MovieChat Forums > Damage (1993) Discussion > Differences between the film and the nov...

Differences between the film and the novel (contains spoilers)

posted 16 years ago by septimus77
4 replies | jump to latest

Okay, of course I know that a film is a different art form. But I was wondering if some of you had ideas about reasons for major changes from the book. Some changes are purely practical (like the fact that in the book, we get to know Anna's mother, step-father, and father-- too many characters for the movie-- so all of their functions are boiled down to just the mother. In the book, it is the step-father who "sees" Stephen's attachment to Anna.)

If you've read the book, you may have some ideas for reasons for changes, but even if you haven't read the book, maybe you have ideas based on what I can describe here.

Here are a few things I'd like to ask for ideas about from those of you who like the movie:

(1) The most obvious change is that Sally in the book is an adult (only slightly younger than Martyn) and her boyfriend, Jonathan, is liked and accepted by both Stephen and Ingrid. Sally, too, is a journalist (like Martyn). Why make her a child?

(2) At Martyn's funeral, Stephen has a vision of Anna in white, throwing red roses into M's grave. He finds out later, from Peter, that Anna went to her brother's grave (for the first time ever), wore white, and took red roses. Peter says that Martyn's death "healed" Anna of her brother's death, and that's the reason that Stephen won't ever see Anna again. Why do they leave this out?

(3) The ending is somewhat different in several ways, though the basic plot is the same. Stephen goes to live somewhere else. It doesn't say where, though it says that he furnished his apartment all in white. It says that he put up TWO enlarged photos in a hallway, facing one another, where he could sit between them and gaze at them-- each is about five feet high. One is Martyn, the other is Anna. What is changed by having ONE photo of the THREE of them?

(4) He says he saw her only one time afterward, in an airport with a child and Peter (like in the film), except that in the book he notices that she is also pregnant. Then, Anna in the book silently approaches him and takes off his sunglasses and stares into his eyes as if (he says) to find the part of herself that was still within him and to retrieve it. They do not speak. When she turns away, he feels as if he is destroyed. He says that he begins to die at that point, no matter how long the "shell" (his body) will live after that moment. The final lines of the book say:

For those of you who doubt it-- this is a love story.
It is over.
Others may be luckier.
I wish them well.

This is very different from the film's ending, where we see him sitting and gazing at the three of them in the photo, isn't it?

[–] JDuke-6 16 years ago

It's been a good while since I've seen this film. And no, I haven't read the novel. (Is it also called "Damage"?)

However, several ideas occurred to me, reading your post. In fact, they may all come back, ultimately, to the possibility that good novels are far too complex to translate directly into film: almost every one of them (novels) require paring away to their skeletons--and then some--in order to fit into a feature film format. Why is Gone With the Wind so awfully long? Why do even Jane Austen novels (not to diss Ms. Austen) require multi-part series by PBS? And in each of those instances, there are still TONS of cogent information/scenes that get weeded out. . .

So, I'm thinking that much of the 'paring' involved in "Damage" harkens back to the title as a way of focusing-down for a film. (It also, incidentally, fits with the mainstream-film tendency to plunk down on the side of morality: even if goodness isn't ALWAYS rewarded, at least bad deeds are punished.)

Here are the possible explanations that spring to mind:

1) Sally being a child: This reinforces the vulnerable blameless aspect of Miranda Richardson's character (she's mother of an impressionable child, for godssake!)--and the blindly obsessive nature of Irons's character: "Look what/who he's hurting (damaging)." It stacks the deck, if you will.

2) Again, if Anna is 'healed', it softens the overall, moralistic theme of "damage"--i.e., "No good comes from this sort of behavior". Any collateral good result just muddies the waters. . .The healing business would also suggest that Stephen is capable of exercising some sort of judgment, deciding not to see her, whereas the film seems to suggest he is still ensnared.

3) Photos: The ONE photo (of Anna) simplifies things. Again, it narrows the focus down to an obsessive love story, as the novel's closing lines might support. Son dead? Wife lost? "What was I THINKING?" But--he's still looking at her, isn't he?

4) See #3. Also. . .his loss hardly needs be made explicit. Clearly, the man's lost a tremendous amount, his whole life really. But, again--he's still focused on Anna. What is that, if not obsession?

[–] Bklyn4ever 16 years ago

That's so fascinating, septimus. Are you writing something about this?

What occurs to me, not having read the book however, is that the novel makes Anna more of a "vampire."

There is an obvious linguistic connection between vamp (femme fatale) and vampire, and the novel seems to make that more explicit.

The red roses in the cemetery, Anna's need for "fresh blood" in order to heal her emotional wounds.

Then sucking the life out of Stephen (the little bit of life he had left) with her eyes during a chance encounter. The gaze is empowered as a force that acts upon what is being viewed. No need for fangs.

So the film plays it safe where she is concerned; she is more of a Helen of Troy figure who somewhat passively causes men to fight over her. She is almost waif-like (as played by Binoche especially) in her attachment to her brother, who substituted for her father and was the first to succumb to her charms.

It sounds like a more subversive female role in the novel, with this emotional vampire on the loose.

Those are my reactions, anyway.

[–] lauraly 14 years ago

I have read the novel and have seen the movie. I believe both were well done.
I have another perspective no one has mentioned in all of these posts.
In the movie, at the end--Stephen stands in front of a life sized photo of himself, Martyn and Anna.
Anna is looking ahead at the photographer. Martyn is looking at Anna. Stepen is looking at Martyn.
That speaks volumes to me. Volumes.

[–] ARH 13 years ago

Sally isn't a jounalist in the book. She works for a publishing house, then a TV network. The TV network is where she met Jonathan.

I wish they had left Anna's stepfather as a character in the film. I think the contrast of the two different warnings that he and his wife (Anna's mother) gave to the main character two different perspectives on her.

Also, in the book his (Wilbur, Anna's stepfather) heart attack was what caused Martyn to look for Anna and find her with the main character, rather than curiosity. That made more sense to me, because no way would Anna would stay with a curious man for long, nor would she marry one.

Differences between the film and the novel (contains *spoilers*)

Differences between the film and the novel (contains spoilers)