zolazona says > Read the book and get into the interior minds of the characters.
What makes discussions particularly difficult is when those involved aren't really talking about the same thing. A movie is one thing and a book is another. Even when filmmakers try to stay true to the original work, it is difficult, if not impossible, to do.
In a book the author has to provide a lot of background information and details; like what the characters are thinking, who they are, their motives, their background stories, etc., that we don't ordinarily get in a movie. Even when there's an attempt to include that kind of information, it can be missed. When reading a book we use our imagination to picture the events as they unfold but a movie lays all that out for us visually. Our imagination is used instead in other ways.
Without the internal dialogue and inner thoughts of a character we're left to draw our own conclusions. In my opinion, that makes movies more similar to real life because we don't know what people are thinking or what really makes them do the the things they do. We make assumptions based on their actions but we don't really know if we're right. We interpret other people's actions using our own frame of reference so it often reveals more about ourselves than it does them.
As I've said before, that's what I love best about this movie. Some may see it as an ambiguous script but I see as the filmmakers making it possible for us to see things from different perspectives; a way to see completely different versions of the same movie. It does require being open-minded so perhaps some viewers won't see things the same way. That's unfortunate but not surprising; that's life.
I've only heard that there were significant changes made to the original story but having read the book, you would know better than most whether or not that's true. What I don't understand is why, knowing differences exist, you insist on drawing various points from the book to discuss the movie. It doesn't make sense.
That's done often on these movie boards and I always find it silly. Those who have read the book or seen the play, or whatever, always act as if they have an inside track to understanding the movie but they don't. In my opinion, they're simply muddying the waters. They fail to respect and appreciate the different forms of storytelling for what they are; each with its own merits.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share
zolazona
8 years ago
I explained it already. I presume that the scriptwriters would keep the heart and meaning of the characters consistent with the book but know that often times they don't.
I saw the movie first and then read the book. In short, I don't agree with your *take* regarding the motivations of almost every character you mentioned in MOVIE form. When I read the book it solidified and deepened MY take on the movie.
reply
share
mdonln
8 years ago
zolazona says > I saw the movie first and then read the book. In short, I don't agree with your *take* regarding the motivations of almost every character you mentioned in MOVIE form. When I read the book it solidified and deepened MY take on the movie.
It doesn't matter which you saw or read first. The fact you keep referencing the book to support your view of the movie tells me you see them as basically the same. That doesn't make sense to me because, having read a few books in my time, I know one could not possibly fit everything that's in the book into a movie. There are, of course, many similarities but whatever had to be sacrificed due to time constraints or other factors make them distinct.
Like many of us, I haven't read the book, nor do I plan to, so I neither know nor care what's in it at this point. It shouldn't matter. Since we're discussing the movie, let's just stick to what's in the movie.
That's why you probably can't follow my 'take' regarding motivations. We all have our own impressions of any given movie but, as I've said before, in regards to this movie, I can see it from different perspectives so I have different takes of the movie that aren't necessarily consistent with each other.
For instance, I can see Morris as an opportunistic cad who is only after Catherine's money in one interpretation then in another see him as a misunderstood, well-meaning suitor and Catherine as misguided in her cold rejection of him. I can argue both versions using what's in the movie. The book probably takes a more specific stance; one version of the story, so how can there even be a legitimate discussion when elements of the book are used to support points being made about the movie?
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share
zolazona
8 years ago
I don't see the book and movie as being the same. For one thing the scene of her waiting for Morris all night didn't happen in the book but I think it was a very effective and moving way to illustrate that Catherine felt so sure of her choice and was willing to leave her father, home and the life she had led for the promise of *love*. She knew Morris was coming for her.
..." misunderstood, well-meaning suitor and Catherine as misguided in her cold rejection of him. I can argue both versions using what's in the movie."
This is why this discussion will go in circles forevermore. It is that belief that Morris was "misunderstood" and "well meaning" and that Catherine was "misguided" in her rejection of him. I believe if you think this of Catherine you are yet another person who thinks Catherine didn't know her own mind. I believe she did. She had moved beyond her grief and loss to see Morris as he AND herself, really were. If she was "cold" it was for valid reasons that made sense to her as the character within the movie.
Anyway, we have whipped this horse enough. We both saw the movie and came to different conclusions. It happens. (My x husband and I debated "Crimes and Misdemeanors" for years). We have different povs as to the movie's intentions.
From wiki
Catherine gradually grows throughout the story, ultimately gaining the ability to judge her situation accurately. As James puts it: "From her point of view the great facts of her career were that Morris Townsend had trifled with her affection, and that her father had broken its spring. Nothing could ever alter these facts; they were always there, like her name, her age, her plain face. Nothing could ever undo the wrong or cure the pain that Morris had inflicted on her, and nothing could ever make her feel towards her father as she felt in her younger years." Catherine will never be brilliant, but she learns to be clear-sighted.
I think the movie did a good job is showing that. I don't think it was ambiguous with it's intent.
reply
share
mdonln
8 years ago
zolazona says > I don't see the book and movie as being the same. For one thing the scene of her waiting for Morris all night didn't happen in the book
Clearly you don't get my point because you keep making it for me. The scene you describe is a pivotal scene in the movie yet it's not in the book. That alone should have made you realize that it doesn't make sense to intermingle the two.
This is why this discussion will go in circles forevermore.
We even disagree on the point of discussions. My goal is not to be right or to win or even to convince people to see things my way. It's an activity I enjoy. It's an exchange of opinions that exercises and stimulates the mind. It's like going for a walk or a run with a friend. It's not a race that either of us is trying to win but we do challenge and push each other to an extent. Ultimately, we both benefit from the fresh air, the physical activity, the time spent together; we just enjoy ourselves.
...you are yet another person who thinks Catherine didn't know her own mind. I believe she did.
You're right about that! Whichever way I see Morris, every time I see the movie or consider another interpretation, I still always end up either feeling sorry for Catherine or pitying her. I have a hard time seeing her as triumphant; though I do believe, at the end, in her own mind that's how she sees herself.
From wiki...
Again, you keep going to external sources to prove your points about the movie. I saw the movie and don't need to rely on other sources to help me interpret what I saw. What you read in Wiki is just another opinion or interpretation. In the case of Wiki, it's probably more accurate to say it's a mix of many people's input.
I value and respect other people's opinions but, call me crazy, I prefer when it really is the person's own opinion and not a recitation of someone else's. I also prefer when their opinion is based on something and not just taken from some extraneous source.
I think the movie did a good job is showing that. I don't think it was ambiguous with it's intent.
If that's how you see it, that's great. Enjoy it for what it is. I see the movie differently. I find most of the dialogue to be nuanced; allowing for multiple interpretations. I have to assume that didn't happen by accident.
When it comes down to it even the author of a book or the filmmakers can't really tell us how to interpret their work. They may have a specific idea of what they wanted to get across but we can still take something completely different away from it. That's why sometimes books and movies fail. The reader or audience feels differently about the story and/or characters than was expected. It happens.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share