Smooth talk (1985) is the film celebration winning motion picture propelled by the Joyce Carol Oakes' short story , 'Where are you going, Where have you been?' The principle subject of both of the text and film is about a high school young lady, who is continually eager to investigate her sexuality and continually hanging tight for something other than what's expected, something dreamy and how she attempts to get into her adulthood. The protagonist Connie the 15 years of age young lady is the portrayal of the adolescents who need to be another person and elsewhere, where there is nobody to stop them. In any case, at last how Connie's life changed just in a minutes for a dicey outsider is the primary focal point of consideration of both of the story and the film.
In spite of the fact that smooth talk is received from the short story however both are distinctive in story line. The most engaged contrasts are the way Connie has been depicted, the contentions with the moms, and the completion of the story and the film. In the story the creator portray the characters in an exceptionally exact manner, every one of the people are shrewd enough to bargain any sort of circumstances however in the film we have discovered that individuals are extremely straightforward and having the regular attitude, additionally the teenagers don't make a big deal about anything besides themselves, no stresses over what's going on around their lives. Connie is portrayed as the carefree young lady, especially developed to bargain circumstances, has a twofold existence which is obscure in the story. In any case, in the film Connie has been depicted as a dumb blondie who is continually separating, playing with young men, dating and doing stupid things, having terrible association with her mom, sticking around and listening music all the day long. Looking at both the story and the motion picture some minor contrasts has been found in the earliest reference point. In the film three teens were chilling in the shoreline however we find in the story that is has been begun with the essential portrayal of Connie.
In the story Connie's mom doesn't think about her outside wreckage up story yet in the film we see that her mom realize that and she was extremely angry with Connie and even she slapped her they had a contention and warned her to stop daydreaming about the boys. —'I look into your eyes,' she says to Connie at one point, 'and all I see are a bunch of trashy daydreams.' Her sister was attempting to quiet her and revealed to her they are very worried about her . “ Just be careful, what we both are trying to say|” The consummation in the story enables viewers to envision unreservedly about the outcomes of Connie however in the film we find that Connie returned home with loaded with acknowledge and lament and began a typical existence with her family .
In the film we saw that a men named Arnold Friend consistently pursued her in the cheeseburger joint for couple of days and gave an explanation that 'I am watching you, Baby'! be that as it may, in the story it was the parking garage on a particular day, and the men was not following Connie before. So comparing these two we found that the story simply give us the indication that Arnold Friend might be a prime part of the story yet in the film it appeared as though regular story line of following a young lady and keep eyes on her. In the story when she saw Arnold Friend just because it felt like he was wearing a wig and concealing something inside his wig which isn't like the film at any rate. In any case, in both of the adaptation Connie was pulled in to this men Arnold Friend. in the film there means that Connie and Arnold Friend may had a sexual experience or Connie had been assaulted, on the grounds that at the consummation we see that Connie was with the men in some other spot, until they returned Ellie was holding up outside of the house. These situation discloses to us that A. Friend's intention was getting Connie, only a common story line, then again in the story there is no sign of sexual connection of them, so toward the end we see that when Connie returned she changed into another individual who was decent to her mom and sister and having an immense measure of self-acknowledgment which give us a decision that A Friend was an attacker or explicitly disappointed jolt. Furthermore, it likewise plot the storyline along these lines that all the film is about how a psychopath men executed the guiltlessness of a little teenager and changed her life. In any case, on the off chance that we see that in the film A Friend was less terrifying and insane person, he was displayed in a far fetched way yet less alarming than the content, In the content he was depicted as e fiend with different potential outcomes and made the entire story line as an awfulness story.
In both of the adaptation there is a numerous sign that the Arnold Friend can be a devil and he went to Connie's life as a passing . . “ My sign and he drew a X in the air ,leaning out toward her” it tends to be the clue that Arnold Friend can be a fallen angel, in light of the fact that X is indication of death and a well as villain, and attempting to state it is the finish of Connie . ' But don't you like her, I mean you got something against her? some resentment or something?' Again when he spoke about the dead neighbor that Connie did not like that women and she had some thing against her that thing surprised Connie very must, also when A Friend told him about what her family is doing in the party. he was trying to prove that he is a omniscient and that was scary for Connie . All of these possibilities of A Friend being a devil trigger the readers imaginations, also at the end when the movie give the typical ending but the text end with the lack of denouement in the story triggers readers imaginations that that is quite interesting and gives the full story line a credibility.
The director omitted some parts of the story line, may be because some situations can be imagine but it is impossible to visualize that, he also altered some scene for example Connie was in the kitchen for talking, she was inside the home all the time, she never went to the out side for talking but in the film it shows that Connie went outside then came back inside the house or A Friend did not came inside in the story as he was suppose to be a devil, devil cannot get inside the house but in the film A Friend came inside the house . The director also added some art extra, mainly in the ending part that the men took her but after sometimes she returned with another persona. overall the directors tried to give a simple natural ending which just mislead the story line. It effects the imagination field for the viewers just with the simple ending and all he climax and plots are gone in vain as the viewers expectation and reality doesn’t match . May be this changes are made for the demand of the movie plotting because when you visualize something the space of imagination is quite poor, so we can't not end any movie by not giving any kind of denouement that will create more dissatisfaction to the viewers .
I think if anyone did not read the story before will enjoy the movie, the consequences of the teenage girl but whoever knows the main story that will create a huge dissatisfaction because of the end , the ending part in the text the readers got the full climax and many types of possibilities which triggers the readers imagination and give the story an interesting end but the film just game the typical ending just like a normal traditional movie. I like the open ending text because it allows me to think myself with my imagination and give me the oddly satisfaction which I didn’t found in the movie .The reason the story version is more effective because it stayed with the main focus but in the movie version it lost its focus by ending with the typical realizationing, it also shut down the door of credibility and traditional ending is far away from the story lines, where the story has the open field with lots of explanations and open spaces for the readers and also a unknown end hold the sense of curiosity of the readers for a very long time, that is why I like the story version most. And in my opinion the text is more relatable than the film.
The text version justified the story line very well but the movie version was an adoption so there are some major differences which creates dissatisfaction. The movie come up with the specific end on the other hand the text keep the ending for the readers imagination . I think if the director give the ending with some climax it would be more satisfying for the people who read the story before . but overall the director tried to justified with the storyline so it just up to the viewers and the reader's perception whichever they prefer mostly.