Warning:
Literary/Movie Dork Out Ahead. If you can't handle it, don't read it!
So before I start my official rant-- you need a little background. When I was in high school I was obsessed with the movie A Room with a View (based on the novel by E.M. Forster). I cannot possibly begin to tell you how many times my best friend Heather and I watched that movie. We named things after the characters and I for one became completely enamored of Florence. (It was sort of an Italian perfect storm when I also read The Agony and The Ecstasy about Michealangelo at the same time). For those that don't know-- A Room with a View is the love story of Lucy Honeychurch (a straight-laced English girl) and George Emerson (a poor, socialist, atheist, young English chap with no real sense of tact) who meet when they stay at the same hotel in Florence (I think the year is around 1910 but I don't remember for sure).
I know I'm probably boring some of you off your rockers-- but I'm telling you this so you can understand just how much Masterpiece Theater JACKED UP the new version of it. Maybe I'm so annoyed about it because I was so excited to see it-- but they just completely botched it.
First of all, the whole point of George's character in the book is that he is eccentric, slightly sullen, always brutally honest and very VERY charismatic. In the new version? He seems to be slightly daft in a way that you really can't imagine Lucy falling in love with him. She seems much more likely to try to teach the poor fellow how to find his way to the local home for special people.
The also managed to imply (it is subtle but it is there) that the local clergyman is a closeted homosexual who is the only one that realizes that Lucy's fiance is also a homosexual ("bachelor for life" is how they phrased it I believe). (note to Heather: They made Mr Beebe and Cecil gay!)
Also? It is distracting when you raid the cast of the Harry Potter movies for your cast.
But all of that pales in comparison to the ultimate sin of this movie. They KILL George Emerson. They send him off to die in World War 1 (apparently). Lucy ends up on her own, as a widow, wandering around Florence "remembering". CHEAP THEATRICAL TRICK.
Way to butcher the novel Andrew Davies. You and your screenplay may have given us Colin Firth as Mr Darcy back in the day-- but I just don't know that you can recover my "adaption" trust after this.
Wonderful Verson: 
Stupid Version:
April 13, 2008
A Room with a STUPID View
Posted by Sarah at 9:48 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
You are so right. I thought parts of the remake were okay, though few of the characters were as real and well developed as in the Merchant Ivory film, which is my all-time favorite move. But why did the writer feel the need to tack on that stupid ending? And why did anyone else go along with it?
We really need to watch the old version again sometime. I haven't seen that in ages. So sorry they ruined it for you. And the gay thing? That's too much.
I'm just amused.
I would love that Heather. It really seems wrong watching that with anyone else.
And I know you're laughing at me Bobby-- but at least it wasn't a "one sentence post".
I should watch it sometime - the old version.
Question... Did you ever read the book or is this review purely based on the earlier film version? I do admit that the newer movie was a little less subtle with the whole queer undertones of the two characters, but throughout the book is the ribbon of subtext that is quit unmistakable for those who know what they are reading. Heck, there are complete doctorate thesis's based on the all male bathing scene in the book.
Answer:
Yes, I've read the book many times. One of the things I love about the 80s version of the movie is just how literal a translation it is (right down to the chapter headings).
As for the subtext that is unmistakeable to those "who know what they are reading"-- I find that rather condescending. People bring to the table their own perspective when reading. That's what makes analysis of literature so subjective (and interesting). While it would be stupid of me to suggest that it would be impossible for a book by E.M Forrester to have homosexual undertones-- you can argue it either way. That's the whole point. (And why you can pretty much find a doctoral thesis to argue any point from any book in any language).
Post a Comment