Secondary Sources

There is always a different point of view in how we see things, we can say that the movie is a pornography, or a simply nonsense violence, but actually not, the author of the article mentions that this movie was not really what it look like, and that changes(if you thought the opposite) the wsy you interpretate the violence, as nonsense, in the book the aspect is political and has a reason to be, but it is complicated to move that idea inti a movie, whuch implicates images and sounds you could not make up in your mind.It is true that as the book speaks with a constant tabú, there is not many people who would want to see that on a movie, but it is a way to understand, i get people do not want to hear horrible stuff that happens around, and the movie producer got that, so he tried to minorize the impact whith his own expression of the book, then he turned it too much on the other side and endes creating in people the idea of a raping-violence story.

The author explains how the things turned to between story and story, and fuxes for us the idea of what ut is, so that we can understand the reason to be, there are some parts that he talks of the book interpretated on the movie, and when you analyze it, majes total sense. So I think this author changes the udea of people by giving it the true matter and plot.