MovieChat Forums > The Reckoning (2004) Discussion > 3 Final Questions

3 Final Questions

posted 18 years ago by BoyScoutKevin
3 replies | jump to latest

The book or the film. The film or the book. Is the book better than the film? Or is the film better thatn the book? Or, do the changes made in the book for the film, make the film better or worst than the book?

Maybe because of the nature of the book, we can quantify the changes made in it for the film? The changes that made the film worst ("The Bad.") The changes that made no difference in the film ("The Ugly.") And the changes that made the film better ("The Good.") As the plurality of the changes were for "The Good," I guess this is one film that is better than the book.

As we answered that question, more or less, I'll leave you with three final questions.

(1) Who was the uncredited actor who played Thomas Wells in the film?

(2) Why bury the dead actor on top of the dead boy? The reasons for not burying
the actor on the road--no sacred ground, no shovel or pick ("A shovel is my pick.") to dig a grave deep enough in the frozen ground--no longer apply. Therefore, why bury the dead actor on top of the dead boy?

(3) Would young girls have made better victims than young boys? At least, young girls would have removed the argument that the film is homophobic.

[–] ye_river_xiv 18 years ago

1: Don't know

2: The problem with burying Brendan in the forest was only that the forest was not hallowed ground, to my knowledge. When they approach the local priest, the priest wants six pence, which they apparently cannot provide. Thus, Nicholas offers to perform the service. Nicholas also was speaking with the grave diggers while the rest of the crew argued with the priest. I suspect that burying the man with the boy thus serves two purposes:
A: Saving time for the grave digger, who may or may not be working for pay.
B: Preventing the regular priest from knowing that brendan was buried against his will.

3: Young girls, rather than youg boys might have made a better choice, in that it would allay questions of homosexuality. However, young girls would have been weaker, traditionally, so that disproving the original actor's portrayal might have been harder. Also, certain legal issues would arise. In america, it is illegal to portray, or pretend to portray a woman under the age of 18 in any sexual context. Pulling her dead body out of the ground, and stripping her to the waist would thus present major lawsuit issues in the event of a US release. Besides, there was very little historical stigma against raping underage women, and no real reason for De Guise to kill them afterwards. With the boys, De Guise has a secret to cover up... Although he's a sick enough dog to kill most any sexual partner he might have.

[–] admrvonbek-1 18 years ago

The answer to your third Question would be no. As mentioned beofre there was no real stigma aganst sex with young girls. Very often people, especially royalty were married off to much older individuals. I belive John I wife was only 12 when they were amrried but I could be wrong.

[–] ye_river_xiv 18 years ago

Generally, a woman would not be married off until she hit puberty, as sex was supposed to be for children... If he were to have taken an interest in girls YOUNGER than that, there might have been a problem. Of course, regardless of the sex of the victims, if De Guise killed his sexual partners afterwards, there would still be plenty of public outrage.

The main problem here is that a girl might NOT trust Simon Damien. The "Vow of chastity" was often interepreted rather loosely in those days, and while monks did not marry, many of them are known to have had illegitimate children.