Differences bt the book and the movie? SPOILERS

I have just watched this film but haven't read the book.

I also assumed Paul was Celia's father and didn't question exactly why his own father had the photo of baby Celia.

I think Paul was unsure whether he could still be Celia's father and her mother was equally unsure. This would mean Celia also didn't know for sure whether Paul was her father or her brother.

Maybe she thought Andrew had some proof one way or the other of her father's identity.

As for the birth certificate, I think Paul was hoping the real father's name would be on it so he would know for sure. From Pauls' conversation with Celia's mother I understood the birth certificate was reissued because she changed the father's name to her husband's name. The reissued version that Paul saw had the husband's name.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

turnerne on Fri Nov 23 2007 21:50:47 wrote:

I think I read in one of the threads that in the book Andrew does kill Celia? I realize there are often large jumps in the creation of a screenplay, but that's pretty huge. What happens in the book? Why the change?

Are there any other diffrences?

Well, that's a pretty minor change compared to the others. The scene where Celia dies works more or less the same whether it was Andrew or Penny who pushed her. In the book, it's much more gruesome, and happens under completely different circumstances.
Movies can never convey the internal commentary that a book can, and therefore have to go about things a different way using far less detail. Purist though I may be, and an admirer of Maurice Gee's writing, I quite like the changes made.

Some of the major differences about the book:
Set about three decades earlier;
Paul has only ever been a teacher, never a photographer;
His father dies before Paul ever travelled overseas;
He is less "damaged" from traumatic events and suffers from an intellectual pride (some of which the movie managed to convey);
Celia's mother is a totally different character (with a different name);
Birth records never come into it;
Set in West (and North) Auckland;
A lot more coverage of childhood;
A lot more about his father, and a mention of his Unitarian beliefs;
The relationship between Paul and Jonathan is much more completely developed;
Celia's death is mentioned in the opening paragraph, and is never 'missing';
Her relationship with Paul is more intellectual, and less playful.

The change to a small town a long way from Auckland doesn't make as much difference as one might think. Other changes are far more substantial. The book is almost a different story, and knowing the one doesn't spoil the telling in the other.

What kind of book is it? By that I mean, is it considered "literature"? Someone wrote that the author writes about these subjects in his other books.

Maurice Gee's writing would definitely be considered 'literature'. There's something very intense in all of them, which is usually associated with a distant, intellectual father character. His books abound in very descriptive inner thoughts.

He also wrote a number of imaginative action books for young readers. I think they'd make great films. I heard a rumour that Under The Mountain was to make it to film. There is also a trilogy that begins with one called The Half Men of O. I don't expect to find a lot of agreement, but I think it's better than The Lord of the Rings.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Paul has only ever been a teacher, never a photographer;
He is less "damaged" from traumatic events and suffers from an intellectual pride

Thanks, blue-3, for the summary of the differences between the book and the movie. I find it interesting that in the movie they found it necessary to make Paul into a world-famous photographer, while in the book he was just a simple teacher. Being a photographer arguably makes him more "interesting", like some movie star returning to home village. But as teacher he would have been more realistic, closer to the experiences of common people.

reply share

add reply

formatting help