I know this is based on a true story; but that can be pretty loose; but (again but) the beginning of the movie says, "This is a true story." Does anybody know how true it is?
shareIt wasn't exactly all true.
There were many inaccuracies. Things such as the fact that Joy Gresham had 2 sons (Douglas AND David), as well as the fact that Lewis had already moved to Magdelen College, Cambridge not Magdelen College, Oxford.
If I could quote New York Times critic Janet Maslin in her review published December 29, 1993:
The film's production notes quote Mr. Nicholson as saying, "I have used parts of their story, not used other parts and imagined the rest," adding "no one knows exactly how and why they fell in love."
So some parts of the movie may not be really true.
Don't rely on this movie as your biography of Lewis and Gresham's life. I'd suggest you go pick up A Grief Observed by Mr. Jack Lewis himself if you want to know more about it.
Ms_RitaFairbanks,
There were many inaccuracies. Things such as the fact that Joy Gresham had 2 sons (Douglas AND David), as well as the fact that Lewis had already moved to Magdelen College, Cambridge not Magdelen College, Oxford.
[deleted]
I think with the exception of only having one son in the movie as opposed to two in real life, this is a fairly accurate story of C.S and Joy Lewis. She was disliked by many of his friends, who felt she was a gold-digging American out to snag the moderately wealthy Lewis. This may have been true; I read that when she first moved to England, she was the one who pursued Lewis and did everything she could to keep their relationship going.
shareI think the biggest difference from the true story is that Debra Winger's character in real life had been an Ayn Rand Objectivist type but had come to believe in Christianity in part because of the writings of Lewis, and went to meet him as part of having converted from atheism/Judaism. (The movie gives almost the opposite impression, that she's there to teach *him* about "real" spirituality.)
sharetaylorje wrote: "She was disliked by many of his friends, who felt she was a gold-digging American out to snag the moderately wealthy Lewis. This may have been true; I read that when she first moved to England, she was the one who pursued Lewis and did everything she could to keep their relationship going."
The film clearly portrays her as the pursuer, but certainly not to get his money. My impression was that she was deeply influenced by his writings and came to know the man through reading them. When they met, she knew him already, and he found that terribly disconcerting, because he had spent his life shielding himself from personal intimacy. Quite clearly she wanted to establish a relationship with him and was rather blunt and even obnoxious when her interest went unrequited. What I mean by that is, that if she were actually a gold-digger, she would have been trying to trap her prey with honey, not vinegar.
sfviewer123 wrote: "The movie gives almost the opposite impression, that she's there to teach *him* about "real" spirituality."
I think that is precisely the point the film is trying to make. He is excellent on the theory of love and spirituality, but simply awful on the practice (even Warnie has to give him tips). That is the great irony of this film: he teaches about God wanting us to love and using pain to make us grow, yet he avoids all pain by keeping emotionally distant from people. She comes into his life and slowly but surely forces him to see that he has utterly failed to practice what he preaches, so she does teach him about "real" love and spirituality. Real love is the type freely given to a living and breathing person, not the unattainable sort that academics ponder at Oxford.
I appreciate your insight. That makes sense.