
complete his journey home. The scene is also shot at eye level and sometimes gets closer to
either actors’ faces making it feel more personal. Not only is the audience involved with the
conversation, they are also involved with how the two carry out their exchange. The audience is
better able to get a sense of the closeness between father and son. They see how Ashoke bends
down to talk to Gogol, putting himself at Gogol’s eye level in an attempt to make Gogol
understand him, and the importance of their journey better. The steadying hand he lays on
Gogol’s shoulder shows how he supports his son and takes care of him, something that is
ignored by young Gogol as he continues to stare down the breakwater at the ocean.
Ashoke’s continued support of Gogol throughout his life mirrors this as Gogol is not
always aware of how his father did his best to aid and support Gogol throughout his life,
protecting him from the “ocean,” the darker parts of American society that Gogol so often wants
to explore. The entire flashback is a foreshadow of the father-son relationship to be had and its
end result. A result where Gogol ends up, finally, safe at home.
AP Open Question Prompt: 1997. Novels and plays often include scenes of weddings,
funerals, parties, and other social occasions. Such scenes may reveal the values of the characters
and the society in which they live. Select a novel or play that includes such a scene and, in a
focused essay, discuss the contribution the scene makes to the meaning of the work as a whole.
The Namesake: A Comparison Between the Book and the Movie
Gogol Ganguli spent his life trying to escape his family, his parents, and the Bengali
culture they stood for. When his father dies, however, Gogol realizes that his culture and his
family are a part of who he is as he remembers a trip they once took to Cape Cod. Both the book
by Jhumpa Lahiri and its film directed by Mira Nair emphasize this scene from The Namesake
as a conceit for Gogol’s path of self discovery; but while the book uses imagery to capture the
symbolism, the movie relies on character interactions to embody Gogol’s relationship with his
father, Ashoke.
Despite their differences, both the movie and the book use dialogue and setting to
symbolize the life Gogol has been living and the relationship that has developed between him
and Ashoke. As father and son begin their journey, Mrs. Ganguli begins to worry. She tells
Ashoke that he is taking Gogol too far out, that Gogol is too little. In the book, Ashoke turns to
Gogol and says, “What do you say? Are you too little? No I didn’t think so (Lahiri 186).” In the
movie, he does not even ask Gogol, just continues on with only a glance back at Mrs. Ganguli.
In both instances it is revealed that Ashoke trusts in his son to be strong enough to make the
journey, even when others believe he cannot. The movie also included the line from the book in
which Ashoke sums up their quest saying, “remember that you and I made this journey… to a
place where there was nowhere left to go (Lahiri 187, dir. Nair, Mira).” Ashoke wants Gogol to
remember not only the trip they took and the lessons he learned from it but also that it was “you
and I,” Gogol and his father who made the trip, side by side. Ashoke, always there to support his
son as he is throughout Gogol’s later years, silently stands by, waiting to help him back up if he
falls.
And he does fall; into American society and away from the life he knew. Just as young
Gogol studies the ocean in the book and in the movie, always gazing out toward the rolling seas,
Gogol grows up mesmerized by a culture surrounding the path that will eventually lead him to
the end of his journey. Lahiri spends much time on the description of the background so as not to
belittle its importance in Gogol’s metaphorical journey of self-discovery. Both the book and the
movie work together to paint the picture of Gogol’s life and the hardships he must face, all the
while supported by his caring father.
The book and the movie clash, however, when it comes to the very purpose for including
the flashback in the piece and the level of the symbolism the text holds over the film. In the
movie, the Cape Cod trip is shown briefly in the beginning, then in more detail towards the end
as Gogol reflects upon his life and actions. By the second time the flashback is shown, more than
a year after Ashoke dies, the viewer feels as if the movie has come full circle just like Gogol’s
own life as he returns to the culture within which he was born. On the other hand, the book
presents the flashback only once in order to reveal Gogol and Ashoke’s relationship in greater
depth. Because the book incorporates the scene shortly after Ashoke’s death, the flashback is
more of an explanation that a resolution. It leaves the story open, giving Gogol the opportunity to
use the memory to build on himself and to finally appreciate the love his father had given him all
those years. Although the same scene is being used, there is a different outcome for the audience.
In the movie, the interactions and gestures between characters support the main
symbolism of the scene: Ashoke’s support of Gogol. The book is different in that it focuses more
on imagery and how those images relate to Gogol’s experiences in life. On their walk down the
breakwater, Gogol sees, “fish spines as thick as pipes,” and “a dead gull… freshly stained with
blood (Lahiri 186).” The violent imagery represents the hurtful and unpleasant experiences that
Gogol goes through as a young adult: his sour break up with Maxine and his eventual divorce
with Moushumi after she is caught cheating on him. Even though Gogol sees these things, he
keeps going, supported by his father. This support is a more central influence to the scene in the
movie. The camera angles are mid-range to emphasize their interaction and close-range to help
the audience feel closer to Ashoke and Gogol. Ashoke bends down to Gogol as he speaks to him
and keeps a hand on his shoulders or his head for the entire venture down the breakwater. His
gestures represent his support for Gogol, during this short walk and throughout Gogol’s life.
This is what director Nair found most important, not Gogol’s potential experiences which Lahiri
felt were important to reference. By emphasizing different parts of the flashback and placing it
in different parts of the storyline, the book and the movie come to different conclusions on the
effect Gogol’s life and the people around him have affected him.
The book and the movie use different techniques to show his father and his journey
away from and back to his culture help Gogol find his identity. The flashback in the book
tries to encompass more of the plot, folding as much of Gogol’s life into the symbolism of the
scene. The movie tries to use the flashback as a way to end the film, allowing the audience to
feel the satisfaction that comes with the completion of a story. By placing these two different
perspectives next to each other, reader’s find that the scene is multifaceted, as was the journey
they witnessed Gogol make. Because the book allows for more insight into every character’s
mind instead of focusing solely on Gogol, it is a richer experience. The movie could do well to
follow this example and expand more on some of the flat characters like Sonia and Moushumi
but both the novel and the film were enjoyable experiences in their own way.
Works Cited
Lahiri, Jhumpa. The Namesake. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003. 185-87. Print.
The Namesake. Dir. Mira Nair. Prod. Mira Nair and Lydia Dean Pilcher. By Sooni Taraporevala.
Perf. Kal Penn, Tabu, and Irrfan Khan. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2007. DVD.
No comments:
Post a Comment