MovieChat Forums > Forever Amber (1948) Discussion > How did the movie compare to the book?

How did the movie compare to the book?


Ive read the book but not seen the movie...

reply

The book is better--I've seen the movie and read the book. The book (by today's standards) isn't even remotely dirty but it was considered very racy back in 1947. All the dialogue and scenes about Amber having multiple lovers were cut out and the story was drastically reduced. For example--the whole chunk of the book about the great fire that almost destroyed London is completely gone. The ending is changed too.**SPOILERS**
In the film she is punished for her "sins"--her son is taken away to go to America without her. As I recall in the book she goes off to follow him.
The movie is worth seeing--the color and settings are beautiful and the acting isn't bad. Just don't expect a faithful adaptation of the book.

reply

I agree that the book is infinitely better - it was so large though, that to do it justice, the film would have been far far longer - impossible from studio considerations.

Also, in the book at the end, Amber is punished for her "sins" which is ironic given the Court's debauchery. Her former ally Buckingham arranges for a note to be delivered to her. The note tells her that Bruce Carlton's wife was taken ill on their voyage to America and died en route. He knew that she would go racing off to America to try to capture Lord Carlton yet again. After seeing her rushing to the boat, Buckingham is congratulated for ridding the Court of at least one "troublesome jade." He also conjectures on her reaction when she arrives in Virginia and finds Lady Carlton alive and well.

"...truth against the world..." - attributed to Boudicca of the Iceni

reply

The book was better as far as being factual, and full of detail. The section with Amber and Bruce shut up with plague was very haunting. However, the book all told was very depressing and had a great sense of misery and futility. The movie was less extensive, but rather more light-hearted, which was nice.

reply

I saw the movie long before I read the book.My mother had told me how the book was considered very racy in its day.Being a baby boomer,I couldnt see where,but
I enjoyed it never the less.The movie is well cast,but due to time limitations
I guess,it leaves out many important characters and episodes.I highly recommend the book.Amber is one of those literary characters that may not be completely
likeable,but she is altogether unforgettable.

reply

I was in the 6th grade at St Joseph's School (somewhere in Jersey) in 1947, and our teacher, one Sister St.John warned us that this movie was rated "C" by the Legion of "Decency" :) and it would constitute a mortal sin (you go to hell) if any kid dared to see it. When I got around to viewing the film, many years later, I wondered what the excitement was about, considering what the general (never mind Catholic) public was permitted to see in those years. The church denounced the film mostly because of the cheerful promiscuity and adultery (suggestion rather than scene) presented, and murder of an abusive husband (ladies were expected to live with it in those evil times).

While the film is good, the book is much better, and has such compelling verisimilitude, that it really constitutes pretty reliable history. Winsor is an insightful and gifted writer who really knows the era.

There exist, however, better glimpses of this era of Charles II (1660-1684) through film, especially Libertine, starring Johnny Depp and John Malkovich. I'd say it deserves a 9. Charles reign resumed the Stuart dynasty, interrupted by the execution of Charles I and the English Civil War and protectorate of Cromwell. This puritan decade lasted only 10 years, and was followed by one of extreme promiscuity at court and on the stage. Charles II was a fascinating figure, who purportedly "never said a foolish thing, or ever did a wise one." He was determined to have a good time and leave politics to Parliament. Another movie is called Restoration, and I would rate a 7.

Charles II reign was noted for the double tragedy of a devastating fire in London and an outbreak of the plague.

reply