I disliked the movie created from the novel “The Stone Angel” for numerous reasons.
First, I thought the casting was poor. The actors did not represent the characters in the novel well. They appeared more modern and did not fit the descriptions given to them in the novel. Hagar was the main character in the novel and her main qualities were her “strength” and stubbornness, which were not portrayed well in the film.
Secondly, important details were missing. What I found important was John lying to Hagar about his elementary school friends, old Hagar spending her last night at Shadow Point with Murray in the old cannery, and during Hagar’s last days in the hospital forming a relationship with Mrs. Dobereiner. Those events played a significant role in the novel because they demonstrated how John and Hagar were changing over time. Perhaps including these scenes would have improved the movie.
Lastly, I found the novel was full of emotion, whereas the movie was focused on what would sell. I found the added curse words, drugs and alcohol scenes unnecessary. Although there were scenes with alcohol and minimal swearing in the novel, I found it overdone in the movie.
That being said, I understand that it is not an easy task to create a movie from a novel, let alone a Canadian fiction novel. If the director would have stayed true to the novel, I believe, they could have created something great even on a budget.
Jessica
The movie definitley was modernized to capture the viewer's attention. If the movie had not been updated then it may come across as being unrelatable to the audience.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the movie did not establish enough about the relationships Hagar had in the novel.
I did not recieve alot of true emotion from Hagar , where as in the book I did. Maybe the producers of the movie wanted the audience to feel sympathey for Hagar by having her cry alot. If she had no expressive emotion in the movie then the audience may have not connected with her. Hagar's expression of voice in the movie did not seem the same as in the book.
Most movie's that are based on novels take the most important events that will captivate the viewer's attention. I do understand why not all scene's were present.
Wow, Jessica. Great start. And, Rossy, you've done a great job too of building on Jessica's start.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to say too much until everyone else has had a say.
I also disliked the movie created from the novel “The Stone Angel” for a couple of reasons.
ReplyDeleteI believe that little details which represented a lot where left behind, things such as; facial hair, age and hair tone. these are important for the understanding of character within the movie. For example Hagar had red hair which showed a lot of her character unlike the movie where see didn't have a prominently strong hair color, Bram lacked facial hair in the movie, and did not seem old at all, where when reading the book one sees the prominent age in Bram.
The scene which captured my attention the most, was the one where Marvin is off to war, because in the movie Hagar is very sad, she cries, and is not afraid to show how hurt she really is for going off to war, and maving still decides to go to war. Where as in the book, Hagar shows an almost indifferent look towards his departure.
This is important because in the book it really shows the lack of relationship between marvin and Hagar, thing that would affect the later on quote "you always bet on the wrong horse". Which if she was that affective to marvin thing would have been a lot different and marvin taking the care he took of her would not have been such a surprise.
I was not a very big fan of the movie adaptation of the Stone Angel either. I agree that much was lost in the modernization of the story, and I especially agree with Jessica's statement. I think that Hagar's character lost a lot of her complexity when they showed her as less stubborn and more emotional.
ReplyDeleteI think another huge downfall of the movie was the portrayal of Bram and Hagar's relationship. In the movie, Bram and Hagar converse in a much more open, comfortable matter then they were ever able to in the book. Some people might see this as a small change, but I think it came at a huge cost. By having them converse so openly, we lose that sense of a wall being between them that we get in the book, that feeling of " if only Hagar would say the things she's really thinking, they might actually work together". This feeling is what makes this novel such a tragedy, because happiness was always within Hagar's reach, but she could never see it.
This change was probably made simply because of the medium. In a movie, these awkward silences would not mean the same thing as they do in a book, where they can be further explained from inside the characters head. On-screen, it would just look strange and out of place, which is why the change was necessary. Bram was also portrayed unfairly in the movie many different ways, like when he gave Hagar the glass decanter. In the novel, this is a scene where Bram gains a little compassion from us, because we feel bad for the way Hagar treats him. In the movie, it is turned around so Bram is the bad guy, which has a completely different effect.
All in all, I am not a fan of books into movies, because I don't think they ever do the books justice, and The Stone Angel is just another casualty of this.