Should I see the film, or will it be ruined for me? I read there are a few changes and noticed that there are a few people missing from the cast and that Roland is now an American!!
Is it any good or a waste of time?
Every once in a while someone blows up all over you but you do get to sleep in every morning
I saw the film first then read the book and like the movie more. I don't think it's a waste of time.
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit...share
is there a book? I never realised! Better check that out!
The book is one of my favourites and although this adaptation sounds interesting, I'm a bit wary. Roland as a visiting American? Ooh, I'm not sure.
Can anyone else who knows both the book and film share their thoughts?
I watched the film first then read the book, and love both. But you have to take them on their own merits - the book is so dense and literary that lots of the meat of it couldn't be translated to the screen.
Watch the movie to see a poignant love story, but don't expect to see the book.
Visit the Jennifer Ehle blog: http://jenniferehle.blogspot.com
Well, I saw the film a little while ago and quite liked it. It was disappointing to see so much of the book (and so many of the good characters) chopped out, but I could understand why.
I have to say though that the Roland/Maud relationship was not so well done. Little chemistry and the Roland character became a blank cipher. But Jeremy Northam was just fantastic. I could never quite get into the character in the book, but he made it come to life. Wonderful acting.
I haven't read the other posters' comments on this, so I might be repeating stuff, but here goes.
I read the book after I saw the movie, and adored it. Most of the movie doesn't live up to the brilliance of A.S. Byatt's writing, and some of the best characters (Leonora, Beatrice Nest, etc.) are cut out. HOWEVER, see the movie for Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle as Ash and LaMotte. They are magnificent and the chemistry is terrific.
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like."
It's the book by A.S. Byatt, right?
shareWell I finally got round to watching it many months later, and I liked it.
It no way matches up to the intensity of the book, and there are a few changes which seem unnecessary, like why did they cut Roland's girlfriend?
But I still thought it was a decent film, although I would have liked to see more of the poets.
Because I cut off his legs, and his arms, and his head, and I'm going to do the same to you.
Why did they cut Val (Roland's gf)? My guess is time contraints. Theirs is a complicated relatinship. To do it justice would have taken up a great deal fo screen time. What I want to know is WHY did they turn Roland into an American? ;o)
shareThey made Roland American to appeal to American audiences. I personally rolled my eyes during every single scene where Roland's American-ness was denigrated by the English people he worked with. It's so stereotypical and unnecessary. I do think that Ekhart looks like how I pictured Roland while reading the book, but if they had actually used his American-ness to thicken the conflict instead of making it a running gag(more stereotypes of the uncouth, uncultured and pushy American!), it would have run more smoothly. But since Ekhart and Paltrow possessed ZERO chemistry(and Gwyneth didn't have that bloodless beauty that I felt Maude in the book had to do this role justice. It merely came across as "There goes Gwyneth pretending to be a cold Brit again", a reprise of her role in Shakespeare In Love and Sliding Doors), his American heritage did nothing for the relationship between Roland and Maude. And while yes, the denseness and literary references in the book make it harder to be translated on screen, the movie is VERY watered down and altered.
Does anyone think that if they stayed closer to the book, it would have been a hit?
It all depends. It probably would have worked best as a miniseries shown on Masterpiece Theatre. Most adaptions work better there. In the past I would have said A&E, but that network has moved away from it. Also if more English people were involved. I thought Byatt's other story- Angels and Insects from her novella Morpho Eugenia was great. The adaption was better.
shareI didn't like this movie. It's been a couple of years now so I can't remember exactly what is that I dislike exactly. I didn't like that they made Roland an American. It wouldn't have been a problem per se, but the fact that his being American is made such a big deal of by the other characters was very irritating. Overall I found the present time very lacking and uninteresting.
Now the Victorian scenes were absolutely wonderful, Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle totally captured the spirits of the two poets from the book.
But everytime they switched back to the present I found myself bored to death.
Go rent it by all means, if only for J.N. and J.E., but I wouldn't recommend buying.
_________
The owls are not what they seem.
We just watched the movie after reading the book for my composition class. I loved the book, but a huge part of why I liked it so much is stuff that can't be translated into a movie. Byatt's descriptions of the characters and the places, the poems, getting to read the letters between Ash and Christabel in their entirety, and a couple of characters that were left out. But even without these elements, I did like the movie. The actors playing Ash and Christabel did a wonderful job, and they used some pretty neat effects to connect the two separate timelines. I would recommend the movie, but don't watch it expecting the same depth and number of story lines. It's when you expect a movie to be exactly like the book it's based on that you get in trouble.
shareI watched this film for the first time last night and was surprised at how much I enjoyed it.
This wasn't because I held the book in high regard. When I read it years ago I found it bloated and overlong and literary in that self conscious way that borders on showing off (gosh ...look at me - I can do Christina Rossetti!) I also found most of the contemporary characters irritating 'types' rather than real people.
But, despite this, I absolutely loved the Victorian mystery at the heart of the book and found the plight of Ash and Christabel totally convincing. To give AS Byatt her due, she tells their story brilliantly and with great subtlety and skill. It was this central, gradually unfolding drama that gave the book its value for me and that I didn't want wrecked by some melodramatic piece of cinema.
I needn't have worried. This doesn't try to be the book but it doesn't reduce it to a 'bodice ripper' either. A lot of the Christabel/Ash story is missing or condensed (to the extent that those who haven't read the book might have difficulty linking bits of it) but what they do give us is totally believable and very moving. This has a lot to do with great casting - Ehle and Northam are fantastic.
The contemporary bit owes even less to the book. It isn't as compelling by a long stretch but I rather liked Aaron Eckhart's Roland and the academic underworld is conveyed nicely tongue in cheek.
All in all a vey watchable little film with its heart in the right place.
Actually, I liked the part where Gwyneth Paltrow goes "I know this is a terribly repressed English thing to say but WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?!?!?"
See, we would not have got that line if Roland weren't American. ;)
I read the book when it first came out and, likewise, saw the movie upon release.
I just rewatched it to check out a new theory on casting....
After seening the recent BBC "Jane Eyre" with Toby Stevens as Rochester, I explored his other works and was surprised to see he'd played Fergus. He was good and slimy (although wasted...not enough gorgeous Toby on screen) as the part was written, but the character of Fergus in the book was so much larger than life, and that was not portrayed in the movie.
Toby would have been perfect, in my opinion, as the real Roland. Then they could have done away with the American/British jokes, and concentrated on the relation of the title and the developing emotions of the two scholars as their investigation deepened.
The director was quoted as saying he wanted to set up contrast to create sparks, but I think he did the audience a disservice.
"If I'm going to wear a dress, I want something with some slink." - Zoe, Firefly
Aaron Eckhart is a handsome man, but he was wrong, wrong, wrong for this role. The movie could have still worked with an Americanized Roland, but they needed an actor tjat doesn't come across as hyper, annoying frat boy pretending to be into literature. That's how Eckhart comes across. Everytime he was onscreen, I couldn't believe him... He's the weak link. Just like Denise Richards in THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. Someone playing a brainy role that they are not suited for... If they had to AMericanize it, they should have cast someone scruffy yet cerebral like Peter Sarsgaard. Better butt, too.
Plus, what was the deal with making ROLAND celibate? When Eckhart says "I told you, I'm off women" it is so unbelievable. The fact that Eckhart played him, and the director's choice of making him celibate was a double negative.
And the whole dialogue that goes with it:
-I'm afraid of relationships...
-No I'M afraid of relationships, they are so terrible
-I just can't live in a relationship
It all reeked high school drama.
Anyway, responding to the original poster, I've read the book yesterday and saw the film today and I wish I could turn back time. The book is great, the movie quite terrible.
Same here, I read the book and loved it. Now I'm considering watching the movie but I have serious doubts. Mostly because of the cast. I mean, Aaron Eckhart as a literary scholar? Why not Jean Claude van Damme? And Gwyneth Paltrow doesn't seem quite right either (too pretty), although she could probably pull it off (pretty girls are not outright banned from science).
One thing I liked about the book was the description of the world of science - investigations, constant financial problems, scholarly competition, keeping competitors away from valuable data, references to postmodern theory and psychoanalysis. I doubt they managed to bring all that into a movie with Hollywood star cast.
[deleted]