Adaptation and Semiotic Thesis Post

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQIjcZLLsug

      When we compare the 1940’s “The Shop Around the Corner” to its later 1998 remake “You’ve Got Mail,” we see obvious similarities in the plot and the story line. The two main characters fall in love never meeting through letters, however they actually know each other and dislike each other. The obvious differences are the type of correspondence. In the 1940’s they were sending letters to each other. In the later film they were using the internet in a singles chat room. This brings the love connection current and avoids letter writing that really no longer happens anymore.

The two main male leads are similar in their look, tall dark and handsome. However, their financial status is much different. In the earlier film he is a clerk at a gift shop where they both work. She cannot stand him and makes fun of him. In the later adaptation the male lead is very rich and successful. He also owns the big chain store that is putting her out of business. She then in return cannot stand him, so she humiliates him in the news.Once the male lead discovers that she is in fact their love interest they both use this to their advantage. They want her to fall in love with them so that she won’t be disappointed when she finds out it is them.

     The female lead is where we start to really see some strong connections between the two. In the earlier film our lead sits in a dinner theater to meet the love interest for the first time. We see this same scene in a Starbuck’s type place in the later version. In the 1940’s women were mostly wearing hats, skirts, and low heels in fashion. We see our lead in this same outfit throughout the movie and in this scene. She speaks well and we know she must write well because he is falling in love with her words. During this scene she insults him about his heart and soul. Basically implying that he is empty and stupid. She makes these comparisons to things they sale in the gift shop, a handbag, suitcase, lighter. This gives us the idea that she isn’t very worldly and seems closed minded. Later in the scene, he tells her that she will never fins a man to love her if she doesn’t start changing. This offends her, not because it is sexist but because she thinks he is an idiot. She tells him he is insignificant and doesn’t know what he is talking about. I think this lead is simply every woman in the 1940’s. She is relatable because she is just like all women. Looking for work, dressed and acts the same as real women, and possible petty and silly like some women in love. I think she was relatable to that time and to those watching.

     The female lead in the 1998 version is much more complex. She is a business owner, fighting for justice against big corporations taking down small business owners. She is independent and intelligent. As the viewer she has it all, she is beautiful, smart, independent, lives in the city, has short adorable hair, and is well liked. This is what women in the 90’s were trying to be. We wanted to be her, and fall in love just like her. She is complex and over analytical, and most of all she wants it all. This is what women in the 90’s wanted or had. We could relate to her needs and wants. In that same scene from the original she uses insults that are more related to her business. He is compared to a cash register, and a bottom line. Implying that she is business savvy and witty with her insults. She then calls him just a forgettable suit. Which she immediately feels guilty for even though she is proud she used her voice and stood up to him. We all were, except we knew the truth. In this version he does not imply that she cannot get a man acting like this.

     When looking at the two movies I think that women leads need to be relatable for us to not only fall in love with them but with her, so we can imagine ourselves as that very lady in the story. I think both films do this. However as social history changes over the years of 1940 to 1998 that leading female role changes too. This is the greatest example we see in these two adaptations. We know that in the 1940’s women were changing roles due to the war. They had to leave the role of homemaker and start working. They had to change their fashion due to rations and work demands. We then see the introduction of things like birth control that allowed women to plan families and take more time to educate. Women’s rights allowed women to voice their strengths and advocate for the women’s equality. This takes us right in to the 1998 role that we feel could be substituted with us.

In conclusion I argue that with romantic comedies the female viewer is most effected when she could substitute herself into the role. May be the true version of herself or her dream version, either way is a relationship she finds that is comforting. This allows the viewer to learn about herself in this relationship as she experiences the story. For example, I relate to Meg Ryan’s character because I am a hopeless romantic who believes in love, I am witty and intelligent, I am independent and self-sufficient. But I want to be adorable, and sweet and look great with short hair. Own my own business and live in New York. This allows me to watch and see what I would do if this were really me.