The News: A Brief History

"I run a couple of newspapers. What do you do?"

During the 19th century, newspapers were how people got their news. The primary medium was present in cities in town, usually with a few per. They were almost always partisan with no pretense of objectivity. News was objectively rendered, and each side was given "the (partisan truth."

The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw two changes in the news industry---the emergence of independent newspapers, and the birth of the tabloid. Technology was always a positive thing.

Journalism was (and still is) a craft. News should be presented objectively (like The New York Times). Thus, independent papers picked up some popularity.

As far as tabloids go, the content was much more distinct, and the focus was geared towards crime, sex, commercial matters, celebrities, and entertainment rather than politics. Americans at the time didn't care much about politics, and hated politicians (wait, not much has changed, then). However, there was a desire to hear more about the sensational and less about the factual.

Introducing Henry Luce.  

He played a major role in the first half of the 20th century shaping the newspaper industry. Luce was educated at Yale, and he and Briton Hadden were key figures in Yale's college newspaper. After working at New York World and Chicago Daily News, respectively, the two wanted to make a weekly paper to synthesize information that would be above tabloids. It was catered for "busy" people of the middle and affluent classes.

In 1923, Time magazine was launched. The iconic weekly news magazine was aimed at college-aged Americans and proved itself as an entertaining read. The goal of the magazine was that it could be read in one hour. According to Luce, before Time, people had to think too hard as they read. The lively, analytical and opinionated magazine created a narrative for readers. One line, for example read, "The sixth Pan-American Conference last week accomplished absolutely nothing." Finally, news had a voice.

In 1929, Hadden died, leaving Luce the editor-in-chief of Time. In 1930, circulation was up to 300,000. By 1940, it was one million. Time supported middle-class concerns of having adequate information.

Time magazine increasingly communicated its sense of the people, especially because it was writing about personalities. This was different than the 19th century. Soon, personality journalism evolved.

For example, Time wrote a piece on Nietzsche, describing him as "a pale, chubby hermit who sat in a cheap Swiss boarding house, demanding the bread of supermen."

Facts were organized as part of a narrative, and details were given about individuals and their stories, like Stalin liking vodka, or Chrysler being a motor-maker. Writers and readers alike loved the terms tycoon, and socialite. However, American intellects felt that Time trivialized certain issues.

Interestingly, Time magazine did not have any reporters covering news on the scene. Many of the stories were written by reading daily newspapers. Writers assembled stories into narratives, but they assumed an eyewitness quality of secondhand news.

For example, when recounting Calvin Coolidge's funeral, Time wrote, "The night snow fell, blotting out all traces of the new grave."

As of 1928, every year, Time magazine designated a "Man of the Year " (later person). They were almost always the best-selling issues.

In the early 1930s, Luce launched news broadcasts on radio. 1934 saw the premiere of a newsreel called "The March of Time," which was the first time moviegoers saw the news appear in movie theaters. 20 minute dramatic reenactments of what was going on around the world would be filmed for the reels. By the end of the 1930s, 20 million Americans were watching newsreels at least once a month.

Fortune magazine launched in 1930, as it celebrated tycoons of industries and entrepreneurs. The featured articles tackled serious issues, and left-wing writers got a glimpse of the dark side of capitalism.

Life magazine was first published in 1936, with over two million copies circulating every week. It didn't always have newsworthy stories, sometimes there would be special interest/personality stories.

One important thing Luce realized in his work was that you can do very well if you aim for a target audience over the masses, like how Fortune did, or when he launched Sports Illustrated in 1954. With this market segmentation, you can get higher ad revenue if the magazine knows the readers are likely purchasers of what you're selling. This was a brilliant advertising move, and is still something heavily incorporated in magazines today. 

Ad revenue was highly substantial, and niche magazines work for readers, as ads tailor to them.

In the past fifteen years, the communications field is changing more rapidly than ever before. Luce's efforts in the news field helped expand the general audience, create new audiences, and invent mass-produced magazines that appealed to special-focuses.

He contributed to the way in which the news is prepared and disseminated. Between personality journalism, niche market audiences, and narratives, Luce pushed the news industry into what it is today. These writing styles are still used today, and journalism still grows, thanks to Luce.

Movie about the Movies: "Hail, Caesar!"

Joel and Ethan Coen always deliver a quirky movie, and Hail,Caesar! is no exception. From the writers/directors who brought us Burn After Reading, True Grit, and The Big Lebowski comes the tale of 1950s Hollywood, where the action behind the camera becomes more interesting than that we see before us on the silver screen.

This star-studded film stars Josh Brolin as Eddie Mannix, a "fixer" who attempts to keep a movie company in line, which feels more like the ringmaster to a circus due to the demands of the rich and famous.  Although Mannix keeps everything in line, his job is thrown into disarray when major star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is kidnapped for a ransom in the middle of filming the titular movie-within-a-movie, Hail, Caesar! The note comes from "The Future," an undercover group trying to spread communism throughout the studio systems.  Meanwhile, directors and stars clash, scandals need covering up, and communism is indeed on the rise, fulfilling all fears.


Narrated by Michael Gambon and also starring Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swanson, Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, and Alden Ehrenreich, Hail, Caesar! is mysterious, nutty, and a fun misadventure in Los Angeles.

Hail, Caesar! offers some exciting source material for the main characters, as Mannix's character and the events that went on in the film were not uncommon for the time, but the Coen Brothers do offer their signature stranger-than-fiction twist when need be. Most roles and backstories are inspired by real people during the 1950s in Hollywood. Scandal and keeping up a public image has always been an axiom to the life of a movie star, and for better or for worse, is here to stay.

Mannix's character is based on real-life E.J. Mannix, a former MGM movie producer who eventually went on to covering up any scandals in Hollywood to keep actors and directors out of trouble and the tabloids.  Whitlock's character is based on Charlton Heston, Robert Taylor and Kirk Douglas for his good looks and leading man charisma. Clooney remains in his Roman regalia for the entirety of the film. The film within a film, "Hail, Caesar" which Whitlock is the star of, plays off of movie epic Ben Hur, thus Heston being ideal as an inspiration.  Johannson is based on actress Esther Williams.  Swanson is a caricature of Hollywood gossip writer Hedda Hopper.  And Tatum, Gene Kelly (he did all his own tap-dancing in the film!).



At this point in Hollywood, the fear of Communism was taking over the studio systems.  The Supreme Court had also ruled that the studios could no longer treat the industry like a monopoly, so studio heads were forced to divest their theaters.  Another major fear of Hollywood was that it would eventually lose its popularity due to the rising convenience of television.  With a TV sitting in your living room, there would be no need to go out and spend money on tickets to watch something in theaters.  Both of these threats threw studios into disarray, and there was a competitive nature to stay in the game.

Grand aquatic scenes, glorifying the Western genre further, and creating artistic period pieces. Grandiose Roman spectacles were also common, and the idea of the Blockbuster hit was born. Hollywood would spend big budgets just to keep up with the times, doing more than television could hope to imagine. Movie musicals also became very popular, just to enhance the feeling of escapism that going to the movies offered.

Mannix played a very crucial role in keeping the status quo throughout, as he knew all the ins and outs of Hollywood.  The show must go on, after all.

Aesthetically, the camera filters offer a mix of Technicolor Hollywood and film noir.  The soundstages within the soundstages are incredible, and viewers really get the feel for how movies were made in the 1950s, and how much work had to go in them.

The actors in the film were very commited to their roles.  Ehrenreich, for example, was an up-and-coming western star in the film named Hobie Doyle, who was struggling to break into more refined and artsy roles.  For it, he learned how to twirl lassos, horseback ride, and play the guitar.  The most difficult trick he had to do was twirling spaghetti like a lasso, which is a small nod from the Coen Brothers to the spaghetti western genre.


Hail, Caesar! is not to be missed by anyone who enjoys movies, because, well, it's a movie about movies. It has the classic Coen Brothers quirkiness to it, a perfect Hollywood aesthetic, and no line is wasted.  So much detail has been put into this masterpiece from the costumes and sets to the discussions of communism between Whitlock and The Future.  Fans of the Coen Brothers and 1950s era Hollywood will enjoy the film from start to finish.

"Sully" Movie Review

Clint Eastwood's latest film Sully tells the story of Chelsey Sullenberger, based on his memoir, Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters.  Starring Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, and Laura Linney, this film walks viewers through the hearings of the Miracle on the Hudson.

Sully (Hanks) miraculously lands a flight on the Hudson River on January 15, 2009, after birds fly into the engines of his plane just moments after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport.  He is hailed as a national hero, even though he is not convinced that his actions are completely heroic.  Sully suffers from nightmares and hallucinations shortly after.  He also struggles in telling his wife (Linney) about the hearing proceedings and whether or not what he did was fully ethical.  

After all passengers are accounted for, he and his First Officers Skiles (Eckhart) go through a series of hearings with the National Transportation Safety Board to discuss the logisitics of the landing, and how safe it was to complete such a maneuver.  After numerous programs replicated the flight in simulations, the initial hearings ruled that Sully could have landed back at LaGuardia or Teterboro instead of putting 155 lives at risk.  Disheartened, Sully feels guilty and believes that this tricky landing could be considered negligent and force him into immediate retirement with no pension.  

Despite Sully recording the biggest debut for a Clint Eastwood film (as both and actor and director), the film has sparked a bit of a controversy with the National Transportation Safety Board hearings.  Eastwood stated that the Safety Board "was trying to paint the picture that he had done the wrong thing."  Investigations into the records of the hearing were done, and The New York Times wrote, "he film’s version of the inquiry veers from the official record in both tone and substance" and "depicts the investigators as departing from standard protocol in airline accident inquiries."  In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board was rather impressed with Sully's landing.  

Tom Hanks specifically asked that the names of those participating in the hearing on the Safety Board were changed.  Their unfair depiction of damning Sully for his actions upset Hanks, and since the actual events didn't go that way, then the peoples' identities should be protected. 

Where the flight had landed in the Hudson River scenes was where the big rescue scenes were filmed.  You could practically feel how intense and cold those scenes were on the water.  The hysteria and panic of the passengers was very real as well, since they had no idea what was going on shortly into their flight that required an immediate landing.

You can also truly understand the complicated position Sully was in throughout the hearings. Although media outlets highlighted his heroic acts, his conscience and the National Transportation Safety Board berated him.

Serial biopic star Tom Hanks (Saving Mr. Banks, Captain Phillips, Saving Mr. Banks, Charlie Wilson's War, etc...) definitely offers a performance the Academy would recognize for 2017's Best Actor category.  During pre-production, Hanks met with Chelsey Sullenberger in order to get to know him as the modest and unexpected hero.  Sully was impressed with his attention to detail and portrayal onscreen as far as mannerisms went.  

The 96 minutes will captivate viewers from start to finish, as its nonlinear narrative draws you in.  We don't actually see the big rescue happen until the film's halfway point.  Overall, Sully is a must-see for anyone who can't wait for the Oscars Season boom, and anyone impressed with the Miracle on the Hudson.  Since the events took place in 2009, it's interesting to watch as something  we can remember happening in our everyday lives. 

"The Light Between Oceans" Review

Oscar bait has come early this year before I even broke out my combat boots and switched my iced coffee for hot.  Oscar winner and Oscar nominee Alicia Vikander and Michael Fassbender, respectively, star in the heart-wrenching tale of a baby found on the shores of a New Zealand island.  A timeless struggle of what is right and what feels right is at the center of Derek Cianfrance's (director of Blue Valentine and The Place Beyond the Pines) latest film, The Light Between Oceans.  


Light tells the story of the Sherbournes (Vikander and Fassbender).  Tom is a lighthouse keeper who previously served in the First World War for several years, and wishes for some solitude after his time.  He meets a local, beautiful girl, Isabel and immediately falls for her.  After correspondence via snail mail (seriously, this movie would have been, like, twenty minutes with iMessage), they get married and move out to the lighthouse.  After two miscarriages occur in an effort to start a family, a boat washes onto the shore of their island, containing a man (dead on arrival) and a crying baby girl.  Isabel convinces Tom that the baby came to them at the right time, and they take her in, raising Lucy as their own.

Enter Lucy's real mother, Hannah (Rachel Weisz), who bumps into the Sherbournes in their town, and breaks down upon meeting Lucy.  Hannah laments how she lost her husband and daughter at sea, and her daughter would be the same age as Lucy is. They meet four years after they left her, and watching her reaction to meeting Lucy was painful.  Coincidence? I think not.



Tom struggles with whether or not it is best to get Lucy back to her proper home with Hannah, or to go on after seeing the heartache she has already endured for years. Lucy's parentage becomes powerful and painful knowledge for them, and the consequences of their actions do indeed come back to hurt them and those around them.

This film focuses around how when it comes to sympathizing with a character, we feel it when we (the audience) know something that the characters don't know.  It hits us most when the characters realize what we knew all along.  We can see it in their eyes, as they flicker with newfound knowledge.  Tom knows things Isabel doesn't.  What's more is that he acts on them, and our emotions are thrown slightly out of wack.  The many layers of sympathy in Light makes it an intricate story, as every action counts.  It's hard for me to say who's actions I agreed with most for the duration in the film, along with after, as I reflect on the complications weaved into Light.

Although it started off at a glacial pace, The Light Between Oceans builds up the suspense in its first half the have audiences begging for more as the film progresses. Fassbender, who comes across as a rougher-around-the-edges Ewan McGregor sparks the eventual diminishing of the family that is created through sheer happenstance.  Vikander and Weisz are powerful forces as they fight for the right to keep Lucy as their own daughter.  Both of them have significant bonds and reasons to be granted the parentage of Lucy.

The three actors have high potential to receive nominations once we get closer to Oscar season, despite the melodramatic tone.  Yes, our heartstrings are tugged at, as we just want the best for Lucy.  However, it is almost overkill to the point where we remind ourselves that yes, this is all slightly far-fetched.



The costumes were absolutely stunning for this period piece, as the men adorned suspenders and the women wore more wool sweaters and hats than a sheep could provide material for.  Alexandre Desplat scored the film so beautifully, as the music notes fit with the overall tone the way the sunlight hit the waves surrounding the Sherbourne's island.  Overall, the lighthouse aesthetic and sleepy small-town was beautiful.

The film is based on the novel of the same name written by L. M. Stedman.  Anyone who goes for the Nicholas Sparks/weepy genre would enjoy the film.  Its strong leads captivated me. Even those who are unable to directly relate to the heartbreak of losing a child are swept away by the incredible performances.  Light has high potential to become an Oscar contender, which makes it a must-see in order to get ready for other incredible films around the corner.

"Dreams are Dreams" in Cafe Society

In Woody Allen’s latest film, we explore a timeless classic Hollywood love triangle----the big Hollywood talent agent, his secretary, and the new kid trying to break into the business.  However, this film explores a family matter, as the new kid is the exec’s nephew, a very Woody Allen twist.  Starring Steve Carrell, Kristen Stewart and Jesse Eisenberg as the respective love triangle experiencing perpetual trouble in paradise in 1930s Hollywood, this is Cafe Society.  

Woody Allen narrates the story from off screen, as we get an inside look on Bobby Dorfman’s family and homelike hailing from the Bronx.  Unsatisfied with the idea of following his dad's footsteps as a jeweler, he travels to Hollywood to stay with his uncle Phil in search of an exciting career. In order to get acquainted with the city, Phil's secretary Vonnie shows him around. Naturally, Bobby falls for Vonnie's charm, and she eventually is enchanted by him, but only after Phil says he won't be able to leave his wife for her, as their affair comes to an abrupt halt.

As a Woody Allen film would entail, things complicate, life goes on, and then things further complicate. Allen's narration goal was to make this movie watch like how a novel would read. The way he pieces the story together is reminiscent of how Annie Hall feels, a true classic film of his, especially as we flashback to Bobby's home life. With the Dorfman family, not a single line is wasted. They provide an honest look at Bobby's roots, and he stays honest to himself on his rise in cafe society.

As per usual, Allen chose an amazing soundtrack to set audiences into the era with piano music and the cabaret singer in the clubs. The sets were breathtaking, especially Phil's Hollywood estate and the nightclub that Bobby eventually takes over. The lighting is beautiful, the dresses women wear are bright and shiny, and the accessories worn are also glamorous without being gaudy, even for the time period.

Casting for this film was spot-on. Steve Carrell once again proves he can play a serious role, as I still sometimes can't get out of my head as Michael Scott. Jesse Eisenberg is an absolute delight. He's funny, passionate, and appropriately melancholic.  At some points, especially in the scene where Bobby hires a hooker for the evening (almost in a Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye way), his character transforms into the neurotic personality that is Woody Allen.  His mannerisms, speech patterns, and body language can only have been developed by following Woody Allen around for a few days or binge-watching his films.

Even though Kristen Stewart's acting is very melodramatic and emotionless at times, this played off very well for her roll as the torn Vonnie.  Corey Stoll, who plays Bobby's nightclub owner brother shines as well, and his risky business moves are dark as they are funny with his approach.  

Anyone who enjoyed Midnight in Paris will enjoy this film. The music is very similar, and the romantic lighting is absolutely breathtaking. Even though the eras and locations are different, both have a similar nostalgic charm for the jazz and look of the time period.

The ending of the movie was very ambiguous, yet also satisfying.  Very similar to Like Crazy, it is hard to say who Vonnie and Bobby wind up ultimately choosing. As Vonnie revisits the simpler life of pre-Hollywood wealth, she has a nostalgic flashback during her time with Bobby.  She does express that it was a tough decision for her to make, and she tries to rationalize her decision.  We do see the sadness and soft look in her eyes, and nod our heads in agreement.

There is a slight Gatsby-esque aspect to it, as some things will never change.  When Bobby and Vonnie started hanging out again after running into each other year’s later, they started falling for each other again.  Can you repeat the past? Maybe...maybe not. Dreams are dreams, after all, Vonnie quips, after she mentions her perpetual dreams about Bobby even after breaking his heart.

In the final scene, both Bobby and Vonnie are with their spouses at the stroke of midnight, Bobby at his night club and Vonnie at a glamorous Hollywood party. As a New Year promises starting new, the distance Bobby and Vonnie show to their spouses is apparent, and then the screen turns black. As far as I'm concerned, a film is a good film if it can leave it's audiences wondering what could be to come. And Cafe Society left me wondering whether or not Bobby and Vonnie will ever be truly happy based on Vonnie's decision to pursue Phil over Bobby. A sticky situation meant no one could come out unscathed.

Overall, the fact that "life is a comedy written by a sadistic comedy writer" plays a key part in Cafe Society.  Full of belly laughs, melodramatic sighs at the choices made, and beautiful piano music, Woody Allen delivers a timeless tale of love that cannot be missed this summer.  

How to Sequel

I’d like to begin this post by thanking Netflix for releasing the three Jurassic Park films this summer, I enjoyed a 398494th viewing of Jurassic Park last weekend, and then whined my way through Lost World.  (In my boyfriend’s defense, he hadn’t seen it and would rather watch dinosaurs chase Vince Vaughn than Rosemary’s Baby).

Is this what being a parent feels like?

This one was by far the worst, and I would much rather watch Jurassic World at that point if only for shirtless Chris Pratt.

What did we do to deserve him?

Afterwards, I suggested a more adequate trilogy, wholistically speaking: Ocean’s 11, 12, and 13.  In this writer’s defense, there is nothing better than watching Brad Pitt eat nachos and confuse the shit out of Matt Damon.  Besides, the soundtrack is amazing and the final scene to the movie will always be one of my favorites. If you don't get goosebumps listening to Claire de Lune, do you even have a soul?

Finally, we ended our weekend of  random film viewing with The Road to El Dorado, a classic. And like every classic animated film, The Road to El Dorado is being made into a live-action adaptation. Casting is pretty on point, and who wouldn't want to stare at Oscar Isaac for two hours? It was a dream we got to see his face in the new Star Wars. That's besides my point though.

Between the Oceans and Jurassic Park films, I contemplated what makes a movie up for discussion for a sequel, and a few particular aspects came to mind. This is something I often think of whenever I see a tweet about a follow-up film coming out. Three years ago, I asked how much of a great idea can a sequel be. Now, I list some criteria of what I think is needed for a sequel to really sell in theaters, and in our minds.

A Sense of Closure.  If a movie’s plot has a complete beginning, middle, and end, there is arguably no need for a sequel.  When films like When Harry Met Sally and Forrest Gump have definite endings to their stories, audiences don’t really want more, regardless of how hughly they are regarded.  They want everything to stay just the way it is.  Sure, something like Annie Hall or Catch Me If You Can may be your favorite movie, but there is no need for more. Leaving such classics as is defines them as classic, because they are original and stand the test of time alone.

Series are another story, however (pun fully intended). When there is more of a longitudinal storyline, like in Star Wars or Harry Potter, OF COURSE there will be a need to expand. And series are successful for various reasons, but that will be a rant for another day. But they are meant to have high potential for continuation (basically the axiom of a sequel). Each installment of a series or saga may have closure in itself and the plot as its own film, but overall other plot points and characters will have more to elaborate for the next part.

Another important point I reluctantly yet enthusiastically like to make is the case of the National Treasure films. American history is one of my favorite things. Even though both movies could have had plenty of closure and no need for a sequel, there was a second National Treasure, and hopefully there will be a third (please tell me I'm not the only one DYING to know what is on the 49th page of the President's Secret Book). Each movie can be defined as "great as is," and watching the first film is not necessary to understand the basic point of the next film. Same characters, different national monuments vandalized. NBD.

Same TBH but still hype for the third

Compelling Characters.  One excellent example of this is how a television series was in the works for the John Hughes classic Ferris Bueller’s Day Off for a while.  This, thank god, never became a thing.  As someone who aspires to live every day like Ferris, you would expect me to be devastated by this discovery. Alas, I am not.  Ferris had his day off, we laughed and cried with him, and stressed over the Ferrari. But, even if we love a character and there is a sense of closure, continuing their story would be unnecessary saturation of their already passionate silver screen presence.

When a great character comes into our life, they are great partially because there is only one of them. They are also unique in their own world, even if they are God's gift to mankind. Sequels with these characters that stick in our minds will lend themselves to a story that initially lacks closure. Without this closure, these characters can feel overbearing (especially passionate and obsessive ones).

Does the Source Material Allow it?  More now than ever, Hollywood has turned to source material, whether it is a book, actual events, or another movie, films have glamorized things.  When making biopics, there is rarely a need for more.  However, if there is no source material or any implication of a definitive end, then following up with another film may be a good idea.  For example, book series are meant to have several installments, as each movie serves as a set-up for the next. If it is a historical event, there may be fixation on just that.

By "Hollywooding" up source material, there is always a detour from the truth, which can lead to room for cinematic growth, whether or not a movie allows it.

What about the Prequel?  This summer, Pixar Studios showed us all that Disney has the grit to make a compelling prequel to a beloved children’s film: Finding Dory.  I’ll admit, when the press releases first came out about the film’s conception, I was skeptical.  I felt that there was so much closure to Finding Nemo that anything else would have been unnecessary and just a money machine. However, I was pleasantly surprised to realize that Pixar brought its signature sentimentality to the forefront and made for an excellent prequel.

Overall, the art of making a good film is difficult, and making a sequel to a good film is even harder without the proper criteria. Things like closure and source material are always important to consider when analyzing sequels, and should be done mindfully.

The Book vs. The Movie: Silver Linings Playbook

As many (well-read and cultured) people will say, the book is usually better than the movie, with a few exceptions. One film that didn't include a major motif that the book highlighted throughout was the cinematic one of Silver Linings Playbook  by Matthew Quick.  The 2013 film of the same name tells the story of Pat, a man who is recovering from separation from his wife after leaving a mental institution.  On his road to recovery, he befriends Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), who helps him "beat his crazy by doing something even crazier."  It made me laugh, cry, laugh so hard I cried, and the message of staying positive to always have that shot at a silver lining has been something I carry with myself everyday.

Enter my desire to read the book that this cinematic masterpiece came from.  It immediately became one of my favorite books upon completion.  After seeing the film adaptation of the same name in theaters twice, I ordered a copy of the book off Amazon, and shut out the rest of the world until I finished it. The book reads like a journal without the formalities as Pat narrates.  Readers get very deep insights from Pat, especially when he criticize the books that were on his ex's high school teaching syllabus.  His profound reflections on The Great Gatsby and The Catcher in the Rye all come full circle as he talks about how these books have no silver lining, and that life needs one.

Not to discredit the film, which received several Academy nominations, including a win for Jennifer Lawrence as Best Actress.  The characters in the film are very compelling, as Pat's one-track mind parallels his character in the book.  The film gets the message of having a shot at a silver lining and remaining positive 110%. The film focuses mostly on the motif of how sports are a major aspect of Pat and his family's life. However, viewers are missing out a lot on Pat's internal struggle and thought process, which is very thorough in the novel.  Even though film can't include EVERYTHING and it does an excellent job of adapting the source material to the silver screen, I thought that a movie with a more cinematic angle with some fourth-wall-breaking could be an effective way of truly portraying Pat and giving him more control over his narrative.

The film is filled with emotion, there characters are compelling, and David O'Russell made a very strong and successful character piece.  However, the book does more than just give us the Hollywood ending through internal and external battles, along with shades of grey.  We see dark moments for Pat, and also cheer him on as he goes through accepting what is.

Where the film ends with the dance competition and Pat's profession of love to Tiffany that turns me into a puddle, the book has another hundred pages to go, where Pat finally gets in touch with his ex Nikki.  Nikki's letters (who we then realize were written by Tiffany) hit on the point that "life is not a PG feel-good movie.  Real life often ends badly."  This, along with Pat's observations of life being like a series of movies is something I often muse about, and I was beyond ecstatic to finally find someone (fictional or not) who could sympathize with me over this notion.

If you didn't cry during this scene are you even human?

The book actually has more cinematic/meta aspects than the film does, as Pat's narration floats back to film.  He is very direct about certain aspects, as he spends an entire chapter on trying to figure out what a montage is (titled "My Movie's Montage"), and then recounts how the days blur together for him in the form of one.  He compares his prepping for the dance competition to the scene in Rocky, when he trains to become a better boxer.  Pat even invites readers to listen to a song that's inspiring to them as they read the chapter.  This breaks the fourth wall and pulls readers in more than books of this nature usually do.

The book is still very heavy on its sports emphasis, as Pat and his brother attend Eagles games, along with how Pat's father neurotically lets the Birds determine how he behaves and interacts with his family.  In the novel, his parents fight and bicker over game day rituals, a new TV in the house to better watch the Eagles games after Pat Sr. breaks the previous one, and Pat's relationship with his therapist beyond their sessions.

Overall, the novel Silver Linings Playbook is not one to be missed. It's charming, captivating, and makes Pat more interesting and inspiring than ever.  As I read it, I could hear Bradley Cooper walking me through Pat's psyche, which made it all the more enjoyable.