When you care about someone, sacrifices are inevitable. Sacrifice kills the imperative compulsion of dreams. Sacrifice kills the vital necessity of the meaning of time and viscously slaughters the meaning of justice and faith. Yet, what if sacrifice killed people? The notorious and impractical story, The Lottery, written by Shirley Jackson, proposes the narrative of a town that collectively holds one tradition; something irrational and destructive to the nature of humanity, The Lottery. In Shirley Jackson’s short story, “The Lottery,” a sacrifice of one’s life becomes the “jackpot” of an annual event held in a small town. This society’s traditions have caused the people to do away with their rational thoughts and the values of their lives, as they have become so stuck in their own cultural beliefs. In 1996, nearly 20 years after the release of the short story, director and producer, Daniel Sackheim, brought Jackson’s words to life, creating a movie that adapted the gloomy and thrilling theme of The Lottery. Nonetheless, both fictional pieces, the movie adaptation, and the original story, consist of many similarities and differences throughout reading and watching the story and movie.
It’s July 27th. Mid-summer. A heat wave hits the east coast and the temperatures in a small town, are determined to reach a new high. Seldomly, a light flush of wind carries through the town square. The grass, lush and oblivious to what’s to come soon that afternoon, settle with the wind and sways back and forth. A close-knit town situated inside the sheltered inlets of New England’s territory, New Hope, begins to prepare for “The Lottery.” Such a concrete setting for a story is difficult to adapt to film, let alone, visualize and bring the writer’s word to life. Yet, for both the short-story, written by Shirley Jackson and the movie, directed by Daniel Sackheim, display a very similar mood within their own narratives. In both stories, the pleasant, tranquil setting gives the reader a sense of comfort, which ultimately deceives the reader/watcher Shirley Jackson’s juxtaposition involving the violent, senseless ritual that is about the take place. Soon after the Lottery commences, the ark of emotion throughout both the movie and the short story, immensely change. At the beginning of the story, the movie and short story similarly entice the reader in feeling welcomed and lively into the small, secluded town of New Hope. Shirley Jackson details the town as a “clear and sunny sky, with the fresh warmth of a full-summer day; the flowers were blossoming profusely, and the grass was richly green” and describes the town square precisely detailing, “the children assembled first, of course. School was recently over for the summer, and the feeling of liberty sat uneasily on most of them; they tended to gather together quietly for a while before they broke into boisterous play.” Jackson sets the scene for the reader letting them perceive New Hope as a town as normal as any other town. A town in which encompasses the purity and cheerfulness mood of the summer weather to come, and the lively children at play. Yet, despite the joyous aroma surrounding the town on this particular summer day, what’s to come, is merely normal. It’s July 25th. Midsummer. A blast of humidity hits the city, and the temperatures are determined to reach a new high. Seldomly, a light flush of wind carries through the narrow sidewalks that align the endless brick buildings. The city sidewalks, slaughtered and torn apart by the millions of people that walk across it every day, burn the soles of the pedestrians that cross the pavement. A big city situated inside the metropolitan outlets of the northeastern territory, New York City, obliviously prepares for the death of Albert Smith, the father of twenty-five-year-old city boy, Jason Smith. The mood in the movie, directed by Daniel Sackheim, lacks from the very beginning, the boisterous feeling Jackson manifests, in her story, that surrounded New Hope. Shirley Jackson describes the, later to be found a facade put on by the town-goers, a picturesque, innocent town. However, in the film, it begins with a dreary and dreadful development. The main character, Jason Smith, has come to the conclusion his father has reached his last minutes of life. The producers of the movie set the stage with a late 1900’s dingy hospital room. The air musty, the dimmed bedroom lights on its last legs, and the stereotypical hospital bed, snug in the corner under the popcorn painted ceiling, squeaking at every sudden moment of movement it can get. The confined space circulates the little air that remains left in the room and the last thing Jason Smith’s father, Albert, will see, is his tearful son, clinging on to him at his final moments of life.
Human instincts. We all have them. Our genetically hardwired behaviors enhance our ability to cope with vital environmental contingencies. Denial, revenge, tribal loyalty, greed and our urge to procreate, threatens our very existence when human instincts are in the act. However, despite the constant drive these ‘human instincts’ do to pry into our lives, something called “life” still awaits you no matter what “instinct” could come about. Nonetheless, in real life, us humans, have the ability to stop these “ environmental contingencies.” Our feelings accumulate and come to terms with the idea; action has to take place. Our human instincts subconsciously make us do things… only because of this “feeling” we have in the pit of our stomachs. However, in stories? Readers can’t change the outcome that is yet to come. Readers can’t change something or someone in the hope of salvaging something that inevitable to happen. This is fiction. It is not genuine for a reason. No one can change it. Yet, that “feeling” the reader holds in the pit of their stomach, telling them that something is going to happen, attesting only to the clues and that little “feeling” the writer has provided them with, pound against their common sense, is called foreshadowing. In the preeminent short story, The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson, and the distinguished movie adaptation, directed by Daniel Sackheim, both consist of many examples of foreshadowing. In the story and film, both the middle (plot) and ending of each production, Jackson and Sackheim build a strong suspense component in “The Lottery,” by relentlessly withholding explanations and not revealing the true nature of the lottery until the first stone hits the unlucky victim. The reader and watcher can interrupt a lot about the lottery, including the elements of the tradition that have survived or been lost. They witness how vital the lottery is to the villagers, specifically Old Man Warner. Both Jackson and Sackheim drag the participant of the story through the entire ritual, including the tense scenes of the notorious, “hearing of your name” and “watching of the men approaching the box to select their papers.” All such events accumulate into the ever-growing tension between the reader/watcher and the narrator. However, Jackson and Sackheim never tell us what the lottery is about, or mention any prize or purpose. They begin to reveal that something is awry when the lottery commences and the crowd grows nervous. The reader/watcher can feel the air intensify and the silence that hypnotizes the crowd, yet both Jackson and Sackheim use the intensity of the feeling when, for example, Tessie hysterically protests Bill’s “winning” selection as a climax, in the short story. Both story-tellers give the reader/watcher a slight clue when the narrator says that the villagers “still remembered to use stones.” Yet, not until the moment when a rock hits the victim do Jackson and Sackheim show their cards completely. By withholding information until the last possible second, both the writer and the director of the movie, build the storyline’s thrilling suspense, ultimately creating a shocking and powerful conclusion. Nonetheless, like any original story compared to a movie adaptation, the amount of differences from similarities is considerable as well. In the very beginning of the short story, Jackson writes mainly about the mood and the appearance of the town, therefore so the reader can better imagine the shocking element of what’s to come. However, at the beginning of the movie, the director, Daniel Sackheim, showcases the detail of foreshadowing more evidently, than Jackson does. In the film when Jason arrives in the town, right away, the viewer can insinuate something is off. The body language and behavioral aspects of every character are bizarre. Sacheim incorporates how each character consists of a quiet nature, yet once a new-comer is apparent, becomes very inquisitive. More and more questions arise for Jason as he stays longer and longer in the town of New Hope, foreshadowing to the viewer, something is not right. The viewer can comprehend, simply only using common sense, that when someone keeps asking more and more questions and becoming more and more invasive in your life, someone/something is hiding something. Moreover, in the story, Jackson remains neutral throughout the narrative. She gives a slight peak for the reader when the boys begin to practice throwing stones in the early morning before the Lottery, yet this is only of the few examples that are provided for the reader to predict what’s to come next. At the beginning of the Lottery, both the story and the film consist of many contradictions to each other. However, as the pathways of each narrative intertwined, the reader/watcher witnesses a vast amount of more similarities, than differences within each piece.
We all have regrets. We all say things we wish we could take back. We all do things we wish we never did. Yet, all this wishing may have just overwhelmed the people of a small, cozy town, no one knew, and no one cared to know, in the inlets of New England, so much, that they had enough. They had enough of the morally wrong people. They had enough of the crime that society endures every day. They had enough of the cruelty our world encompasses and projects each day. So, they did something about. However, it wasn’t a solution; it was a death sentence. A death sentence in which consisted of one day where one innocent soul was taken from this earth so that every other living soul could take out their anger on them. Just one day, yet it changed everything. This is the Lottery. However, the beauty of both the Lottery story, written by Shirley Jackson and the Lottery movie, directed by David Sackheim, is each narrative contained a different beginning and ending. Like any well-produced adaptation, both tales contained many of the same elements, as well. How we feel and why we feel that way, when doing something, dictates the outcome of all situations. For anyone. Furthermore, when any reader/watcher observed both the written piece and the movie adaptation, a mood rapidly erupted and could be felt, in both the comparisons and contradictions of the versions. Likewise, each piece dwelled in the substantial elements of foreshadowing. Although the story and the movie comprised of their many correlations, the distinction between each plot was also very conspicuous. Our world is not perfect. No one in this vibrant, alluring, and the incredible thing we call life, is indeed, perfect. Not everyone is a good person, and not everyone is going to do the right thing. Lines get crossed, and people never forgive. People are cruel, and people lie. People judge for no reason, and people hate for no reason. Yet, does that give anyone the right to kill?