Read the book


Probably so few people watch this film that my remarks will ring silently, but here goes. I'm a big John O'Hara fan. His short stories about small Pennsylvania cities and their residents are fabulous studies of psychological complexity. Butterfield 8 and Appointment in Samarra are must-read novels.

Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward and Myrna Loy are just fine in their assigned roles. The problem is that Hollywood butchered this story. The questions that many of the IMDB commenters have would be resolved if the producers had stuck to the story. Hollywood was unable because the story is huge. It doesn't begin when Alfred comes home from World War 2. It begins at his birth around 1900 and follows his development, in detail, through his early years, the death of his brother, his estrangement from his old man, his mother's affair and alcoholism, through his boarding school years (where he meets Lex and his family) and into his enlistment in the navy in World War One!!

The story covers the odd combination of hot and cold in his relationship with his wife, the slow development of his relationship with Natalie. Heterosexuality, homosexuality, parental stuff, loyalty, betrayals. It's a great read. This movie is a insult to a deep and intense plot.

Ohara had demons and his literary reputation took some heat, but his brain was a fertile playing field for some tough concepts. His characters are flawed, their decisions ugly at times, just like many of us. Pick up one of his short story collections. Great stuff. Thanks for listening to my rant.

reply

I loved what you wrote...not at all a rant!

reply

Yes, the movie did seem oddly paced and somewhat confusing at times. The things that bothered me most were what became of the alchoholic mom we see only in the first 15 minutes, how many years does the story span from the beginning of the film to the end and how old is David at the end?

I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die

reply

[deleted]

Just finished reading the book and I can honestly say this is one of those rare cases where the movie is actually better than the book.

O'Hara's novel is meandering, rather plotless and sordid to say the least. I say plotless because it moves at a snail's pace and is full of trite, pointless conversations that lead absolutely nowhere. His propensity to describe the sordid sex lives of his characters is also tiring. Based on this book, I can only guess that his novel Butterfield 8 really must have been a pip.________________________________________
Get me a bromide - and put some gin in it!

reply

I read John O'Hara's novel "From the Terrace" after seeing the movie. As I remember it the novel is a tremendously lengthy one. If I had to select my favorite O'Hara novel it would be "Appointment in Samarra" which doesn't suffer the flaws of later O'Hara works (notably running too long). I'm always amused to hear Caroline English mentioned in the motion picture - the heroine of "Appointment in Samarra."

reply

I'm reading A Rage to Live from John O'Hara. So far its a great novel. I never read O'Hara before.

reply

I read his book on maintenance on pre-unit construction (pre-1963) Triumphs. His sections on gearing, compression ratios, and carburetion are superb, but I don't agree with him at all on the reliability of Lucas electrical components.

reply

I had a 1965 MG-B once in 1983 - pristine condition but I could not handle the electrical problems - probably those Lucas components as well. Really fun to drive when it ran.

What I was really struck about with THIS movie, though, was the not so subtle characterization of "evil capitalism" portrayed here as the REAL badness. Right in line with Communist propaganda e.g.:

Marx and Engels spoke of the family life of the bourgeoisie in terms of greed, oppression, exploitation, boredom, adultery, and prostitution. The bourgeois family was quite corrupt, but, and this was for them a main point, it pretended to be something quite different. In fact, "boredom and money are the binding factor, ... but to this ... dirty existence corresponds the sacred conception of it in official phraseology and in general hypocrisy." Again and again they stress that the bourgeois family is in a state of de facto dissolution (Auflosung). The "inner bond" of the family ties of "obedience, piety, marital troth" were all gone. Nothing was left but "property relations" and their consequences.

{p. 16} Thoughts of property and money, the spirit of exchange, dominated the ties of the bourgeois with his wife and with his child. Future husbands haggled with future fathers-in-law over the size of the dowry, while fathers and sons sparred greedily over the question of inheritance. Under these conditions there could be no true love between husband and wife a fact institutionalized, claimed Marx and Engels, in the "marriage of convenience." Hence, marriage among the bourgeoisie amounted to forced cohabitation, or, as a favorite phrase had it, de facto prostitution, in which the woman "only differs from the ordinary courtesan in that she does not let out her body on piece-work as a wage worker, but sells it once and for all into slavery" (p. 63). In addition to exploitation of the helpless wife - both of her labor in open or concealed domestic slavery" as "head servant" in the household, and of her body as producer of an heir or simply as an object of loveless lust - there were broader developments. The first, about which gels seemed rather ambivalent, was adultery. The second, about which he had nothing good to say, was prostitution. Both were said to be part and parcel of bourgeois family life, an assertion that is apparently to be understood in quite a literal sense. Of course, Marx and Engels conducted no field studies on these matters, but Engels confidently describes the supplanting of feudalism by the bourgeois social order in France: "The right' of the first night' passed from the feudal lords to the bourgeois manufacturers. Prostitution assumed proportions hitherto unknown. Marriage itself remained, as before, the legally recognized form, the official cloak of prostitution, and was besides supplemented by widespread adultery."

http://mailstar.net/sex-soviet.html

reply

So - in the book did David REALLY give up his career - money, prestige, status, and power - divorce his wife and marry Natalie and live happily ever after?

Or did O'Hara - that anti-capitalist - have a more "honest" ending?

Now if Ayn Rand had written this - David would have taken over the company and STILL would have done what he wanted in his personal life - maybe even had both women live with him...

reply