Blog #8

Comparison and Contrast of The Namesake Novel and Film

 

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.

 

I, Nicholas Martin, 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.

 

Namesake Prose Essay

 

In The Namesake by Jhumpa Lahiri, Gogol’s father finally reveals the real meaning behind Gogol’s name, strengthening the themes of identity and self-awareness in the novel through a specific moment of realization. Lahiri carefully constructs the dialogue around large paragraphs of description and parallels Gogol’s attitude about his identity with his attitude about his name to show the dynamic change he experiences during the conversation. This effectively begins Gogol’s discovery that no matter how hard he tries, he will never be able to truly escape his roots.

 

When Gogol’s dad brings up his name, he is understandably “puzzled” (122). Gogol has done his best to distance himself from his family and even changed his name to break free from the unfitting, comical utterance that was his name. Plus, “he is called Gogol so seldom” (122) and does not understand why his dad would bring it up. He already thinks he knows the reason behind his name and effortlessly blows off the subject whenever it comes up, which is so easy to do because, in Gogol’s mind, his name is connected to him only by the fact that his father enjoys the writing of the famous author, Gogol. Lahiri reminds us of Gogol’s detached approach to the meaning behind his name in order to embody Gogol’s attitude towards his identity in general, before she sends the character through a shift in mindset. Paralleling the uncertainty of the conversation with his uncertain sense of self, she brings the passage full circle at the end by paralleling Gogol’s response to the conversation with his renewed appreciation of his heritage.

For example, after his father explains why he is named the way he is, Lahiri states that Gogol is “struggling,” and feels “awkward” and “ashamed” (124), finally realizing the implications of his name change and the effect on his identity. Lahiri also alludes to their Indian culture when she mentions “the sound of his pet name” (124), in order to depict how deeply the conversation affected Gogol. It brings him all the way back to his birth, to the time when he was closest with his family. Rather than a label that could be swiftly removed, Gogol’s name is now “something completely new, bound up with a catastrophe he has unwittingly embodied for years” (124).

Interestingly, Lahiri decides not to show the conversation between Gogol and his father with dialogue. Rather, she explains that Ashoke tells the story, and Gogol listens. This large gap of description between dialogues allows Lahiri to give the reader a chance to see exactly how Gogol reacts to the conversation. The uninterrupted description allows us to see that Gogol is “stunned” (123). Paradoxically, Gogol feels “for an instant” that “his father is a stranger” (123). In the moment of utmost clarity about his ties with his father and his name, Gogol feels that his father is not someone he knows, but rather someone describing something unrelated to Gogol’s life. After nearly succeeding in cutting the ties with his family, Gogol is again submerged into the identity of his family, experiencing a brief culture shock. Lahiri’s diction clearly describes the first time Gogol feels regret for his separation from family, saying he feels “oddly ashamed” (124).

 

There is a complexity to be noted in the name “Gogol” itself. It is not an Indian name, yet it connects Gogol so strongly with his past because it was derived from an important experience, which creates a stronger tie than any cultural label could produce. This complexity isn’t completely realized until the conversation in this passage occurs, and through this Lahiri effectively opens the eyes of both Gogol and the audience about just how much his old name and family affect his identity, no matter how badly he tries to escape it.

Before the conversation, Gogol writes off his old name and identity as worthless and therefore has no trouble creating a new, Americanized identity for himself. Through a lengthy interjection of description between chunks of dialogue, Lahiri maps Gogol’s reversal back to his Indian heritage through his understanding of the very thing he thought would never define him: his name.

 

 

Mise en Scene Essay

In the movie The Namesake, Mira Nair utilizes close-up framing, specific costume choices, and scene cuts with non-diegetic sound when portraying Gogol’s realization of the meaning of his name and the effect this had on his character change. These techniques help structure his change from a man trying to escape his family to one that eventually gets drawn back to his culture, showing that no matter how badly one wants to cut cultural or family ties, one will always have a connection with them.

In this scene, Gogol’s father tells him the story of how he got his name and through close-up framing on both of the characters’ faces, the director accurately portrays the newly established connection between father and son. As the story begins, close-ups of Gogol’s face reveal confusion: a disconnect. This contrasts with the close, intimate shot, creating complexity, because Gogol is feeling distant from his father, the only tie existing between them being the fact that Gogol shares his name with his father’s favorite author. In the beginning of the scene, both characters have contrasting facial expressions: Gogol showing uninterested confusion and his father portraying emotional thoughtfulness. As the scene progresses and the story is told through a flashback, close-up cuts to both of their faces reveal that Gogol is beginning to understand the tie between his name and his father, and thus adopts a similar look of thoughtfulness and realization. Just as the intimate connotations that come with a close-up shot of a character begin to parallel the now mutual feelings between them, so does the costume choice of both characters.

Although it seems like an insignificant detail at first, the similar wardrobe choice of

Gogol and his father in this scene adds to the characterization of each character and reinforces the idea that Gogol will always have a connection with his family. Both characters wear a button down and a sweater. It is one small detail that highlights the fact that little nuances of his personality (i.e. the way he dresses), mirror his upbringing and diminish the effects of Gogol’s attempts to separate himself from his family and culture.

This scene is composed mostly of a flashback, used to intensify the reality and drama of the story, and Gogol’s father’s voice is a non-diegetic voiceover in the flashback to illustrate the close connection between the past event and his current self. The director could have easily just cut to a flashback and let the story tell itself, but she didn’t. Instead, Ashoke’s voice narrates the event to reiterate to the viewer how closely the happenings are tied to him, how deeply personal the event was. Gogol makes the same realization and thus his eyes are opened to the monumental importance of his name to his father.

Gogol’s ashamed face in the close-up shot in between cuts of narrated flashback and specific wardrobe decisions portray to the viewer that although Gogol has tried his best to separate from his family, he will always be drawn back by the deep emotional connection created by his name.

, while other times there may be specific details about the plot that differ to appeal to the audience of the individual types of media, all the while preserving the idea that the conversation revealed a truth about Gogol’s identity: no matter how hard he has tried to cut his ties with his heritage, he will always be bound to his family.

Comparison/Contrast Essay

Sometimes a wake-up call can completely alter the way one lives life. In this scene of The Namesake, Ashoke explains to Gogol the real meaning behind his name, describing the events that had changed Ashoke’s life forever and, consequently, had led to Gogol’s name. Simply uttering the word “Gogol” is enough to remind Ashoke of the gift of life offered to him after the train accident, a connection between father and son that Gogol does not understand until it is revealed to him in this scene. Since it occurs near the middle of the story (at a point in the plot where Gogol is especially distant from his family in an attempt to forget his past), this scene is a major turning point, a moment in the book and movie when Gogol’s eyes are opened to the thoughts and feelings of his parents.

During this scene of The Namesake, the book and the movie utilize different techniques to convey the theme by utilizing contrasting settings. Although the settings differ in the details they put forth similar auras of serenity and isolation. Gogol’s reaction to the story is the same in the book and the movie, but it is portrayed with differing approaches to support the idea that it is impossible to completely escape family ties, which marks the beginning of his shift back towards his heritage.

 

Occasionally, the movie and book use different techniques, like close-up camera angles and descriptive diction, to portray Gogol’s astonishment at the deep connection he unwittingly shares with his father and his shame for pushing his parents away. Page 124 of the book states that after the revealing conversation, Gogol was “still struggling to absorb the information” and felt “oddly ashamed.” Jhumpa Lahiri chose to include these descriptive words when describing Gogol’s reaction, writing that his eyes began to “well with tears” (123) in order to portray the genuine feeling of guilt that Gogol experiences. On the other hand, the movie takes advantage of close-up camera shots to illustrate Gogol’s reaction. While Gogol’s father is telling the story of his name, the camera alternates between the flashback and close-ups of Gogol’s face in the present. The close-up shot is a very intimate shot, mostly because it allows for in-depth examination of facial expressions without much background interference. This reveals Gogol’s emotions of shame during the story, but through a much different method than in the book. This guilt does not necessarily inspire him to go running back to his family, but it initiates a change within him to realize his multicultural identity. Ironically, the very thing that drags him back to this multicultural identity is his name, which is completely unrelated to anything Indian. This complexity is not revealed to Gogol until his dad tells him the real meaning behind his name, transforming an irrelevant Russian label to a powerful link between Gogol and his Indian family.

Gogol’s realization of his identity is crafted in both the movie and the book partly through the serenity and isolation of the setting (although the setting is different in each). The specific approaches showcased in each, lack of diegetic sound in the movie and the imagery of the book, help create the sensation of isolation, heightening the focus on the conversation and strengthening the one on one bonding of father and son. This reinforces the assertion that Gogol is drifting back towards his family’s culture, showing that no matter what, one can never fully escape one’s heritage. In the book, Gogol and his father are on their way home from the train station at night while “brown leaves…fly across the road in the headlights’ glare” (122). The car is “silent” and Ashoke doenot speak until “the piece” playing on the radio ends, ensuring complete silence (122). The image of leaves blowing across a road is similar to that of tumbleweed bouncing along a desert terrain, which inevitably summons connotations of isolation. The fact that the headlights are on emphasizes the fact that it is dark out, further displaying the isolation of the characters. This imagery and the fact that it is completely silent reinforce the idea that Gogol and his father are shut away from the outside world, from the American culture that has swayed Gogol so far from his Indian heritage This allows greater attention to be paid by Gogol to his father’s story and thus allows a deeper understanding by Gogol of the connection between his name and his background. Naturally, movies are made to be aesthetically appealing, so the nighttime car ride with Gogol and Ashoke, although effective in creating a peaceful, quiet setting shown in the book, isn’t as plausible for a visually entertaining scene. Because of this, the director chose to keep part of the setting the same and change other parts of it. The conversation still occurs in Ashoke’s car (because this offers a quiet, closed space) but it is during the daytime. Colorful flora and fauna can be seen in the background from inside the car which is visually appealing to the audience, but the car is not moving. Gogol’s father parked the car before the conversation started to reduce distracting movement in the background and to separate the characters from the rest of the world much like the image of darkness did in the book. In the scene, there is almost no diegetic sound whatsoever, except for the voices of the two characters speaking. The scene in the movie creates a setting of isolated serenity without sacrificing visual entertainment, which creates the same effect on the scene as in the book. While the silence must be described in the book, the director of the movie has the ability to create actual silence, which drives home the one on one intensity of the conversation which allowed for Gogol to finally be introduced to an unbreakable tie with his father.

            In the book and movie versions of The Namesake, the setting supports Gogol’s reaction in order to accurately encompass the wake-up call that Gogol experienced in this scene. Although the book and movie achieve this goal in different ways through different techniques, they both illustrate the newly found bond between Gogol and his past, showing that it is not possible to create an identity completely separate from deeply rooted culture. Because movies have the responsibility to entertain, they may change certain things about a story, but the main theme remains unscathed. I enjoyed the book much more than the movie because Jhumpa Lahiri’s ability to both concisely report information and beautifully articulate ideas with imagery outdo any image a movie could offer. One item that I would change about the movie is the plot differences. Although it didn’t affect this scene much, there are major differences elsewhere that take away from the general effect of the story.