I Read the Book...
and thought that it was pretty good. Do you think that I ought to watch the movie?
Jace aleas et move mures!!
La la la la la la la la la la.
Jace aleas et move mures!!
MovieChat Forums > The Collector (1965) Discussion > I Read the Book...
read the book too is the movie good
They say, that this movie and book has inspired and influenced a few serial killers. Sort of like the Catcher in the Rye, even though there was a brief mention of it in this book. Hmm. I have never read the book nor have I seen the movie. But I plan to do one or the other. Just wanna see what would make or influence a serial killer. (I am perfectly sane, nor do I wish to commit any crimes.) Its interesting to know that some media can make an individual(S) to do such crazy things. Watch if you dare... but in all honesty, I dont think this movie will make the next jeffrey dalmner or ted bundy or john wayne gacy. Oh and by the way in the october 2005 issue of MAXIM there is more a write up on the same topic.
sharefunny. i just read the maxim article.
guess i gotta hit up my netflix for this one!
yeah, i just read the article in the maxim issue, and I just think that the way these people who have read this book(i have not read or seen this film)makes them think of how this crime can be followed through. Not as extreme as say a trigger to commit the crime, but it makes it more like a possiblity that they mastermind it, and think of the ways of doing things of that nature. Like it jump starts the thinking of such a psychopath. A guide if you will.
share"Christopher Wilder, an American serial killer who abducted and murdered beauty queens and aspiring models in March and April of 1984, was apprehended by state troopers, who found in his possession a copy of The Collector. Apparently, his ultimate fantasy was to hold a girl captive and completely in his power just as Frederick Clegg does in The Collector, and therapists who had treated Wilder in the past affirmed that he loved the novel and had practically memorized it."
I find it amusing that a serial killer would actually be found with a book like that. It's just so silly, so laughably ironic and corny, and I can't imagine any serial killer being seriously affected by a book like that, or trying to emulate the actions of a fictional character, etc. That would be just as absurd as thinking the Columbine High shooters really did do it because of Marilyn Manson's sinister influence. Besides, Frederick Clegg is obviously not a psychopath or true sadist; real psychopaths would only identify with his loner lifestyle and fantasy of capturing a Miranda. And I know there's a stupid comment somewhere below crying, "There's no knowing how many serial killers this book has influenced!" Oh, please. Reading this book did not make them into psychopathic serial killers. A. M. Homes once said regarding the censure of her novel The End of Alice, "Pedophiles have their own fantasies. I don't need to give them any." Just extend that to all sadistic potential killers.
"I find it amusing that a serial killer would actually be found with a book like that. It's just so silly, so laughably ironic and corny, and I can't imagine any serial killer being seriously affected by a book like that, or trying to emulate the actions of a fictional character, etc."
trypanophobic, your naivete is showing. Two of the worst sadists/serial killers in history, Leonard Lake and Charles Ng were mesmerized by the Collector. As a matter of fact, the name "Miranda" was crudely spray painted on a piece of wood in the dungeon where many poor souls were held captive, horribly tortured and ultimately butchered. There are several other examples of these proven monsters being influenced by the concept used in the book & film, The Collector. A previous mention of the Maxim article holds other examples. Even the book's author, John Fowles, admitted that his own personal dark deviancy played an active part in the writings.
These seriously sick individuals feed on material that bolsters their own lifelong fantasies. The Collector was like "Sadism & Torture for Dummies" to these fruitcakes.
I'm not saying no one would be influenced by the book; I'm just saying it's rather stupid that they could be influenced like that. And I don't think people should refrain from writing such books just because it might give others ideas. Like A. M. Homes said about her book, The End of Alice, "I don't need to give perverts fantasies. They have their own." I.e., if you are not a twisted person, you won't be influenced by it. If you were already a sick person, then it might strike a deeply sympathetic chord in you and you might be influenced to show your appreciation for/connection with it by making references to it in your violent acts, etc.; but it didn't necessarily cause you to have or carry out your fantasies. You already had those fantasies, and the capacity to live them out. "Miranda" spray-painted on a piece of wood was a sign of their sympathy. The Collector did not inspire them to torture and mutilate people; that's not even what it's about.
shareI find this odd and defensive. What do you think about people who egg others on to do bad things? No problem because, well, if the others could be influenced, then that shows they were already bad? People are deeply inspired by art all the time. I have read books that have changed my course in life. And there are many, many people like me in that respect. Now it so happens that those turns weren't in the direction of serial killing. And obviously it wasn't the book which, all by itself, "caused" me to make the change. Nevertheless, and seriously, who knows precisely what would have happened had I not read those books, had they not been written? To think "well, things have would have turned out pretty much the same anyway" seems both arrogant (because you assume you know how everyone else's psychology works) and shallow (because you seem blind to the fact that art in all its forms can very deeply move people and inspire radical changes in their behavior, in all sorts of directions).
shareIt doesn't egg anyone on. At most its a "how to." Kerouac's "The Stranger" has allegedly inspired random killers. But such crimes were committed long before these books were written, and will be committed even if every copy of the books and movies are burned. And don't give me that, "If it saves one life..." crap. We can't live that way. "Huckleberry Finn" and "Tom Sawyer" have probably "inspired" unhappy kids to run away. Like it or not, violence and crime are legitimate subjects for books, TV, movies, etc. You seem to be the arrogant one with your omniscient attitude. No sane person can be made crazy by a book, and there are enough real crimes to inspire others without fictional ones. Maybe we should censure news stories too?
shareWhat do you think about people who egg others on to do bad things?
That is a flawed analogy because firstly, a book cannot pressure or coerce someone to do anything as no potential consequences would follow if the reader did not comply, whereas there are almost always dangers of not conforming to a person's pressures. Secondly, the book doesn't "egg on" immoral behaviour, it merely presents it in an honest light and also expresses the victim's feelings, something people who egg on bad behaviour wouldn't do. Of course a person can be influenced by a book, but since absolutely anything has the potential to influence people, the only works that should bear mention are those that clearly attempt to instigate negative behaviour, which The Collector doesn't do. People reading propagandist literature or works with hidden agendas may have good intentions that go astray, but a murderer inspired by a neutral text has made a conscious decision to commit an immoral act.
the book isn't even about sex or murder. in fact, neither takes place. people are *beep* dumb. read the *beep* book or see the movie before you start talking. seriously.
shareWell, I would disagree that a murder does not take place..letting someoene die who you kidnapp and than keep in a dark damp musty shell, is basically the same thing..
Evie Decker: Did you ever feel like it wouldn't matter if you lived or died?
@real_hill
I seriously doubt that, but an unbalanced person can be influenced by anything.
the movie is alright on it's own, but it doesn't hold a candle to the book. Nice acting on the part of terrence stamp.
It is better to be the "King Of The Children" than to be the "Prince Of The Fools"
The movie is not quite as good as the book. A lot of essential things are left out and you don't get as good an impression of the characters as you do in the book. So no, I don't think it's necessary to see the film if you've read the book!
shareIn the book you get a more complete understanding of the girl and just how monstrous the collector is. He lets her die, and seems relieved when she does die. Ferindand says that more people would do it, if they could afford to do it, and scarily, I think he is right. I wonder how many people have died because of this book and film? Crazy people always find any justification for their every hideous act.
shareI own the book and a DVD of the film, but each has its merits. Both Stamp and Eggar are excellent in their roles, and there are few other characters. The house (where the majority of the film takes place) looks just right, and I'm glad they didn't water the ending down.
The book has much more insight into the characters. The first part is from Freddie's point of view, and you get more of the sheer envy and hatred Freddie feels for the upper classes than you do from the film.The second part is written from Miranda's point of view, which contrasts nicely with what Freddie thinks she's thinking about him. The third part has Freddie grieving over the dead Miranda but soon justifying why she was never right for him (too posh) and he should have picked someone more of his own class who would appreciate him more. You have that in the film, too, where the last shot is of him stalking a young nurse.
The book is more philosophical than the film (after all, Fowles is an "art" writer), but the movie is still plenty watchable IMHO.
However, don't automatically assume you'll enjoy the book if you've seen the film, and vice versa. Each has its own merits.
I Actually thought the movie is much better than the book. The movie is modest, reliable, has great acting and is sad and realistic. The book is too long and has alot of irelevant parts about the girl's affair with the author and so on, that were (wisley) not incfluded in the movie.
All you Americans are idiots, this is one of the best films ever.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I'd totally second the opinion of pilpe16. I'm one of those movie buffs for more than 40 years and I've personally never seen any movie which is more exciting and subtle than this one when it comes to character study by employing only two actors. Think about it. Unfolding the story with only two main characters for two hours without giving us any boredom. I can not think of any director who could've done it except for wyler.
shareI know this subject is pretty dead and buried at this point, but I feel I should say something anyways.
"The Collector" will never be the cause of psychotic tendencies in an individual. The criminal's who so treasured the Collector were sympsthizers with thr protagonists, who found parallels between his story and their own twisted personalities. No book has the power to turn someone without violent and dangerous tendencies onto a maniac or a killer. Modern society would love to blame horrific acts on media like film, video games, and novels like "The Collector" because it's an easy answer. To escape from reality in this way implies it's own brand of craziness. Most, if not all, great art has disturbing elements, and to deny their power and beauty because of them is an act of philistinism and moral crassness. The Collector is an accurate and important portrait of the criminal mind, just like Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart", not a tool of corruption and evil.
Top 5: The Royal Tenenbaums, In The Mood For Love, Lawrence of Arabia, Brazil,
The Third Man
Last Seen: Stray Dog 10/10
bingham_bryant this was an excellent post. I rarely see such good posts on these boards so I felt compelled to let you know.
shareMark David Chatman (I believe that is his name) the man who murdered John Lennon, was carrying a copy of Catcher in the Rye when he killed him to those who are wondering why the book was mentioned before.
shareI've heard Catcher in the Rye cited before as a serial killer's fave read - Chapman was supposedly actually thumbing through a copy when arrested, However, I understood his "rationale" was to impress Jodie Foster, not to become some homicidal avatar of Holden Caulfield.
It just happens to be a very popular and widely-read book. I've read it myself, and I haven't killed anyone...
...yet. I'm obviously just a ticking time bomb...
Watch it! :)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Changing signature when Venom is announced for Spider-Man 4.
yeah.. and that was inspired by taxi driver, I don't know how you got that mixed up with the collector
shareI am reading the book, I started yesterday and I should be done with it by tomorrow that is if I have all day to finish it. I am so enjoying it, I would love for it to be remade, maybe have Zachary Quinto as Freddie Clegg. I would change the name though, oh well, I love it all anyways. Feels like when I read Phantom by Susan Kay.
share