MovieChat Forums > I Capture the Castle (2003) Discussion > Some comments on the novel and film.

Some comments on the novel and film.

posted 18 years ago by lola-lola
11 replies | jump to latest

I really loved the book.
I think my favourite part would be when Cassandra tells Stephen that to he doesn't have to be born a gentleman to be one: particularly the bit when she notices that his "queer, veiled expression was suddenly not there." And how "There seemed to be a light in them (his eyes) and yet i had never seen them look so dark. And they were so direct that it was more like being touched than being looked at". The description is so vivid and sensual, it makes my spine tingle!
I then passed the book on to my sister and my mum, who both loved it. Then my sister thought she'd surprise me for my birthday by getting me the film adaptation.
I'd already read many (negative) reviews concerning the film, and I hadn't even seen it yet, so I was quite wary.
However, after watching the film twice, my sister and i concur that while it captures the spirit of the novel it is very different from it. I think you will enjoy the film if you separate it from the book otherwise, you'll be disappointed.
We agreed on the director and screen writer's choice to streamline the story, (eliminating Miss Marcy's character for instance)and changing the "I love you, I love you, Ilove you" part to "I love , I have loved, I will love"(the former only works in the book)but,not on some of the casting choices.
Romola Garai wasn't who we had in mind when picturing Cassandra: we imagined her as a petite curly-haired brunette, rather young-looking for 17. Romola's performance was ok but she looked too poised and grown up. Another miscasting was Marc Blucas as Neil: in the book he's got a sparkly charismatic personality and a boyish charm ,in the film he always looked very sullen. Sinead Cusack as Mrs Cotton seemed obnoxious and stand-offish, nothing like the generous, smart lady in the novel. And I know that this is really shallow, but i just have to get it off my chest. Remember how in the book Rose was a vision in the pink dress she wore while dining at the Cotton's? In that scene in the film Rose Byrne looked positively TERRIBLE!

[–] masha_xo 18 years ago

ive yet to watch the film but i agree with you interms of romola gerrai...i like her face, however, she looks far older than 17 and i find the actor who plays simon to be ghastly in appearance while i pictured him attractive while reading the book. Rose i thought was absoloutely perfect, exactly how i pictured her

[–] Lady_Groan 18 years ago

hmmm...I thought that Romola Garai was absolutely perfect in the role. I thought not only did she look exactly as I had pictured her, but her mannerisms, etc. and her acting was great for Cassandra. Rose was a very excellent choice too. All in all, I thought the casting was very well done for this movie.

[–] gopherface 18 years ago

I imagined Rose with red hair, as Cassandra kept refering to her hair as "bright". Also, Rose holds the green creme de menthe up to her hair because she thinks it's flattering. Usually, green compliments red very well.

[–] Lady_Groan 18 years ago

Rose does have red hair in the movie.

[–] anubiian 18 years ago

The 'I love you' part being changed annoyed me slightly as I thought it was sort of important to be left as it was. I think Romola Garai was lovely as Cassandra. Romola Garai is sort of small, but I believe that Cassandra was described a ssomewhat mousy and plain looking in the book. Also, I believe she was supposed to look a bit old and act a bit older, because it's mentioned in the book several times that she acts much too old for her age. I thought Rose looked pretty, too, but to each his own.

[–] lola-lola 18 years ago

Hold on a minute everyone. When I mentioned that Rose Byrne wasn't that stunning in the pink dress, that wasn't to say she portrayed her character badly ; she was actually very good.
My sister and I just thought it was rather funny that her dress and expression in that scene weren't exactly, what you might say, becoming.
As far as Cassandra goes, I mentioned previously that Romola Garai's acting was ok: scratch that, it was a good performance.
However, when I watched the film, I had only just finished reading the novel so I couldn't imagine the film characters looking any different from the ones in the book.
I know this is going to sound criminal, but I actually think that in the film Cassandra is prettier than Rose.
In the novel Cassandra has a 'neatish face',looks younger, but feels older, and stresses tha her sister is the beautiful one.
Don't get me wrong, Rose Byrne is far from ugly, but I think Romola Garai was made to be more of a natural beauty, Rose Byrne looked rather artificial.

Unable are the Loved to die
For Love is Immortality.

[–] LaanChao 18 years ago

'I know this is going to sound criminal, but I actually think that in the film Cassandra is actually prettier than Rose'
_______________________________________________________________________________

It's curious, isn't it, the choices filmakers have to make to persuade the audience to 'side' with a protagonist - sometimes resulting in a more actractive choice than we might have pictured. That said, however, I usually admire such decisions, and allow for a good measure of artistic licence plus my own imagination in view of each adaptation.

I thoroughly appreciate all that you have said, l-l, and perfectly see all of your points. Personally, however, I can't think of a better actress for Cassandra than Romola (yet).

Sinead Cusack does seem to me generally rather distant. I don't know why, but I find her rather difficult to warm to.

Another poster found Henry Thomas as Simon objectionable, which I am sorry to hear. I felt he has the kindest expression, and precisely that look which a first glance produces no great admiration, but which becomes very easy to love - much as Cassandra found.

I must confess I much prefer the painful longing of the last words of the BOOK, but of course I see why the more hopeful ones of the film must work better for it, even though it changes the tone and perhaps even the intention of the original.

[–] lola-lola 18 years ago

Thank you for all the praise, LaanChao, I am very flattered.
I also thought that Henry Thomas was perfectly cast as Simon: he has that vulnerability that makes him so endearing, just like the character in the book.
Another poster mentioned that Paul Rudd would have been a good choice; maybe.
As for the closing lines in the film, I can't explain it,I would have found it strange and out of place hearing Romola actually reciting 'I love you, I love you,I love you', even if it was beautifully poignant on paper.
I listened to the audio-commentary by the director Tim Fywell and the screen writer Heidi Thomas and she said that the ending in the novel struck her as 'slightly odd', because in order to grow up Cassandra must experience both love and loss: therefore she doesn't get Simon, but moves on (that's why she declares 'I love, I have loved I will love'), meaning that she has got over him (i.e. matured).
In the book, however,I interpreted the three 'I love yous' as a sign that she
longs for Simon's love and still can't accept that he loves Rose (so she hasn't 'fully' grown up).
I always like to the think that in the end, say a few years later, Simon realizes that Cassandra is his soul mate and comes back to her.

Unable are the Loved to die
For Love is Immortality.

[–] LaanChao 18 years ago

'Vulnerable' was precisely the other word I had in mind for Henry Thomas.

And yes, as I said, I do understand the decision for the changes in the final words as offering hope and as an indication of Cassandra's maturity; they certainly do work better cinematically.

I feel that the three 'I love yous' did not at all negate her having 'grown up'. It must be a very strong maturity and self-awareness indeed to realise that, had she accepted Simon's near-proposal, the contentment they might have shared could never be 'enough for the giver'. I'm not at all sure that even I could quite depend on the strength of MY sense were the same situation to ever present itself to me. I also feel (and here I confess I am much influenced by my own keenly felt sorrows of exactly this nature) that they were somehow a kind of backward defiance against the all too easy and oft-repeated encouragement for someone to 'move on'. They don't pretend that all will be well - but not in a nihilistic way.

Your signature quotation presents a fine irony for me personally! Unable, unloved, to die. More's the pity...!

I know it's foolish. Still...

Oh, and yes, I share your hopes for Simon's return.

[–] ednalyn99 18 years ago

I also hoped for Simon's return. I didn't have a problem with Henry Thomas's Simon. I thought his kindness and vulnerability was what made him very lovable.

Although I wish, Simon'w return would happen after Cassandra have met other men other than Stephen and Simon, so that at least she'll know it's Simon that she really wants.

I loved "The Painted Veil." Please do try to see it.

[–] NimenyPimeny 17 years ago

You must remember that when it says in the book that Rose is a vision in the pink dress that is only Cassandra's highly romanticised opinion. A vital part of the book comes from the fact that it's narrator is a young, naive, romantic, 17 year old girl who has been living in an ivory tower for her entire life. The story as Cassandra tells it in her diary is obviously biased and semi unreliable as it is seen through her eyes. Rose (once her taste and worldliness have improved/increased) and Simon later laugh over "that ridiculous dress" which would have looked terribly odd when flapper dresses were in fashion. We see similar switches of opinion in Cassandra who thinks her new green linen dress is wonderful and then when she goes to London realizes it is cheap looking.

Bernard Black: This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!