Book to movie-- what was lost?

[deleted]

The only bit that I noticed was its ending, in the book it goes on to tell you that Will goes on to become a politician and tells you how many children they had

I know this response is quite a bit late, but I *just* read the book and watched the adaptaion. I found the writing to be pretty faithful to the book, but the characterizations were all wrong for some characters, in my opinion. Especially Dr. Lydgate and Rosamond... they just seemed alot different in the movie vs. book. Dorothea and Ladislaw were both portrayed tolerably well, and Casaubon was convincingly cringe-worthy. Also Fred Vincy was done quite well. (though what was up with Mary Garth? I know she is suposed to be 'plain' but her teeth were brown!) So I guess my real complaint is with Lydgate and Rosamond. I hope all that made sense... :)

Do you really not have the time?? It is really one of the greatest novels I've read. It took me awhile; in fact, I put it away for over a year; then went back to it. Now I am watching the movie (again) and want to read the book again. It's not that I love the story more than anything; it's that Eliot's depth of analysis and irony are so amazing! The sketch of young Fred Vincy's character, not to mention Rosamond's, is so attentive to detail and the personal deception we might all go through to justify our own character flaws, shows an insight into human rationale that I personally have just never seen before. I just can't explain it. The movie misses these things; but it's not a gross neglect; it is something only attainable by the written word. The movie would've had to have had a narrator explaining these things in order to convey them. There are things the book never touches, the most notable of which is Casaubon's motivation for ever marrying in the first place. Such topics, I believe, Eliot purposely leaves to interpretation and personal prejudice. I think it was insecurity -- he knew, as Dorothea came to know, that his work was pointless and useless, and he desired to leave that undiscovered. There were few really GOOD characters in the story, but the book brings them out with a greater clarity and glory than the movie; though the movie goes far. Mary and her family are the shining stars. Mr. Garth is such an excellent example of conviction, integrity and honesty; whilst yet remaining humble and understanding of frailty. He is the leader of his family; and his wife admires him for his solidity and goodness. Mary gives us a portrait of a woman in love who yet has sense and principle. She is highly admirable. Though I loved Dorothea my first few times into the story, I am now convinced she was just too naive. She wanted to be demonstrative, not knowing her own true motivation. She was self-deceived, and I think the movie conveys that in her turning-point pretty well. In her case, as is often true, ignorance (simplicity) is not bliss. She was somewhat foolish; though well-intentioned, I believe. At any rate; endeavor to read the book. It is worth it, in my opinion.

The one major issue that was left out of the film, and I really love the film but can't forgive Davies for leaving this out, was that Will Ladislaw's mother was the daughter of the woman that Bulstrode first married. The daughter that the drunk blackmailer found in desperate circumstances, due to being cheated out of her inheritance by Bulstrode.

Two changes I've noticed so far (being in the middle of the mini-series at the moment) are slight alterations in the relationship between two pairs of characters. Lydgate and Ladislaw are closer friends, as opposed to tolerated acquaintances linked by Rosamond, and Rosamond and Fred are a little friendlier in their sibling rivalry at the very beginning of the series. Both instances I think were to provide an opportunity for certain motivations and thoughts to be expressed that were internal in the book.