I could not stop laughing while watching that movie. I don’t know if the makers of the film wanted it to be hilarious but if they did, they certainly succeeded thus far. I especially enjoyed the film’s portrayal of Mr. Lawson’s class. I found that scene very unrealistic yet extremely funny. In addition, the filmmaker’s decision to have Kal Penn (who, like Gogol, changed his name) play Gogol’s role was interesting to me. When I think of Penn, I think of the “Harold and Kumar” film in which Penn played a dysfunctional stoner looking to grab some mini cheeseburgers at a White Castle restaurant. Thus far in “The Namesake,” he has not drifted very far from that role. I find it interesting that a primarily comedic actor took the role as Gogol. I never got the impression that the character Gogol had any sense of humor. He seemed depressed, overly reliant on others, and dismissive throughout the book, not humorous. So far, I really like how the movie has slightly drifted away from the book. I think if the movie stayed exactly like the book, it would not have as much entertainment value as the slightly changed version. I did not foresee myself enjoying the book but after watching the first forty minutes, I cannot wait until sixth period tomorrow. The filmmakers successfully spiced up the book enough to make into an entertaining movie in my opinion.
Good point jimmy, I never realized that Gogol had zero sense of humor in the book. However, in the movie he seems almost animated at times. He often even makes jokes and smiles and laughs. Sadly to say, the other Gogol seemed depressed all the time. I find the choice for Kal Penn as an actor to play Gogol a strange one too.
ReplyDelete