book v. movie
i just finished reading the book a few minutes ago, and wondered if anyone had any coherent opinions on whether or not this movie is worth my time to see? i loved the book, by the way.
share[deleted]
I've read the book and seen the movie, and whilst it is not a great film - even director Terence Davies calls it a failure - it certainly is an interesting one, with a distinct aesthetic and style. It would be better to watch this film as a Terence Davies film, as he has used the autobiographical elements - which are similar to his own, yet different at the same time - as a platform to evolve his own cinematic style (he calls the film his 'transitional' piece). I would recommend his earlier autobiographical films (the Trilogy, Distant Voices, Still Lives and The Long Day Closes) - films based on his own troubled childhood, as well as his developing style. Davies's claim is that - being such a personal filmmaker - he could not have gone on to other projects (The House of Mirth) had he not tackled The Neon Bible, a film in which the content is similar yet removed enough for him to be objective (as opposed to his wholly subjective autobiographical tryptich)
shareWell, I think this film is much better than the book. The book is entertaining, but very episodic, and sometimes cliched (the scenes of the teacher harrassing the pupil, for example). The film has a much more interesting structure than the book, and removes some of the novel's more cliched aspects. It also looks utterly beautiful, contains some great performances from Gena Rowlands and Diana Scarwid, and is, in places, moving and gripping. Its director, Terence Davies, thinks the film is a failure, and I think I know why: the Southern accents are not always convincing, and it is, perhaps, a bit too slow for some tastes (even though it's not as slow as, say, "La Notte", another excellent film). But there are moments in the film that are as beautiful as anything I have seen in the cinema. And that alone makes it worth watching, I think.
share