In what specific ways does the film of Persuasion we saw differ from the novel, and how do those changes affect your response to the story and the characters?
Yes, I admit, I worked long and hard on that prompt!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I thought the movie followed the book rather closely, much more closely than most book to movie adaptations I’ve seen. I must confess, I’m one of those snobby, pretentious types who, upon hearing someone mention the latest theatrical release, feel the overwhelming need to ask, “Have you read the book?” And, if that poor person whose conversation I’ve high jacked dares to say “No,” they get a stern head shaking from me and the lecture, “Well, you really should. The book is soooo much better.” Then I proceed to tell them why it’s better and how much they suck for neglecting to first read the book. That said, I think I liked the movie better. That said, I really could have done without either one. The main reason I liked the movie better is because it’s shorter; and it didn’t seem as tedious wading through all the cumbersome social morays. Don’t get mad, Dr. Battles, I’m not saying that the story is without its merit (let’s see something I’ve written still be discussed 200 years after my death) or that Austen isn’t an important writer, or that I consider the time I spent reading the novel time wasted – it’s just that I’ll never pick up another Austen book as long as I live.
Okay! Now, as far as differences, I noticed Mary was completely repulsive in personality. She, thoroughly and completely, sucked. In the book she seemed to at least have some redeeming qualities, I found my self much more found of the book version of Mary than the live action version. There was some displacement of order, such as with the conversation in which Anne reveals her true feelings (her and the captain talked at Lyme during dinner instead of in Bath near Wentworth). Also, some things were added, such as the scene where Anne falls off the long and Wentworth and Charles help her up, the end where Anne must run all over Bath to find Wentworth. I also thought Anne was changed a bit, she seemed a little too mousey and shy, as if she might collapsed in a emotional pile at any minute. The Anne in the novel seemed more reserved, more composed, more… perfect. There are other differences and similarities that I noticed, but I’ll try to leave some for my fellow bloggers to talk about.
Of course, the book will always for the most part be better than a screen adaptation of it. The book was more detailed, the characters more developed, which allowed the reader to bond emotionally with all or certain individuals. And, of course, the letter at the end of the book was just heartwarming and romantic—not the case in the movie.
The movie version of Persuasion, however, was a bit slow-paced, the characters weren’t developed well, and worse, as one of the key characters, Captain Wentworth was icy and void of emotion. Captain Wentworth was handsome and fits the image of the romantic, heroic flaxen-haired hunk that I have seen on many of the covers of romance novels.
The actress, who played Anne, Sally Hawkins, did in my opinion fit the description of the book. A few characters from the movie did fit the image of characters from the novel: Anne’s sister, Mary, and Mr. Elliot, for sure. Lady Russell seemed too weak of a character to have influence of someone’s love life and the decisions that were made concerning Anne’s love life. And there were no scenes leading up to the romance between Louisa and Captain Wentworth; everything just seemed to happen without warning.
But what was most shocking was the last scene of Anne running through the streets looking for her man….OMG!!! That was a disgrace! Not only did I feel shame as a woman watching her high-tail-it through the streets, but she seemed naked and exposed. I thought women of that era wore hats and shawls and just were basically covered from head-to-toe?!
The kissing in the streets was also inappropriate. Also, I just didn’t feel the love from Captain Wentworth--I saw no spark of love in his eyes—not only for Anne—but for no one in particular.
Overall, I believe the movie to be somewhat interesting but it lacked …uh…passion! When I watch a romantic movie, I want to feel as if I am in the scene and being romanced. I did not feel the love!
In response to Chuck...
I agree with much of your assessement, but I did think the movie was a bit short, where you liked that it was only 90 minutes long. I believe they powers involved could have took more time to delve into the characters lifes, so that we might bond with them. I didn't really feel any particular care for any of the characters in the movie.
And, yes, Mary did portray a more childish, clownish character in the movie, but at least she provided a laugh or two. Everyone had more endearing qualities in the book, or at least their actions were explained, which allowed for a more sympathetic feeling on the readers part.
I also understand what you are saying about never wanting to reading another Austen book. The English people have somewhat of a odd sense of humor, so it helps if you understand their way of thinking. Only Benny Hill's humor is laughable and clearly understood by us Americans. lol
The movie was not as detailed as the book but then isn't that always the case? I am more a visual person, so I liked the movie better, because I could understand the characters better and be able to put the face with the 'voice'. When it came to Anne and Capt. Wentworth, it was easier to capture the feelings between them in the movie more than the book, since we can see the "looks" each gave the other and the mannerisms each showed. Mary was so pretenious and plastic in the movie, whereas in the book, we could only imagine. I like Jane Austin and her writtings and will read more of her writings in the future.
I don't think I really noticed any specific examples of how the book and movie of "Persuasion" differed. The only major difference that I saw was that the movie, as is typical of most movies that come from books, skipped a lot of parts and left out many details. It felt like the movie had just started and we were just getting some background information, when all of a sudden, it was over and Anne and Captain Wentworth had fallen back in love. Overall, I liked the movie better. It was easier to understand and I didn't have to fight through Jane Austen's somewhat confusing description language to get to the meaning of the story. It also helped for me to hear how something was said rather than read what was said. The reflection in the actors' voices gave more meaning to the story.
Rarely does a movie do a book justice, mostly because it’s rather difficult to put several hundred pages of text into a sequence. I thought the movie did an adequate job in portraying the novel, but at some points I think Jane Austen shook in her grave. Like Dr. Battles pointed out, Musgrove would have certainly not neglected Anne when she fell on their walk. I also think such characters as Admiral and Mrs. Croft lacked the personality that they had in the book. Again, I realize it’s difficult to match piece by piece even with minor characters like themselves. But also on the characterization topic, I found that Anne’s heroism was overshadowed in the film with Sally Hawkin’s reserved portrayal. I felt as if she was hiding behind a veil for most of the depiction. After all is said and done, I wasn’t entirely disappointed in the movie. However, I did not get to see the end, so maybe I can respond to someone’s reaction to the finale in my subsequent post.
I am usually one to favor the book over the movie, but in this case I like the movie better. It is mostly because I struggled with the language in the book because it's so much more "advanced" than ours today, and people just had a different way of talking back then. It also didn't help much that I had to speed read because I have so much reading to do with all of my classes. I got some things mixed up in the book, but the movie helped to clarify the order of events. I also liked the movie because it helped me to see how people actually behaved and I just like to hear them talk. I'm sure the movie still left out a lot of information, but not many movies can accurately follow everything in a book. If I ever decided to read the book again, I would be able to put a face to the characters as well as a voice, and I would be able to point out whatever the movie missed.
In response to Martin,
I agree with your response. I liked it from the first line, because it is exactly how I would justify the Harry Potter movies...
"Rarely does a movie do a book justice, mostly because it’s rather difficult to put several hundred pages of text into a sequence."
But then again, I am a huge Harry Potter fan, so I would use just about any excuse to defend the movies...But the books are still way better, of course.
Martin,
At the end of the movie, Wentworth has a letter delivered to Anne , letting her know his true feelings, she goes running from place to place looking for him and the end is when she finally finds him and "they live happily ever after." It was quite degrading for a woman to be running after a guy, from a female perspective. If he didn't have the nerve to tell her how he rtruly felt, then adios!!!
In response to sailorgirl,
I also felt like everything just seemed to happen without warning. It was as if the movie just showed a sequence of events without any real explanation. I think that if I had not read the book first and had just seen the movie, I wouldn't really have a clue of what was going on. It just all happened so quickly.
Once again, I agree with the idea that Captain Wentworth "was handsome and fits the image of the romantic, heroic flaxen-haired hunk that I have seen on many of the covers of romance novels." I believe that he was the best matched character from the book to the movie.
In response to the ladies who found Anne’s running after Wentworth shameful and disgraceful: I’m lose; what was so degrading about it? And I’m not trying to be chauvinist at all; I think she was expressing a sort of liberation from not being able to ever get what she truly wanted. Don’t some of us get really excited and do some quirky things and almost act childish sometimes? I guess I’m just confused as to why you thought it was so wrong. She and Wentworth were to be finally together. Isn’t that what we were hoping for? Unless you found her cousin more attractive…Then we’d have problems.
Unfortunately, I did not get the chance to view Persuasion. I have heard many say that the book is better than the movie version. Personally, I like movies better; I am able to identify more when visually stimulated. It also takes out the guess work from imaging what it must have been like during the setting of a particular book. Though, there may come a time when the book is simply better. Sometimes the superfluous schemes used by Hollywood, or any director for that matter, overbear the book and it loses its content. Based on the responses hear, the movie on Persuasion contained some of that superfluousness I am speaking about.
In response to Shelley,
I completely agree that movies don’t give as much detail such as their counterpart—the book. The movie is great at giving you a better understanding of relations between characters due to visibility. Mannerisms are very important and something that books can’t portray all to well. Good novels though, are able to give you somewhat of a visual, but not a great one.
I am not sure if I want to read another Jane Austen novel. In my history class, we’re watching Pride and Prejudice, which is good enough for now.
In response to Claudia…
Hold up there, I don’t know if I’d call their language “so much more "advanced" than ours today,” I would call it superfluous (isn’t superfluous a superfluous word?) and silly. Phrases along the lines of, “I would much quite rather…” and “She did not dislike him…” when one could simply say, “I’d rather,” or “She likes him” make me roll my eyes at the unnecessary grandeur of their speech. It’s like they didn’t have anything better to do than to sit around all day and try to add as many words as possible into a sentence. Advanced? I’m not too sure I agree. I believe our modern manner of speech is much more efficient, but as far as pageantry in prose goes, those fellows have us beat (sorry, I couldn’t keep up the rhyming scheme, that would have been way cooler).
In response to Chuck:
Amusingly, I'll admit I always avoided reading the book and seeing a movie because I didn't like the differences between the two, irregardless of which depicted the better story. Generally I prefer to watch the movie, though lately I've been a little intrigued to read the books behind some relatively-recent films after noting the books in Barnes and Nobles. Hmmmm . . . a thought for the summer perhaps.
Creating a real live person out of a paper character is hard -- we all know that. To me a book can only have so much personality -- so much of who a person is is deducted by observation of mannerisms, the sound of their speech (tone), their facial expressions, etc. I wonder if a character can ever be created just like the on in a book? A book character is who the reader interprets him/her to be; this will not be the same person to everybody. Just some thoughts.
P.S. -- I'm with you on not being terribly fond of Austen.
Post a Comment