MovieChat Forums > Possession (2002) Discussion > Was Roland Mitchell American in the book...

Was Roland Mitchell American in the book?

posted 20 years ago by tanyareeves
18 replies | jump to latest

I was completely disappointed in the Roland Mitchell in the film. The Roland Mitchell in the book, the way I remember him, was British and bookish. He was passive and hesitating and endearing (my favorite scene in the book was when he was outside the bathroom door trying to figure out if Maude is inside but unwilling to knock or say anything, so he looks through the keyhole as she opens the door). The American Roland was cocky and aggressive. In the film he tackles and punches another character (at the dug up grave). Did this happen in the book? I seem to remember a storm doing most of the subdueing of the "villian." No one else on the message board has said anything about this that I could find -- am I in my own world on this?

[–] jalanchee 20 years ago

I found a lot of posts complaining about the movie Roland, so you're definitely not in your own world on this! I just finished the book (and will watch the movie soon) and I can tell you that your characterization is pretty good. He certainly did not punch another character at the graveyard. There's a storm and when Cropper has finally retrieved the box all the other characters have arrived: Blackadder, Mitchell, Leonora (who seems to be missing in the movie as well as Val, Mitchell's girlfriend), Maud and Euan - there's no need to punch anyone, Cropper has no chance of escaping.

I'm not really looking forward to the film; so far I see no point in changing the Roland character that much - at least it makes a totally different story. In the book it's Roland's lack of aggressiveness that makes Maud open up to him. It's a central part of the story that he's so passive and unsure of himself. Only his obsession with Ash and the letter he finds and keeps start off this story in which he relives Ash's and LaMotte's life. One thing leads to another and through everything that happens he finds his own voice. I don't see how a tough American can fit into any of that...

[–] AND77 20 years ago

Let me first say that no movie could ever live up to this book.

Roland, who is essentially the protagonist in the novel, is completely different in the movie. Rather than being serious, bookish, and apprehensive as a way of life, he is a happy-go-lucky American who you really can't believe studies Victorian poetry. I don't mean to stereotype literary scholars, but the changes they make in Roland really don't fit at all. The 3 actors who portray Maud, Christabel, and Ash are wonderful.

I don't think Neil LaBute was the best director to pick for this adaptation; I would love to have seen what Merchant/Ivory would have done with script and direction.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dainty_cates 20 years ago

i'm kind of on the same boat about american-izing roland. i think it's all about class. i saw the movie first and am almost done with the book. i also prefer the book's roland but saw the movie's roland as a pretty decent screen version considering the difficulty of creating class tension between the characters in a limited alloted movie time-frame.

but the post about not being able to make this movie as good as the book is totally true. however much i liked the movie when i first saw it (and still like it) it's really a separate entity. at least, atmospherically, it's accurate in it's english quietude (is that a word even?). i may never look at the movie the same way.

...i am ambitious for a motley coat...

[–] tadeu-br 20 years ago

Once I read that the only reason they change Roland's nationality was because LaBute wanted Aaron Eckheart (surprise!!) to play the role -- and he didn't look British (in the director's opinion, or something like it).

Like most, I prefer the book too.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scheherazade17 19 years ago

I just listened to the DVD commentary, and I don't think LaBute mentioned class. The reason he gave (which I think is only part of the answer, of course) is that there wouldn't be any verbal conflict between Roland and Maud if he was as quiet, private, and unsure of himself as he was in the book. I can understand that reasoning; it would have taken about nine hours of film to show the gradual internal, almost invisible progression towards each other of two intensely private, uncommunicative people. Well, I would have liked to see someone make that film (the one with the protagonists who don't talk and whose relationship moves at a snail's pace) but I think most of the world would not.

[–] randommovies2002 19 years ago

Actually, what the commentary states is that LaBute wanted to cast an American in the part because it would set up an immediate and strong difference between the two main characters. Labute wanted there to be "sparks" (his exact word) between them due to there being unalike. He wanted to create a sort of friction/separation between them. He thought that cultural differences would be an obvious way to convey that idea. (And, indeed, he is quite good friends with Eckhard and wanted to work with him on this film.) :-)

Well, I would have liked to see someone make that film (the one with the protagonists who don't talk and whose relationship moves at a snail's pace) but I think most of the world would not.

Me too. I agree on both counts. :-)

[–] delilah55 14 years ago

I've just finished reading the book and loved it so came on here to see what people were saying about the film. I havent seen it yet, but frankly I'm not sure I want to! I can't believe they made Roland American! From the trailer, Aaron Eckheart seems to be one of the most miscast roles I've ever seen. Roland was such a wonderfully unusual and idiosyncratic progatonist, and the odd combination of him and maud, and the slow way their love for each other grew was what really made the book for me. Byatt herself said the whole point of Maud and Roland's slowburning, repressed passion was examining what happens to people in a sex obsessed world (in literary academia in their case) - and how this obsession makes people more scared of the act itself.

I hate the way directors feel they have to Americanise movies to make them more commercial and mainstream. I wish someone had had the guts to make this the way it should have been made - with all the lingering glances and Rolands endearing hesitations, and Maud's headscarf. I know sometimes books have to be altered to create a compelling film but for me, to alter the protagonist's character in such a profound way is unforgivable.

[–] morganseer 13 years ago

I confess I have not read the book, but have to commiserate with those of you who have. I felt that Aaron Eckheart, with his American accent and very different acting style, threw a discordant note into the movie. I've seen Americans in British productions before, and some managed to blend in seamlessly, so I know it can be done.
I also thought Gwyneth Paltrow overacted, possibly because due to lack of genuine chemistry between the protagonists. This was in stark contrast to Maud's predecessors who smoked up the screen. I felt like I was watching two movies, and enjoyed one.

[–] Molly-31 8 years ago

I would.

Well, the city's being built and I'm winning this game. So don't interrupt us with trifles.

[–] Lil Girl 20 years ago

Possession has got to be one of the best novels of the twentieth century and expectations for its adaptation would have been incredibly high. The casting of its main characters would have to be the key to its success. This is the one downer I thought in what could have been a wonderful adaptation. I've seen Ackhart in a couple of other things and he's quite a good actor but I think he was seriously miscast in this movie. He really didn't add to the mystery... the whole Americanization thing was a bit jarring.
It's really a shame because Jeremy Northam, Jennifer Erhle and Gwenyth Paltrow were spot on but unfortunately the story turns on the Roland Mitchell character. He really had to be the passive, downtrodden figure that Byatt constructed for us to care about.
Perhaps the BBC or Merchant Ivory (as someone else has suggested) could go one better.

[–] Cine-Verite 14 years ago

I have long been mystified by the movie industry and the adaptation of books. If the book was compelling enough to adapt into a movie -- why mess with success? Unfortunately most films are produced by a committee, all with heady egos wanting to put their "stamp" on the movie in question and it shows.

After reading this board's comments, I am very much looking forward to reading the book and I just reserved a copy from the library.

Thanx!

[–] jude2348 14 years ago

Actually there is far more wrong with the film than just the miscasting of Aaron Echkart (whom normally I like).

The book is a complex and subtle meditation on possession and obsession, to say nothing of academic rivalry. The film reduced this to two shallow counter-pointed love stories.

I actually liked the film until I read the book; afterwards, I was appalled at what had been done to it.

As for Neil LaBute, I have never heard a director's commentary like it. He barely drew breath through the whole thing, and even though he kept saying he loved the book, everything he said showed he didn't understand it at all.

Towards the end he commented on the 'coincidence' of the good guys turning up at the cemetery just in time - except of course it wasn't coincidence at all. They had planned it. And then he has that cosy little scene with Maud and Roland in front of the fire - as if the others would accept that. And where was the solicitor - so wasted; why put him in the movie if you are not going to use him when he is needed? - to point out that what Cropper was doing was actually illegal.

A shoddy piece of work, in my opinion. Please, people: read the book and ignore the movie.

[–] lynn-ash 13 years ago

I really can't ignore the movie because I saw it first, which led me to purchasing the book. I haven't read it yet, only started it a while ago, and when I saw that Roland was British and had a girlfriend, I gave up reading it for a while. Isn't Roland a more English name than American? It is to me. Also, the many literary allusions I remember encountering needed time to digest and contemplate. I have just completed a huge move and transition in my life; perhaps now I'll have time to give the novel it the attention obviously deserves.
I appreciate very much the boards I've read so far. All you people have given me much insight and pleasure to read your thoughts.

About Neil LaBute: he must like English original subjects, because he also directed "Death at a Funeral," an American re-make of a British comedy. This re-make has elicited a storm of controversy; many people resent how it was done, etc., etc. I don't want to get into all of that. I thought both versions had their own merit, and I understand why Chris Rock wanted to have it made: it had almost no exposure in the U.S.

I have conflicting thoughts about Paltrow. Sometimes I just hate the whiny characters she portrays; she has been lucky in the parts she's been given to play. I was neutral about her in Possession.

Jeremy Northam, on the other hand, is one of the best actors I know of. While I was reading all the criticism of Eckhart, I was trying to recast his part, and I just came up with Jonny Lee Miller (who played Mr. Knightly in a BBC "Emma" production. He would be sufficiently bookish and quiet, wouldn't he?

[–] MrAleisterCrowley 13 years ago

Has anyone given you a direct answer? In the book, Roland is British, and he behaves in exactly the way you describe. The film weirdly blends Cropper's "gun slinger" with Roland so that Roland becomes the quintessential American go-get-em cowboy type. The casting didn't help here either. Aaron Eckhart is not a shy, retiring, long-suffering graduate student working on a Victorian poet -- type. I have liked him in other roles, but he just seemed so out of place with his hatchety, unshaven face and penchant for stripping off his sweater to show his abs.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bron-tay 12 years ago

Eckhart wasn't the only big change for the movie. In the book, Maud Bailey bordered on the grotesque, dressing herself like a Harry Potter character and covering all her hair in a turban. In the book, Roland was a bit repressed and inaccessible. I think the changes were reasonable -- for the movie.

~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.