BOOK VS. MOVIE


"Sister Carrie", the first novel of Theodore Dreiser, was a book far ahead of its time. Not only did it offer a sympathetic portrayal of a "fallen woman", but its main theme is that the American Dream of wealth and success was just an illusionary dream which failed to bring the happiness it promised. This, during the tail end of the Gilded Age!
In contrast, the William Wyler film boils down to nothing more than romantic soap-opera. The fault is not entirely Wyler's; he was hamstrung by the HUAC at the time, which objected to any movie that seemed "anti-American". But the entire meaning of the novel disappears in the screenplay.
Still, it could have been a great soap-opera if only a better actress than the simpering Jennifer Jones played Carrie--someone like Jean Simmons or the young Audrey Hepburn.
This is a film that could easily be remade today, incorporating the true gist of the original novel. I can see Harrison Ford as Hurstwood and, maybe, Natalie Portman as Carrie.
What do you think?

reply

Natalie Portman..perfect. Umm..how about Edward Norton for Druet and (here is a odd pick) kelsey Grammer for Hurstwood?

reply

Mmmm, Star Wars of the past meets Star Wars of the future (Portman, Ford)
I have to disagree, I think Jones is one of the best actresses, a better choice couldn't have been made.

reply

I hadn't seen or read about the movie until after I read the book. While reading, I thought Jean Simmons would have been good, especially if she could have toned down her accent to sound a bit American. She fits the physical description, especially the way Carrie's face is described near the end of the book.

As for present-day actors--Ford is too old. When he first appears in the novel, Hurstwood is supposed to be under forty. Kelsey Grammer would waddle around like Frasier.

reply

<< it could have been a great soap-opera if only a better actress than the simpering Jennifer Jones played Carrie--someone like Jean Simmons or the young Audrey Hepburn. >>

I'm not in love with everything Jennifer Jones does, but I think this is her best performance. She's great in this! The parallels to her own life, if you know about her marriage to David O. Selznick, may be what made her open up so much. (The first choice for the part was the 18-year-old Elizabeth Taylor...I'm not sure why she wasn't loaned out for it.)

reply

MGM kept "La Liz" on a very short leash back then.
Anyway, I can't envision anyone as beautiful as she was working in a crummy shoe factory.
She would have become a rich man's mistress as soon as she got off the Chicago train!

reply

Someone mentioned Liz Taylor as a first choice for the role of Carrie.I think she would have been a much better choice because she was so gorgeous. I could never understand why George hurstwood gave up his life for Jennifer jones who was beautiful but not breathtaking like Liz.

reply

It wasn't so much her looks that attracted Hurstwood to Carrie.
He was charmed by her simple naivitie and innocence--something rare among the jaded citizens of Chicago.

reply

Don't laugh, but back in the mid-1960s, I envisioned Richard Burton as Hurstwood and Mia Farrow as Carrie.

reply

Burton? Fine if he could have eliminated his Welsh accent.
Farrow?? PUH-LEEZE!

Another poster suggested Elizabeth Taylor as Carrie.
Does anyone think the sparks would have flown between her and Burton as they did in CLEOPATRA?

reply

Mia Farrow! Pardon me while I barf.

reply

[deleted]

OK, wise guy; who would YOU suggest play Carrie in a remake?

reply