"This is What it Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona" Dialogue

It’s incredible how one story can change so much with the simple omission of some details, and the addition of some others.  The variations between the movie “Smoke Signals” and the written version of the same, “This is What It Means to Say Phoenix, Arizona”, give the story two different perspectives.  I feel as if the core of the narrative, which is Arnold Joseph’s dead and Victor, his son, having to go for his ashes and personal belongings, is one of the only elements that are keeping the two versions as the same story.  After reading the story for the first time, I noticed it didn’t said anything about Arnold being the responsible for Thomas’ parents dead, nor mentions anything about any one named Suzy Song, nor has the same arrogant Victor, compared to the movie.  First, I thought I had probably missed it, but after the tenth time reading it I simply concluded those vital details of the movie weren’t there and they wouldn’t appear on the piece of paper regardless of my persistence to find them.  My interpretation of the reading differs in many aspects now.  Victor was not the selfish, careless, and annoyed loser I saw on the movie.  He tried to go for his dad’s remaining because he wanted to and not because he was, in a way, being pushed by his mother to do so.  Also, my vision of Thomas changed.  The stories of Thomas had more truth in them as I had already imagine; some were real visions something I couldn’t quite get from the movie.  It was clear, to me, that Thomas had a special give to sense events to occur and more, but, a strange reasons, reading it make it more real, more palpable.  It’s like someone saying, “ghost exist people has close encounters all the time, there’s evidence!”, yes, you might consider the possibility of this being true; however, if you actually hear someone say, “I’ve seen ghosts!” or “I’ve felt the presence of spirits”, the confidence on their statements might make ghost more real to us even give you the goose bumps.

After analyzing the differences between the two versions of the story, I feel like I enjoyed more the written story than the movie, even though, I also like the different aspects of the movie.  Perhaps, the fact that Victor was a nicer person and Arnold was not the responsible for leaving Thomas an orphan made the difference for me between “good” and “better”.  Still, I feel a bit confused, I don’t quite understand why make a movie out of a written story without sticking to the actual details of the narrative; it may be as a publicity strategy with the purpose of making the movie more interesting for the audience, which, I have to say, worked.  Throughout the movie, I couldn’t wait to find out the cause of the fire, and if Victor and Thomas would finally become friends at last.