1.

Book and Film

The One and Only Ivan by Katherine Applegate is a bestselling novel that follows the
journey of Ivan, a gorilla, as he works to save himself and his friends from their lives living in a
mall. This book was reinterpreted into a film in 2020 by Disney. The movie has the same
premise as the book, but the filmmakers reimagine components of Applegate’s story. The
filmmakers add events to the plot to create action and hope. They also remove the theme of
justice by reimagining Mack’s character and removing the mistreatment the animals received in
the original novel.
The filmmakers reimagine The One and Only Ivan through rose colored glasses. The
creators of the 2020 film choose to remove the cruelty toward animals that is demonstrated in the
book. Stella is an elderly elephant in the story. The vast difference between Stella's life and death
is an example of the filmmaker’s choice to remove the cruelty. In the book, Stella’s feet are
injured because ropes and chains were used to train her and resulted in permanent injuries. Her
foot has a recurring infection as a result. Mack, the owner of the mall where Ivan and his friends
live, had Stella continue performing despite being sick and did not want to pay for an emergency
vet which resulted in Stella’s death. Applegate (2012) describes the removal of Stella’s body in a
chapter titled “five men” the entire text of the chapter reads, “Bob heard from a rat, a reliable
sort, that they tossed Stella’s body into a garbage truck. It took five men and a forklift” (p. 115).
The book gives Stella a sad and painful life and death. The makers of the film reimagined
Stella’s life. In the movie there is no mention of any abuse to Stella. There is no indication that
she had any previous infections or injuries to her feet. Mack is kind and comforts her when she is
in pain. He calls for the vet to come aid her first thing after she begins showing signs of pain, but
she does not make it through the night. Stella’s death is indicated to viewers by her body fades
from a view through the skylight and rain while sad and angelic music plays. The choices that
the filmmakers make gives audiences a feeling that Stella has gone to a better place in the sky
with the moon that she loved. This is the complete opposite of the book. The book gave Stella a
long, painful, and unnecessary death.
In the Applegate’s story, Mack is a villain. Mack is the owner of the mall and
demonstrates that he is more concerned about making money than he is about the welfare of his
animals. The text version of Mack is aware that Stella’s feet are infected and need medical
attention. When Stella dies Mack becomes desperate to train Ruby. Readers learn about Mack
and Ruby’s training session while Ivan listens to the events and hears Mack’s yelling. When his
yelling becomes unsuccessful, he uses a claw-stick to hurt Ruby. This scene has some alterations
in the film. Viewers initially see the scene from Ivan’s point of view; the camera is where Ivan’s
eyes should be and Bob is licking his face with Ruby and Mack in the background. The camera
eventually zooms in to be a medium shot of Mack training his baby elephant. Mack speaks kind
and encouraging words to Ruby as they work. We see Mack’s desperation as he continues to train
Ruby once she is tired, but he is never unkind and he is always encouraging. The different
methods of Mack training Ruby in the book vs. the film shows the difference in Mack’s
character. In the book Mack cares that his animals make money. In the film Mack loves and cares
for his animals which makes it bittersweet when the animals leave the mall to live at the zoo.
The filmmakers alter many components of the book. Ivan only watches television twice
in the movie, but his television is a large part of his domain and inspires his rescue plan in the
book. The filmmakers add the characters of Frankie (the seal who does tricks with a ball),
Henrietta (the chicken who plays baseball), and Murphy (the rabbit who drives a fire truck) to
the story. Animal domains are larger and include more stimulation for the animals in the movie
than the book. The previous examples are relatively small, but they change the feeling of the film
when it is compared to the book. The filmmakers also reimagine larger components of the story.
To start, Ivan is characterized as an artist throughout the entire book. He loves to draw and
connects with Julia because they are both artists. Ivan makes drawings that he tells us sell for $20
($25 with a frame) in the giftshop repeatedly throughout the book. He uses the artistic skill that
he already processes to save Ruby in the book. This is not the case in the film. The filmmakers
have Ivan discover drawing during the movie and develop the skill to save Ruby. Additionally,
the creator of the film adds an unsuccessful escape attempt to the plot. In the movie Bob (the
stray dog) and Ivan work together to trap Castello (a keeper that is not present in the book) in
Ivan’s domain and use his keys to escape. All of the animals successfully exit the mall and make
it to what they thought were woods. The “woods” turn out to be a small patch of wooded area
that is surrounded by the city. Mack is able to find the animals and coax them back into their
domains. The changes that the filmmakers make to Applegate’s book exhibit their own artistry.
They use the escape to add excitement and hope to the story.

2. My Perspective
 There are many small changes between the book and film that I would have not noticed
before this course. The nuances of the film creation would not have been on the forefront of my
mind if I had been comparing the book and the movie. I would not have noticed the difference in
artistry between the disposal of Stella’s body and the significance that it had on each
interpretation. The camera angles, types of shots, colors, and music changed the elephant’s death.
I now know that filmmakers use cinematic techniques to influence viewers just like authors use
literary devices to influence their readers.
Previously I believed all movies based on children’s literature to be recreations. To me,
the goal of the movie is to bring the author’s story to life as-is, not to reimagine or recreate it. I
love movies like Holes based on the book by Louis Sachar and the Harry Potter series because
they are so faithful to the original books. Where the Wild Things Are stopped this idea in its
tracks. There are very few words in the book, yet it inspired a feature film. The filmmakers had
to reimagine the story if they wanted to present something other than an hour-long wild rumpus.
In this example, the book and the movie are two different stories. This showed me that movies
can be reimagined which is also true in The Wizard of Oz. The filmmakers cut half of the original
storyline and it resulted in a movie that has become much more popular than the original book.
I found watching multiple reinterpretations of books/movies to be informative.
Previously I would have assumed that the purpose of recreating a film that had already been
made was for profit. When taking a deep dive into the Harry Potter series, the marketing, and
merchandising, I thought about the role of the Fantastic Beasts series that takes place in the same
wizarding world. I still question if this movie series is an original or merchandise of the initial
series. This connects back to movie remakes such as Charlotte's Web that was initially released
in 1973 and then again in 2006. These movies tell the same story that is based off of the book,
but they do it in very different ways. I now realize that these are two pieces of art; they are
reimaginings of the book that inspired the films. The same concept applies to Willy Wonka and
the Chocolate Factory and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The book by Roald Dahl, the
1971 film, and the 1973 film are their own independent pieces of work. They tell the same story
in their own unique ways that show the artistry of the creators.
The impact of stereotypes and character relationships is something that I’ve learned
throughout this course. The Little Mermaid film by Disney contained many stereotypes about
women that may seem subtle, but influence young viewers. Both The Little Mermaid and the
Wizard of Oz films have had experts examine the family dynamics of the characters. Some
scholarship that we read this semester went as far as suggesting that the oedipus complex was at
play in the character’s relationships. I would have never thought to dive into these dynamics and
how they influence audiences. When analyzing The One and Only Ivan, Mack is a father figure
to Ivan in the book and the movie. He gets Ivan when he is a baby and treats him like a human
child. Ivan doesn’t move to the mall until he is too big to live in Mack’s house. In the movie
Mack’s fatherly bond remains intact as he cares for his animals. However, the fatherly bond is
broken in the book when Mack prioritizes money and the success of the mall over his animals.
Mack is also the stereotypical bad guy that deserves to lose his animals in the book. Mack does
not treat his animals well, so readers root for Ruby and Ivan to make it to the zoo. The
filmmakers crush the stereotype that people who are doing something that may not be the best
choice are bad people. Living in the mall is not what is best for Ivan and his friends, but Mack
doesn’t have ill intentions. This turns Mack into a much more complex character and breaks the
idea that only bad people do bad things.

3. Teaching the Book/Film

The One and Only Ivan is a book that could be taught to my students. If I were to teach
this book, I would first begin with the author’s writing style and its purpose. Katherine
Applegate chose to write her novel in a way that makes it feel like you are reading poetry. The
sentences and chapters are short and told from the perspective of Ivan. The author makes this
choice to help characterize Ivan. Ivan calls himself a simple guy and so the author writes in
simple sentences and short chapters. Ivan also says that he is not a storyteller and that he doesn’t
remember things. Stella is the storyteller. Applegate stays true to the narrator (Ivan) by telling the
story in a to-the-point way. Readers get whatever is on Ivan’s mind, how it would be on his
mind. Understanding the point of view of the book and the purpose would be important for
readers. Once students finished reading the text, we would determine the theme and the impact
of the animal cruelty. The major theme of the book is friendship and minor themes included
loyalty and bravery. The book contains cruelty to animals while the book does not. I would have
students determine their feelings while reading the book before viewing the movie so they can
explore how removing the cruelty changes their feelings as they watch the movie.
 While watching the film, I would have the students focus on how they are feeling
throughout the movie. As I viewed the movie I had a very different feeling than I did while
reading the book. I would want students to take note of what they were feeling in the movie that
they didn’t feel in the book. For example, in the film the animals escape from the mall and are
free. This not only adds action to the movie but also creates hope for the audiences. Students
may note that they feel happy or excited during this scene. The students may also feel sad when
Mack is saying goodbye to his animals. In the book Mack is unkind to the animals so their
transportation to the zoo is a happy event. However, it is much more complex in the movie. I
would have kids look at what the filmmakers altered that changed their feelings. I would have
the students take a deep dive into how the removal of cruelty impacted the feeling of the film and
why the creators chose to remove it.
Advocacy is demonstrated by Julia in both the book and the film. It is Julia who
convinces her dad to go to the media in the book and talks to the reporter in the film. She
communicates Ivan’s desire to leave the zoo. As a follow up activity to reading the book and
watching the film, I would have my students conduct research on the proper way to care for
animals. I would want them to learn what life is like for animals in different types of captivity
and what would be best for them. Students could then write an argument either for or against
captivity and become advocates for animals.

4. Teaching as Interpretation
Teaching is not subjective. Teachers are human and bring human biases into their
classrooms. We have different beliefs and experiences that shape who we are and how we
interpret the world around us. When I was a new teacher I felt pressure to teach like the
experienced teachers in my building who had their classrooms managed and functioning like
well-oiled machine. I felt so much anxiety about being like the other teachers and doing things
the “right” way until one of the mentor teachers gave me a piece of advice that really resonated
with me. They told me that I didn’t need to be anyone else, that I needed to be me. I needed to
use my strengths and who I am to create a classroom environment where students could learn.
This example pertains to classroom management, but it also applies to teaching content such as
literature and film. Teachers draw on all of their experiences, their beliefs, and their strengths to
interpret material and teach it to students. To be the best teacher you can be, you need to teach as
you.
Religion of the teacher changes how they read books and films. Number the Stars for
Lois Lowry is one of my favorite books. I remember reading it when I was in middle school. I
felt so connected to Annemarie because I come from a Jewish family. I connected with the
character and felt the story so deeply because that could have been my family. As the only
Jewish kid in class with my German last name, the book felt like it was mine. I have taught
Number the Stars as a teacher. I bring my experience from when I was in school and my life
experiences when teaching the book. I may interpret the book differently than someone who has
a different religion or who had a different reaction when they first read the book.
Previous experience impacts how teachers interpret teaching. When I was in elementary
school, I saw the newest version of Charlotte’s Web on the jumbotron at a baseball stadium. The
only thing that I remembered about the movie is that Wilbur was a girl. This made it a very bad
movie because I had pigs at home and I knew the pig that was playing Wilbur was a gilt
(female). The fact that Wilbur is a girl is still distracting to me because of my previous
experiences on the farm and participating on a pig trivia team. This is a silly example, but it
illustrates how teachers bring different perspectives based on their past experiences. Our
experiences impact our “art”. I use animal and farm analogies in my teaching all the time
because being a farm girl is part of who I am and adds a lens on how I view the world.
Teachers combine their knowledge of their students, their knowledge of content, and their
personalities to craft an interpretation of the curriculum that has to be taught. The way that I
would choose to teach a concept would be different from my team teacher and it would be
different from all the teachers down the hall. None of us are teaching the wrong way - we are
simply interpreting the job in our own ways. The analysis of all factors and creating a lesson is
the art of teaching.