This was a staple of early CanLit books I was forced to read in High school. It was all the things I hate about CanLit and movie is as well. Slow, boring people with a the required horrible male characters.
It put Canadian males off reading novels probably for a decade and this movie could put us off seeing Canadian films for as long
So can I ask when and where did you get to see this movie? My son was filmed for the movie as the baby Marvin... and my wife and I really would like to see it. asap.
shareIt was just screened at the Female Eye Film Festival in Toronto, and will be opening in general release in Canada on May 9, and in the USA in July. BTW, your kid did just fine (proud papa).
shareI'll ignore some of the misogyny of your comment, but I will say that reading this book in high school and reading in six or so years later made a big difference for me. I had heard and said all the horrible things you say, but reading the book again, and being more mature about it....I realized it is a phenomenal piece of fiction.
I don't really get this spurious "anti-male" thing you're talking about, because I don't see that at all in Laurence's books.
[deleted]
I remember being forced to read this thing in high school as well (why oh why is Margaret Laurence the best they can come up with for CanLit? WHY???????) and loathed it. I then went and saw the play performed because my acting teacher had a role in that production. Hated it. Read a bunch more of ML's work and again, DESPISED it.
The woman is not my kind of writer. Her work is dry, dreary, and without much literary significance. I definitely won't be seeing this movie, mainly because I can't stand anything written by this woman.
http://www.myspace.com/raineduponraven
HA! So true.
When i saw this movie was released I said to myself, 'There is no way this is the same horrible book i was forced to read in high school. Who would ever think to make this a movie?'.
I read the book, i get the imagery, metaphor, blah blah blah (ya the old lady liked sex too) but that doesn't make it good. I just never got why we had to read books like this instead of classics. Maybe if we spent our time reading novels by Chaucer or the Bronte sisters we would have better Canadian authors.
i just finished reading it in my english class and this was by far the worst book i've ever read
shareI really do not understand you.
The Stone Angel was the first Canadian book I read (back when I was an exchange student in Canada) and I loved it right from the beginning.
Kept reading it again and again and finally included it in my master's thesis on CanLit - but as I have to say FEMALE CanLit (along with Alice Munro and Margaret Atwood). It's true, there are not too many centrale male figures in Laurence's Manawaka books - but so what? Duddy Kravitz is about a male protagonist and I still liked it ;-))
Will have to watch the movie to judge it (if it ever makes it to Italy), but I'll get real defensive about the book ;-)))
I agree with mirimonster - I loved this book - and all Margaret Laurences novels. I read it many years ago and after having seen the film (Wednesday night at a private film club showing) I am still a bit bewildered by it. Those who saw the film with me and who had not read the book loved the film, but I'm not as enthusiastic. I felt the age difference between young and old Hagar was too broad, and the time span was off too.
It was a powerful story, of course, and I thought the actors were wonderful, particularly Ellen Burstyn. I just don't recall Hagar being that old in the book...and I was much younger when I read it. Must go back and re-read.
I'm interested to know what year it was for those of you who read it in high class lit class.
In the book Hagar was very old - like 80 - Marvin and his wife were in their sixties. I loved the book but haven't seen the movie.
I'm curious - Why are you "put off" by the protagonist being old? as you know the story is told in "flashback" so the reader gets to experience Hagar's early/younger life as she recalls it. Now that Hagar is an octogenarian and approaching the end of her life, she is reflecting on her life. I found the story interesting, tragic and thoughtful. It really made you think about missed opportunities and the brevity of human life.
im surprised by your review, as this was the book i enjoyed most in my Canadian lit course.
shareI remember reading this in HS. At first I was bored to tears going through the first few pages; Afterwards I was semi-interested in it once we had class discussions.I was behind in the readings, so as the class discussion continued weekly I took on more interest, and I actually did something foreign to me and read the entire book lol. I must say I was surpised at how interested I was in the book, sure there were some boring parts, but overall it was a pretty good book. If I have time I think I will give it another shot, and truly appreciate the book for it's worth.
shareSpoilers (for what it's worth)
1.I'm not really into reading fiction so I don't care all that much about symbolism and stuff.
2.I thought the male characters were portrayed in the movie as being slightly more nuanced than out and out jerks so I wouldn't call it 'man hating', also the one son comes across as pretty good. Having not read the book, I don't know if it is nuanced as well. That said, the devolution in the husband to being a total drunkard as he got older did come as a surprise to me.
3.Overall, that leads to the main criticism I had with the movie: at some point it basically became a case of piling on, how much more misery can be put into her life? I suppose for people who are really into fiction that may be the point (an exploration of a person who suffers defeat after defeat), but for me at some point it just became 'this is getting ridiculous'.
Edit: Having read some of the comments here on the film, I suppose the idea in the book was that it wasn't meant to be about 'how much can this poor woman suffer' but about how her behaviour brought on all the suffering in her life.
I don't know then if the movie fully got the across (of course it could be just that I was too thick to pick up on it) because, as one person here said, Ellen Burstyn portrayed Hagar as just too likable to really make it clear.
I fail to see how Hagar's behaviour drove her husband to become a complete lush for instance, and you certainly can't blame her for her father being so hardheaded and elitist.
If that is the arc of the book, you could kind of accuse it of being woman hating more than man hating: a strong woman drove her husband to drink and killed one of her sons (and if the son hadn't also have been a lush (which I also don't see how you can blame her for) she might not have done what she did there too. Maybe the book was just written to spark a new temperance movement. As a teatotler myself, I have no problem with that.
You are nuts! Ok, no, for real. This shouldn't be a high school book. It should be a mid 20's book, that is when people will truly begin to appreciate it. This book is fabulous... it is heart warming, and real. In the era of all things Britney Spears, this move is sorely needed
shareHeart warming? I read it at 34, and I found it more heart wrenching than heart warming. This poor hard headed idiot and the stingy joyless life she lead out of pride and stubbornness. I thought it was great, but hardly heart warming.
I really like her writing both in style and subject (read three of her books in a row this year, and have another I have yet to pick up) but it's all pretty grim *beep* with only small traces of hope that usually come at the end.
I have a suspicion that those who hated it most in high school were boys. More and more people are beginning to realize that most of what is given out in schools is NOT the kind of literature that young MALES will appreciate. Which is one reason why girls tend to do better in English than males - because the course has been weighted in favour of books that would appeal to them rather than to the males in the class. THEY want adventure stories,or perhaps science fiction - but over a certain period of time it has become more and more obvious that those who choose the books for educational purposes are more likely women.
Result: lots of chick-lit books like the Bronte's etc where it is all about feelings. Very little about adventure. I don't really know what is on the high-school reading lists in Canada - but I'll bet it is easier to find The Stone Angel as opposed to Farley Mowat's Never Cry Wolf (a book that would most likely appeal to boys...)
As for The Stone Angel... it is perhaps being given to kids before they are really ready for such introspection from the point of view of a senior citizen!
Of course, the schools are not going to be daring enough to give them anything approaching FUN literature like Beautiful Losers or The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz; those books are deemed too shocking for high-school youth - which shows just how out of touch the educational world is today, what with kids sending nude photos of themselves over the Web etc...
I haven't seen the movie, so I can't say anything about it, but the book is one of my favorites ever. I'm surprised it's read in high schools, because I consider it a pretty difficult and mature novel, one which I certainly wouldn't have enjoyed as a teenager. I also think it's not everyone's cup of tea stylistically - like you said, it's slow moving.
However, I don't get your "required horrible male characters" comment at all. I think the protagonist, Hagar, is by far the most selfish and destructive character in the novel. She's not set up as some kind of angel who has to endure torture from men. In fact, I think it's made clear from the beginning that she's every bit as proud as her own father and makes the exact same mistakes as a parent that he did (for instance, favoring one child over another). This isn't at all the "helpless innocent female in the hands of evil men" pattern that you seem to be implying. None of the characters in the book are perfect, but for instance Hagar's son Marvin, who takes care of her even if she's horrible to him, is an example of a positive male character. If anything, this is a book about an awful mother who keeps her son in her grip until the end and never really appreciates him.
I wouldn't call this, or any of Laurence's work, anti-male. It just doesn't FOCUS on men, which, I suspect, is usually the truth behind "anti-men" accusations. Most books and movies written by men focus on male characters and some of them depict women pretty stereotypically. Men don't seem to notice this, but are very quick to complain about any negative male characters in stories by women.
I could see some would argue the movie does come across as 'anti male' more so than the book (which I haven't read). (I think it is more nuanced than that and I don't think is is aniti male).
Hagar is the movie comes across as too likeable to be like the way people say Hagar is portrayed in the book. So, any idea that she was supposed to contribute to the men turning out the way they did is kind of lost (at least it was to me).
If you look at the main characters, you can see why some people argue that:
Dad: a stubborn biggot
Husband: a lush who drinks himself to death
one son: a lush
Marvin: kind of a schlub.
I thought it was more nuanced though, because other than the dad, the other characters have redeemable qualities
Husband: likeable, easy going guy
One son: determined
Marvin: decent and moral
Stoner guy: easy going and decent.