Book vs. Film

I have seen the movie previously and am reading the book now, and I think the whole tone of the movie is radically different from the movie. I would skip it.

All you need to make a movie is a girl and a gun. ~ Godard

Did you ever see the movie?

I used to say that The Portrait of a Lady was my favorite book of all. I read it when I was 18, cried, read it again a few years later, and have read it again a couple of days ago (I'm now 32).

So, I understand where you're coming from as a fan. I hated this movie when I first saw it and absolutely loved the book. I don't hate the movie now and I'm not as in awe of the book as I used to be. But I plan to continue reading it throughout my life.

In most cases, the film adaptation of a book is disappointment (except in the case of Lord of The Rings, in which the movies far exceeded the books in my mind). So, it will be a disappointment, but I think you should see the movie version nonetheless. You'd still be experiencing the story that you love so much.
So much of the novel was of the inner life of the characters, it's just difficult to adapt.

Anyhow, I'd be interested to know if you've seen it and what you thought.

I think it's kind of magical to hear James' words coming out of actors' mouths, to watch visual evidence of the romantic seductiveness of Florence, to see Nicole Kidman take on a literary character whom everyone from Edith Wharton to Edward St. Aubyn has declared their love for. The kissing and shoving in the movie add a more physical element to the story which James may have only implied and Shelley Duvall notwithstanding, the nineteenth century humor seems to have been pretty much excised. Still, I waited 17 years to watch the movie (only after I finally read the book) and I was not disappointed.

The movie is pretty similar to the book in the plot. Less in the tone and atmosphere, I think. It was my first exam at university.

There are scenes in the movie that are unexpected and brilliant reimaginings of certain aspects of the book that you will recognize, and to me they were very satisfying. There were a couple of times when I literally gasped at the brilliance of Jane Campion's "translation," so to speak -- some of them were just thrilling to me in their artistry. On the other hand, there are some parts of the book that were absent that I really missed. For example, that scene in the book where Ralph, alone, is assessing Osmond's character to himself. He just nails him 100%, sees right through him. That's one of my favorite scenes in all of literature - but how do you film it? Then of course there's the famous chapter 42 when Isabel reviews her marriage late at night, in her own mind, in the privacy of her own room. There's one scene in the film that alludes to that, and it's brilliant in capturing the mood of the scene, but it's an abbreviation of something that in its literary form was just staggering. Then there's the scene where Isabel finally admits to Ralph that he was right about Osmond - it had such a devastating impact in the book, and Isabel is very emotional in it in the movie, but the subject of Osmond is not even mentioned. What I found really satisfying were the performances of Barbara Hershey as Madame Merle, Gielgud as the uncle, Shelly Winters as Mrs. Touchett (a very few scenes but she was perfect), and Martin Donovan as Ralph - he was exquisite. It is definitely worth watching if you love the book. You don't have to worry about plot lines being changed at all. It's a very artistic interpretation of the book and quite faithful in its way, and there were times while I was watching it when I thought to myself, "This is a masterpiece."