MovieChat Forums > Dream Boy (2008) Discussion > just saw it...mixed feelings (spoiler al...

just saw it...mixed feelings (spoiler alerts!)



so yeah, i just saw this at CIFF. being a huge fan of the novel and the stage adaptation, i was very pleased with how james bolton stuck with the limited third person perspective and how he used silences and images to portray nathan's inner discoveries and conflicts. my friend felt that there were too many landscape shots, mixed with twangy banjo music, and that made it feel to "brokeback junior", and while i agree in that sense and also feel that the time could've been better spent on character development, some of them were very effective.

my biggest beef, however, was the slight change to the end from the ending of the novel. now i understand they are completely different mediums, as mr. bolton was very quick to point out when i asked him about the change at the post show q&a. however i disagree with his reason for changing it. he stated he felt that the end of the novel was too ambiguous. without giving anything away, the ending of the novel is open and hopeful rather than ambiguous. in fact, the way he adapted the end made it even MORE ambiguous




* * * * * * * SPOILER * * * * * * *







in the novel, nathan walks back from the plantation after the rape and attack that supposedly left him dead. in that walk, he questions if he is dead or alive. he walks to roy's church, not sure if he's at a wedding or a funeral, roy sees him and they run into the woods together and in so many words, decide to run away and start a new life.


in the movie, bolton handles the "am i dead or alive" walk from the plantation VERY well, but then keeps with that concept. he sees roy at church, but roy doesn't see him. he goes to see him at the barn, they embrace, and then the next shot is on the school bus. we are reintroduced to the beautiful ongoing motif of roy looking in the rearview mirror and locking eyes with nathan. but this time, he doesn't see him there. cut to roy's face, then cut back to the mirror and nathan is there.
so is it being suggested that nathan is dead and a ghost and only roy can see him?







* * * * * * * END SPOILER * * * * * * *










that being said, i would definitely recommend people see this film. it's a beautiful story, and even with my feelings on the ending change, mr. bolton tells it rather eloquently, and besides the end, he stays pretty true to the novel. if you have not read the book, but can see it, definitely read the book after.

if you are familliar with the book, besides the end, lol, you won't be disappointed.

cheers
db

reply

Thanks much for the review. Since I love the book so much, I've been hesitant about seeing the movie. Should it ever come to my city (again), I'll definitely see it this time, or buy it if it comes out on DVD.

reply

I'm a huge fan of Jim Grimsley and this is one of my favorite books. Since you posted the end, I do feel quite ripped off. I loved the ending in the book, but what you described is out of the Hollywood Receipe Book of how a gay relationship ends(not flourish or endures). But I do want to see this movie. In my mind, it was Jared Leto as Roy and Jake Gyllenhaal<sp>as Nathan.

The New York Rangers suck. And Sidney Crosby is a cry baby!

reply

I think they're both ambiguous. If anything, the book's ending more so than the movie's. Because the book's dialogue between the boys suggests that Nathan did die. So what, did he return to life? Is he a ghost? It seems possible, as the book doesn't stay strictly in the realm of what we think of as natural rather than supernatural. Yet, Nathan doesn't seem to be very ghost-like, as the theme of feeling each other's bodies (specifically, their heat) returns. And the people from Roy's church can see him. Maybe he didn't die after all. But then were everyone, including Roy, the police and Nathan's Dad wrong? Doesn't seem that likely. And then the solution to all of their problems is Roy's idea to run into the woods. Seems hardly realistic. Specifically, it is reminiscent of the one "good ending" that E.M. Forester could offer his gay protagonists in the novel Maurice, which was meant to be a 'fairy tale ending', a happy, though not necessarily a realistic one. So was it all a hallucination? Whose, Nathan's from the great beyond? Nathan's while he's dying? Or is it another moment when time splits (in the book, that theme is much more present than it is in the movie) and there are two Nathans, one who died and one who survived and could return to Roy? I don't know, I've always felt that I have no idea what the ending is all about.

So the movie's ending is ambiguous, but to me it seems a lot less confusing than the book's ambiguous ending, which holds far more possibilities for what really happened at the end, since it at least partially allows room for the supernatural.

If you feel that I'm completely off in my understanding of the book's ending, then by all means, I would love to hear how you understood it.

"He shall be an adder on the path, to bite a horse's heel"

reply

the ending in the movie is indeed ambigous. Overall, the movie made me hot and bothered with the 2 guys together.

reply