Read The Book - On the Beach (2000) Discussion

[–] LookinGood 19 years ago

Well, I did read the book, and although I generally like Shute as an author, this one hasn't aged so well. Two points: The portrayal of women, and the "heroic" behaviour of Cpt. Towers in the end (the Navy way, all the way). Both are so very much 1950s, it made me cringe while reading... The book is well written, but I just couldn't relate to the characters.
Edited to add: I missed character development in the book. Assuming that Towers had been in Australia for, what, a year and a half, you'd expect some kind of coming to terms with the fact that his family was dead. But nothing of that. Denial and day dreams. The 2000 film, althought assuming a shorter time frame (eight weeks or so), let Towers come all the way from denial through anger, grief and finally to acceptance of what had happened.

reply

[–] cvealint 18 years ago

I can't decide to agree with you or not on the book...I read it many moons ago and have often referred to it as my favorite novel (that was before I discovered William Faulkner's less celebrated works). I was a teenager then, and I might have the same issues as you if I read it with my present mentality.

I suppose the thing is that if there are things in the book that seem outdated and make you cringe, then that may be exactly what Shute was trying to demonstrate. Watch any documentary about the 1950's. There should be much to make a modern person cringe. Perhaps this does distract from the story, but, from a different point of view, On the Beach may survive as a literary time capsule for a quietly turbulent time.

I can honestly say that I am grateful for reading the novel first and developing my own pictures of the story before the movie. While good, the movie seemed a bit more sappy than the book.

If you have read others by Shute, then I'm sure that you have read No Highway. If not, you should. Through a novel, Shute basically predicted a problem with modern jetliners in the mid-1940's, which was 10 or more years before DeHavilland discovered the same problem. Indeed, I hope that his foresight was an aberration with respect to On the Beach.

Notwithstanding, the story in No Highway is wonderful in its own respect.

reply

[–] missmisery1980 19 years ago

Oddly this the only time that I preferred the movie to the book. I think the story needed to be modernized and if they remake it in another fifty years (with better sfx) I'll totally understand.
I was disappointed by the changes to moira and I'm never a fan of love stories so Dwight should have left, but otherwise I liked the movie.

reply

[–] melvin-1 19 years ago

I am not disappointed in the changes in Moira because she was a party girl in the 1959 version. As for Dwight stay it did not matter. If I had been among the men aboard the sub I would have stayed in Australia too because even being a American myself I would have stayed too. Even know a guy who is from China for the same reason not go back. hating my own country for being a part of this lunacy.

reply

[–] braegann-1 19 years ago

is the book of the same name? Tried looking at my local library's website and they dont seem to have it...

reply

[–] LookinGood 19 years ago

Yes, it is named "On the Beach", as well. Here, it is available via amazon for about 6€, it is still in print.
--
"I was born to speak all mirth and no matters."

reply

[–] tom_amity 18 years ago

I disagree violently with LookinGood's comments of June (or is it July) 2005. Commander Towers' behavior is not just "the Navy way, all the way." It's basically the maintenance of dignity and holding oneself together until the end.

If you're dying, you can at least die while you're still alive, as opposed to letting your life gradually fall apart. If Towers had left his ship to rattle around in port, and told his crew to just drift away, he'd be like the old man in the hospice who knows he's going to die soon so he stops bathing, stops shaving, stops changing his clothes, and just lets himself fall apart. Is that any way to go? Especially when it's not just you but the whole of humanity that's fading away? I think not. Remember that his crew also depends on him to keep their lives together until those lives are over. It makes perfect sense to me.

reply

[–] jen331 18 years ago

I haven't read the book in years but thought it was a great book! Should I see the movie?

reply

[–] Thumpah 18 years ago

Depends a lot on you.
If you hate movies that don't follow the book exactly you should never read a book then watch the movie.
If you would like to see a reasonable interpretation of a fine book go for it. It is heavy going but you already know that from the book.
There are obviously changes but apart from one they didn't grate on me too much.
Hope you enjoy it.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tom_amity 18 years ago

Shute objected passionately to the change in Towers' character, that he consummates his affair with Moira rather than remaining faithful to his wife, becasuse in the novel he manages to believe with part of his mind that she's still alive and that he's going back to her. It's totally unfair to Moira, and at times you don't know whether or not you want him to snap out of it. But that whole dilemma is what drives the story Shute wrote. Gregory Peck, who played Towers in the 1959 movie, tried to get film director Stanley Kramer to keep that the way Shute wrote it, but failed to convince him.

reply

[–] hobnob53 18 years ago

Stanley Kramer directed, not Stanley Kubrick. The latter would have probably made it more interesting, though the film would likely have lasted longer than the remaining time allotted to the characters!

reply

[–] hobnob53 18 years ago

If I may put my 2 cents in...

Avoid this TV movie like the plague (or radiation). The 2000 version is a travesty of both the book and any semblance of realistic plot or sympathetic character development. It's degrading and insulting to the characters and the audience. Nearly everything and everyone in it is one-dimensional, inane, repulsive and disgusting. I'm frankly amazed by the number of people who think this version is any good. Stick to the flawed and often inconsistent 1959 theatrical movie, which at least has better actors, more complex characterizations and a mood appropriate to the grimness of the story.

Unfortunately, the definitive movie version of the book still awaits production by someone who can adapt its story and characters ably and faithfully. Shute was not a great writer but a good one, and his novel (now 50 years old, if you can believe it) is far more thoughtful, descriptive and involved than either film. But at least the '59 release attempted to remain true to the spirit of the book. This 2000 thing is just a rebuke to good taste, intelligence, and Nevil Shute.

reply

[–] Mister_Anderson 18 years ago

Have to disagree with about everything here. Have the book, the '59 DVD and this DVD. For me, the 2000 version, while not perfect, is the closest to feeling the most realistic for present time. I think there are some very emotional moments, especially with Cpt. Towers and Com. Holmes' family.

MOVIES BY THE MINUTE --> http://moviesbytheminute.blogspot.com

reply

[–] pamjp 18 years ago

I love the book and enjoyed both movies. (You can't really consider a book and a movie the same story, I don't think, just two stories with -usually- vast similarities. When you watch the movie you're looking at the interpretation of the story filtered through hundreds of people.)

What I love about the book is the lack of emotion, the inexorable forward moving of the story, heading for the big crash. To me the mode of storytelling exactly parallels the radiation. Emotionless, killing mercilessly, and nothing you can do can stop it. (The first time I'd read the book, I didn't know the story at all and kept waiting for the miracle. I was just devastated for hours after I finished the novel.) The women of course are ridiculous in the book, my only real dislike of it.

reply

[–] hobnob53 18 years ago

I basically agree with your assessments about the book, except I cannot at all understand how you can say the book shows a lack of emotion. That's a unique observation from anything I've ever heard anybody say about it. On the contrary, the book is overloaded with emotion -- it's probably the single strongest element in the novel.

Of course, it's not the obsecene, scenery-chewing, grunting and screaming sort of emotion you get in the rotten and asinine 2000 TV version, courtesy of Assante, Brown & Co., but that's one of about 20,000 things that make the book so infinitely superior to this piece of trash. The '59 film is maybe too subdued emotionally, at least from the characters' standpoint -- most of the emotion there comes from the tone of the film itself, not the characters. But nothing beats the book.

Also don't agree the women in the book are "ridiculous" -- far from it. They ARE ridiculous in the 2000 movie, both written and portrayed very badly. But I thought they were pretty strong characters in the book...more complex and interesting than the men, frankly.

The only decently presented character in the 2000 mess was Peter Holmes, who was perfectly written and realized as a three-dimensional human being. Otherwise, phony and false imbecility all the way -- actors, writing, plot deviations, the works. The inevitable deaths of all the moronic characters in this 2000 version only goes to show that, even amidst the holocaust of a worldwide nuclear war, there's always a silver lining.

reply

[–] LookinGood 18 years ago

Oooh, some educated discussion going on here, on one of my favourite films :-). *jumps in with both feet*

The women in the book are vintage 1950s (I believe I am repeating myself here, see up-thread). While there are a few things I could say about the portrayal of Moira and Mary in the 2000 version of the story, I think that the 2000 version attempted and succeeded in a modernisation of the story, in terms of society and rules. At times, when reading the book, I wanted to slap Moira and Mary (alternatively).

Peter Holmes, as much as I like him in this version, had all of the characterisation and none of the conflict (or little). What drives the story in the 2000 film are the conflicts the main characters face. And even if Mulcahy&Co. didn't cling to the book's plot, they developed this nicely, methinks. A realistic vision of one of many possible futures... (and I firmly believe that Mulcahy has a right to his version, as had Stanley Kramer in 1959. I haven't seen that version, but am looking for it.

I'll even go back and read the book again (hopefully soon, looks like the English version was culled from our library shelves...), and look at the characterisation of Towers again. This was what caused me major problems while reading the book for the first time...

The inevitable deaths of all the moronic characters in this 2000 version only goes to show that, even amidst the holocaust of a worldwide nuclear war, there's always a silver lining.

Ouch. *lol*!

I believe I have seen this film far too often (well, about 8 times, can't watch it too often). I can even point out cutting/continuity errors!
--
"Don't worry. In this country, if you help a girl with her sun lotion you don't have to marry her ." (On the Beach, 2000)

reply

[–] hobnob53 18 years ago

Well, we'll be interested in your reaction to the '59 movie. It has many flaws and inconsistencies and is nowhere near as good as the book, but much more faithful to its tone than 2000. Of course, the first film and the novel were of the same era.

You're probably right that in certain (not all) respects the characters in the '00 version are more true-to-contemporary-life than a simple rehash of them as drawn by Shute in 1957 would have been. But that doesn't translate as saying the characters are well written or believable. Towers particularly is an asinine characterization with an accordingly dreadful performance by Assante. But the whole thing is one-dimensional and half-witted. No one connected with this demonstrated any taste or talent. At least the '59 film had these, unsatisfactory as a whole as it was. And nothing can top the somber mood of that effort, which is what most people who saw it most remembered about it.

reply

[–] rthomp-1 17 years ago

My single biggest gripe with the 2000 film was the ending. The final scene should have been the pull-back shot of the Holmes house, not the clifftop embrace. I can deal with all the film's other flaws, but the decision to have the happy reunion at the end of the film really blunts its impact.

"Can I borrow your towel? My car just hit a water buffalo."

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]