MovieChat Forums > Un long dimanche de fiançailles (2005) Discussion > Fan of the books who didnt like the movi...

Fan of the books who didnt like the movie

posted 17 years ago by tinuvielle
12 replies | jump to latest

I'm a great fan of Sébastien Japrisot, the writter of the 1991 novel "Un long dimanche de fiancailles". This year, the book wined the "Prix Interallié", a prestigious award for books.

Japrisot is an amazing writer, about one of the only male writer that truly understand women and can make 'more-then-true" female caractere.

I like Jean-Pierre Jeunet as a director, but i truly hate the movie he have done.

This is just not he same story. He changes many things, and i can't see why.

Mathilde, in the book, is the daughter of a very rich man. She is a "daddy-girl", she is use to plot and complaint and make crises to get what she wants. And as she is rich, it easy to get what she wants, even is she cannot walk.
And that also, is really important in the novel. She fell for a starir as a kid, at 3 years olds and never walk again.
The first time Manech saw her, she is sitting in her wheelcahir and ask her: You cannot walk?. He will become her knight in shinning armor, making her learn how to swim (so, in the book, all their previous moment are on the lake shore and in the lake itself, not that none sense about a "phare").

So, i didnt like the fact that Jeunet made her an orphan living in Brittany, she is suppose to be a posh parisian having a summer house in "Landes", which in not the same. She is not suppose to walk, which makes her even more obstinate.

If you have a chance, read the novel, as the movie was only meh.

[–] DarcyBrandon 17 years ago

I was lucky that I saw the movie before I read the book. I enjoyed the movie so much. I know the book was 10 times better but the movie was a joy to watch. I just have to remember to treat it as 2 different stories who just happen to share the same name.

[–] DerSongsurfer 17 years ago

Well it is almost impossible to adapt a movie from a book without making any changes. Novels and Cinema are two medias tat are very different from each other. You have to keep that in mind.

[–] embojangles 17 years ago

A movie is not supposed to be a literal translation of the book. It's an ADAPTATION, free to make it's own choices. I think the film is completely true the spirit of the book. Can anyone name a film that is even 95% faithful to every major choice of its book? The closest one springing in my mind is The Joy Luck Club. You read the book, you see the film, and say, "okay, that was the book." Films aren't made to simply re-tell stories visually.

Why did AVLE make those changes to Mathilde's character? From a cinematic standpoint, keeping a character in a wheelchair is pretty limiting. From an audience perspective, an orphaned country girl is far more sympathetic than a rich Parisian.

[–] megatosspot 17 years ago

Well it makes a refreshing change for the movie to be less sappy than the book.

[–] tinuvielle 17 years ago

I dont agree, Mathilde is not suppose to be a kind little poor country girl.
She is a rich bratt, its a part of who is she.

And i've done studies in cinema, I do know that you cannot adapt perfectly a movie.
But as i'm a true fan of Japrisot's novels, I do think that Jeunet made it all wrong. He made a good movie, but not as great as it could have been, when you like the book, it could have been more faithful. As was L'été meurtrier, also from a Japrisot book.

[–] Hojon 17 years ago

Faithful doesn't equal great though. Now, it's hard for me to judge as I haven't read the book, so maybe you're right and making Mathilde a rich brat would've been a better choice from a literary standpoint, but Jeunet clearly thought otherwise, and as an artist (as opposed to just some hack filmmaker), he has a right to make changes to a story if he thinks it will better suit the work of art he is trying to craft. Personally, I hate the idea of comparing books to films even if they are based on the same subject matter. It's not exactly an apples and oranges situation, but it's kind of like comparing a song about apples to a painting about apples. In other words, there's no point to it since they're two completely different art forms. Again, I may be way off base and might feel differently after reading the book, but ask yourself if you hadn't read the book first, would you still think this movie wasn't as good as it could've been (as a movie)? That might be kind of an impossible question to answer, since you can't unread something, but it's something to think about.

[–] fl1 13 years ago

I dont agree, Mathilde is not suppose to be a kind little poor country girl.

She's not poor at all in the film, she's a rich heiress and she spends a lot of money looking for Manech.
Yes, she's in the country, but an important reason for this is probably the photography: lovely images of Normandy have quite a big part in the film 8and rightly so).

[–] iwao 15 years ago

I was, too, highly disappointed when i watched the movie. but mainly because i thought the 5 convicts, their stories, psychology and life in the no man's land were poorly depicted in the movie, while they were the best thing in the book. i felt like the director was in a rush to put everything in a 2h movie and prefered love scenes to other scenes, probably to get a larger feminine audience. the casting was also quite bad, above all clovis cornillac, who really didn't fit the greatness of his character (in the book at least). i advise people to read the book..

[–] Heybartender 15 years ago

The change made in the film that I found most surprising was that from the very beginning the viewer is given hope that Manech is still alive, whereas in the book, the reader is led to believe that there is no hope (until the second-to-last chapter). Mathilde goes hunting for answers - not because has reason to believe that Manech lives - but because she simply feels she needs to know. It's also implied that she would like to marry him posthumously.

I didn't have much of a problem with the screenwriter's decision to make her an orphan or to modify her disability because in the end, it's all about the love story for me. The similar natures of the first meeting between Mathilde and Manech in the book and the film are what matter; he asks her the questions twice in both ("Does it hurt?" and "You can't walk?", respectively), implying that their romance will begin again in the same way it started, even after all those years.

[–] fl1 13 years ago

I didn't have much of a problem with the screenwriter's decision to make her an orphan or to modify her disability because in the end, it's all about the love story for me. The similar natures of the first meeting between Mathilde and Manech in the book and the film are what matter; he asks her the questions twice in both ("Does it hurt?" and "You can't walk?", respectively), implying that their romance will begin again in the same way it started, even after all those years.

Yes, that seems the point after all: the most moving piece for me.

[–] cochet 13 years ago

I liked the movie very much although I will agree with you the book is much better. However, books are always better.
Anyway here is a list of stuff I liked and disliked about the movie:
Likes
- the Tina Lombardi character
- Albert Dupontel as Célestin Poux
- the recreation of Paris in the 20s
- the love triangle, very well made
- the flashback to Mathilde's childhood
- the photography
Dislikes:
- changing the settings from the Landes to Bretagne. For once that the Landes could have been the setting of a movie!
- Mathilde's character: the stubborness was there all right, but she was a bit too dry, and her cleverness not shown enough
- the plot was some times a bit simplified, and funnily enough it complicates things, like the reason why the letters are given to Mathilde
Most importantly, I have the impression that while the description of the war itself is well made, the movie is not dealing well enough with the consequences of the war, which was what made the book brilliant IMO.
Nevertheless, it was a good movie and a brilliant book, which I strongly recommend.

[–] s_bourbouse 13 years ago

I totally agree with you. Could not have said it better.
I studied the book when I was 14 at school, loved it, and then ten years later I saw the movie and was a bit disappointed, exactly for the same reasons as you. I simply did not like Mathilde both the character and the fact she was played by Audrey (I can't exactly explain it though), but thought Marion as Tina and Jodie as Elodie were perfect.