The Holes: Comparison of The Book and The Movie

When thinking about the movie Holes and the book there seem to be many similarities and differences. The Holes movie by Andrew Davis and the book by Louis Sachar are based on a boy named “Stanley” that steals a pair of shoes and ends up at a juvenile detention center in a desert. This place requires the boys to dig one whole each day using their shovel as a measurement device. They must also be careful of dangerous creatures like the yellow spotted lizards while digging their holes. The Holes movie by Andrew Davis and the Holes book by Louis Sachar are a little bit different but the movie goes more in depth into the characters backgrounds and the overall story. 

To begin, the major differences I noticed after reading the book and watching the movie was that Stanley in the book was made out to be an overweight School kid that was bullied. In the movie Stanley was a skinny kid and the movie didn’t mention anything about him being bullied. This makes the book and movie a bit different because in the book it seems that Stanley might not be able to stick up for himself at the camp and might not be capable of completing his daily tasks. This totally changes how Stanley is perceived. Another difference I noticed was that Sam the onion man in the book was killed by Trout Walker when he was with Katherine. In this part both Katherine and Sam were on his boat when Trout came and killed Sam. In the movie, Katherine hears the steam boat Trout own heading towards Sam. Katherine is watching from her schoolhouse where she teaches and sees Trout pull up to Sam’s boat and kill him. This could change the way Katherine feels and her anger towards Trout. Trout is jealous of her and Sams relationship and the fact that she likes a poor black onion farmer rather than him being a rich white man. In the movie when Stanley and Zero are taken by the lawyer to leave Camp Green Lake, it starts to rain while they are standing outside. They have broken the curse of Stanleys Great Great Great Grandfather and the dry desert gets a rainfall after many years. This happens because they found the chest full go treasure that “Kissin Kate Barlow” had left behind. In the book, the rain starts while they are in the car and about to drive off.

 Furthermore, some similarities I found were in both versions of the story the boys had to dig holes using their shovels as a guide. Using the shovel they would make their holes as deep as the shovel was tall and also as wide as it was tall. Camp Green Lake in both versions was a scam that the owners of the property had come up with to find the treasure of Kate Barlow. They would use the boys as slaves to do the digging each day so eventually the warden hoped one of the boys would come across the treasure or clue. Stanley also found lipstick that was stamped “KB” for Kate Barlow. This occurred in both version and Stanley was required to turn it in as a clue. In return Stanley didn’t have to finish his whole that day and got extra shower time. In both versions of the story, one early morning Stanley and Zero find a chest that is stamped with “Stanley Yelnats”. Stanley does not give up the treasure to the warden because it has his name on it. The lawyer assists by claiming that the chest rightfully belongs to Stanley. 

In addition, a difference toward the end of the story that is important is when Trout Walker finds Kate. In the book Kate is found in cabin on the dried up Green Lake. Trout threatens her with a gun and demands she tell him where she had buried the treasure. In the movie, Trout finds Kate leaning up against Sam’s boat that had been laying in the desert. Also in the book Trout is called that because his feet smell very bad like fish. In the movie it doesn’t explain why he is named Trout or how he got the name. The book says that his real name is Charles. 

To conclude, the book and movie do a great job of telling the story of Stanlet Yelnats. It seems that the movie producers purposely left out certain details when adapting the book into a film for the big screen. Some script parts of the book and movie coincide directly in the story. The movie has some parts that go into detail better than the book by going in depth and offering visuals to assist with the story itself. 

Works Cited:

1. Braithwaite, J. (1990). Reintegrative shaming and restitution. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research, (Vol. 12, pp. 1-41). University of Chicago Press.
2. Enright, R. D. (2015). Forgiveness is a choice: A step-by-step process for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association.
3. Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Zell, A. L., Kraft, A. J., & Witvliet, C. V. (2008). Not so innocent: Does seeing one's own capability for wrongdoing predict forgiveness?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 94(3), 495–515.
4. Gandhi, M. (1958). The essence of Hinduism. Asia Publishing House.
5. Hofmann, W., & Gómez, R. (2014). Yes, forgiveness requires time: A longitudinal study. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(5), 548–555.
6. McCullough, M. E., Root, L. M., & Cohen, A. D. (2006). Writing about the benefits of an interpersonal transgression facilitates forgiveness. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 74(5), 887–897.
7. Paleari, F. G., Regalia, C., & Fincham, F. D. (2005). Marital quality, forgiveness, and jealousy: A cross-cultural comparison between Italy and the United States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67(4), 956–965.
8. Pollard, E. L., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). The effects of forgiveness and focus on revenge on emotional and physiological responses to an interpersonal insult. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(6), 1203–1208.
9. Strelan, P., & Covic, T. (2006). A review of forgiveness process models and a coping framework to guide future research. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 25(10), 1059–1085.
10. Worthington Jr, E. L., Sandage, S. J., & Berry, J. W. (2000). Group interventions to promote forgiveness: What researchers and clinicians ought to know. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 58–69.