TV Characters vs Book Characters?

It would easily be possible to write a thesis on any one of these characters, and I sadly don't have the time. To give you the short answer: yes, their development is much richer in the books, and it isn't that hard to work out the reasons for their behaviour.

One character that is rather different is Prince Bolkonsky (Jim Broadbent). The sort of bumbling, humorous, gentle side shown in the early episodes is invented for the adaptation.

Also, the whole section regarding Natasha's loneliness following Andrei's departure, culminating in the Anatole fiasco, is exquisitely rendered and made entirely believable in the book.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The character that confused me the most was Pierre. I thought he was very well acted, but I never really understood him as a character. He seemed to be a bit of everything and just fumbled a bit through life. IDK, I just didn't really get his story arc, other than his desire to be a better person. He seemed like a drunken rogue, but a philospher at the same time, kind hearted, but with a terrible temper, baffled by society, but equally willing to draw attention by getting carried away sharing his views. He seemed far too trusting sometimes, yet other's so suspicious. Sometimes trying so hard to be a better person, but yet not making much of an impact because he was too misguided and too philosophical. And the whole free mason thing confused me, it seemed to change him, then he went back to being the way he was before.

Pierre is the protagonist of the book, but he's not a typical dashing romantic protagonist -- quite the reverse -- he's a bumbling, fat, ineffectual person, an illegitimate and ignored child who has no idea how to behave in society. His virtue however is that he's genuinely kind and genuinely wants to always do the right thing. As someone on Twitter wrote recently "'What would Pierre do?' is a question one could live by. Keep on trying to be kind, changing oneself."

Indeed, Pierre is constantly trying to find the meaning of life. He is often in despair because everything around him, especially society and wars, etc., seem meaningless. His many attempts to find the meaning of life seem to eventually fade until he meets the peasant Karataev and also undergoes that long imprisonment.

Pierre is plagued by some addictions (women, alcohol) but they are much less severe and much less emphasized in the book than in the miniseries.

There's a couple of things you got wrong:

*"a terrible temper" -- No temper, except when it is beyond justified and long overdue.

*"willing to draw attention by getting carried away sharing his views" -- No, he's an idealist who wants to improve others by sharing his views; not an egoist

*"yet other's so suspicious" -- never suspicious. That's his downfall: he is not suspicious enough.

I see Pierre as a Pisces, astrologically. He fits the profile perfectly.

Richard Pevear calls Pierre "a singular man, reminiscent of the author himself".
.
.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

And I'm also a bit confused with Prince Nikolai Bolkonsky - Jim Broadbent's character. When we first meet him, he seemed quite outspoken and rather eccentric, but more in a bumbling, set in his ways and never wanting to show any emotion type character than the angry, cruel and tyrannical character we see later. The change seems to come after they move to their Moscow residence - I was quite taken aback by how cruel he was here compared to before. He seemed much more kind to Mayra then, if quite careless in saying what he thinks, and he seemed to want Mayra to stay around and later resents it. And she wanted to stay then, it seemed, then later, she seems like she can't wait to get away. How is this represented in the book? Is there a gradual change in the way he becomes much more cruel, or is it there all along and I either missed it, or it's not shown as well?

In the book he is unremittingly mean to Marya from the get-go, though it's not clear at first whether that's because she's just too "stupid" to understand the mathematics he keeps shoving down her throat, or because he's just mean. Turns out it's the latter. He's an old soldier of the old school (even wears that stupid wig), doesn't understand or relate to women or their feelings, and takes out all of his various frustrations on Marya alone, who is a convenient target because she is homely, helpless, weak, naive, overly religious and forgiving, and a captive audience. (And frankly, in the book Marya is much more annoying than she is in the miniseries.) He's one of those men who cannot express any emotion except anger.

I think in the miniseries they didn't want his character to be quite so unsympathetic from the get-go as in the book (because after all he does have some redeeming qualities, and the miniseries was really only a Cliff Notes of the novel). The miniseries does rightfully point up the fact that, as much as he abuses Marya, he can't actually live without her.

.
.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Oh and Natasha and Nikolai confused me too. I kinda felt they're character arcs were a bit jumbled up. Natasha at first seemed like a sweet and impressionable young girl, falling in and out of love, but with a strong sense of what is right and wrong. I just didn't get her wanting to run away with Anatole and being so eager to ruin herself! She never struck me as that foolish before. I'm not sure if it was just meant to be a rather abrupt and crazy moment for her, as it seemed to be in this, or if it's much more drawn out in the book.

The Anatole/Natasha arc was very very badly done in the miniseries and made Natasha seem like a complete idiot and fool with no moral compass. In the book that arc is much much longer, much more intense, and made perfect sense, whereas in the miniseries it made virtually no sense. This truncated and badly done arc is unfortunately the major failing of the miniseries.

And as for Nikolai - I loved his character towards the end, after he met Mayra and she brought out his good qualities, but before that he seemed very mixed, but a little bit of a twat (to use the modern term!!) at times! He seemed to back peddle a lot in the character arc side of things too. Is this again how he's meant to be seen in the book?

Nikolai is a very complex character in the book -- the one with the most layers, many of them contradictory. I think he is the book's most complex character. All of his traits and layers are very understandable in the book as they are spelled out in detail and his inner thoughts and feelings are described in depth. He remains a likeable person even with his minor flaws -- after all, he is a young person just out of college, eager to prove himself. Also, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree -- Nikolai is careless with money like his father, and also full of life and exuberance like his father. Also, in the book, after his marriage we see further evidence of his innate intelligence, wisdom, and goodness -- not because of Marya, but because those traits were already there.

Here is how Jack Lowden describes him:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/1gjvrvJBhrWm2wpw8J2FXQv/nikolai-rostov


.
.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

The BBC miniseries runtime at 6 hours is still just too short to fully flesh out all the main characters. It does an admirable job and I enjoyed it but Leo Tolstoy took great care in describing and explaining everything novel to make it as believable as possible. For example, I'm sad the wolf hunt is not in the miniseries but again there's only so much that could be packed into it from the novel.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

I too have not read the book but only seen this mini series. But still, I want to comment a bit.

The character that confused me the most was Pierre. I thought he was very well acted, but I never really understood him as a character. He seemed to be a bit of everything and just fumbled a bit through life. IDK, I just didn't really get his story arc, other than his desire to be a better person. He seemed like a drunken rogue, but a philospher at the same time, kind hearted, but with a terrible temper, baffled by society, but equally willing to draw attention by getting carried away sharing his views. He seemed far too trusting sometimes, yet other's so suspicious. Sometimes trying so hard to be a better person, but yet not making much of an impact because he was too misguided and too philosophical. And the whole free mason thing confused me, it seemed to change him, then he went back to being the way he was before.

Pierre was undoubtedly my favorite, and I must say that I really adore him.
But still, it is true that he seemed to be very confused.
He seemed to be a genuinely good-hearted man, but he still hung out with creeps like Anatole and Dolokhov.
And he just had to get married to the wrong woman.
Which made it impossible for him to just settle down and do something worthwhile for years.
It is not like he didn't try, bless him.
However, he couldn't be satisfied with himself during his marriage to Heléne and made some mistakes.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

And I'm also a bit confused with Prince Nikolai Bolkonsky - Jim Broadbent's character. When we first meet him, he seemed quite outspoken and rather eccentric, but more in a bumbling, set in his ways and never wanting to show any emotion type character than the angry, cruel and tyrannical character we see later. The change seems to come after they move to their Moscow residence - I was quite taken aback by how cruel he was here compared to before. He seemed much more kind to Mayra then, if quite careless in saying what he thinks, and he seemed to want Mayra to stay around and later resents it. And she wanted to stay then, it seemed, then later, she seems like she can't wait to get away. How is this represented in the book? Is there a gradual change in the way he becomes much more cruel, or is it there all along and I either missed it, or it's not shown as well?

Apparently, he seems to have been cruel to Marya from the start in the novel.
So I have to wonder why he was not that way in the beginning of this series.
My theory was that he was developing some kind of dementia and had a personality change due to that.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Natasha at first seemed like a sweet and impressionable young girl, falling in and out of love, but with a strong sense of what is right and wrong. I just didn't get her wanting to run away with Anatole and being so eager to ruin herself! She never struck me as that foolish before. I'm not sure if it was just meant to be a rather abrupt and crazy moment for her, as it seemed to be in this, or if it's much more drawn out in the book.

That was indeed a stupid moment from Natasha.
But on the other hand, even a pious woman like Marya almost fell for Anatole's "charms".
Apparently, he is portayed as some kind of master seducer.
So he could make pretty much any woman lose all her senses because of him.
You gotta love how Pierre handled him after he almost ran away with Natasha though.
Did I mention that I adore Pierre?

reply share

add reply

formatting help