Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 21, 2017, 12:52:28 AM
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
News:


+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Sir Alec Guinness
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Down Print
Author Topic: Sir Alec Guinness  (Read 18184 times)
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #90 on: May 09, 2016, 07:54:16 AM »

They clashed on pretty much everything they did. It was tough love.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: May 09, 2016, 08:00:13 AM »

RE. APTI ( and this post will have SPOILERS)

To me, watching the movie, I assumed that Dr. Aziz absolutely did nothing wrong, definitely did not rape the British girl. (Again, I have not read the book, which I understand is ambiguous on this point.) To me, the whole rape allegation was a fabrication (or maybe committed by the guide, if anything) so to me, it seemed as if Dr. Aziz is accused falsely, and then the girl recants, and he goes free. So what. I mean, to me it was so obvious that he was plainly innocent, I was even waiting for some big twist to happen - like maybe a crazy flashback will show us that he really raped her and the movie was fooling us all along - and then, ok, so she recants; yeah, exactly what we knew all along, Aziz did nothing wrong. So what. Again, seems a pretty long and roundabout way to make the point that never the twain shall meet


« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 09:03:36 AM by drinkanddestroy » Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: May 09, 2016, 08:01:48 AM »

As for Passage, I probably wouldn't rate it 10/10 any more, but it still holds up. It's more a good, tasteful adaptation of a great novel than high art, but the nitpicks I'd make (Guinness, the rushed ending) are relatively minor. Jarre's score is fine, not one of his best works.
My objection has more to do with the way Lean distorted the source novel. He decided to emphasize the repressed sexuality of the young English lady (he invented the monkeys-in-the-temple scene) and minimized the importance of Mrs. Moore. Mrs. Moore--and her crisis of faith--is really the heart of the book.

Lean also credits a play adaptation of Forster's novel, so some of his revisions were already prepared for. That play emphasizes the political implications of the story.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #93 on: May 09, 2016, 08:04:15 AM »

I believe the movie's based as much on Santha Rama Rau's stage adaptation as Forster's novel, hence the prominence of Aziz's trial (which takes up maybe 5-10 pages of the book). Lean and definitely simplify the story and redirect its focus, as Jenkins says. The false rape is just a hook for the story rather than something we're supposed to decode or understand. Black Narcissus and Picnic at Hanging Rock are worthy comparisons: the thematic concerns (Western civilization imposing itself on a foreign land) are identical, even if Lean's staging is far more straightforward than either of those movies.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 08:06:19 AM by Groggy » Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: May 09, 2016, 08:34:03 AM »

RE. APTI ( and this post will have SPOILERS)

To me, watching the movie, I assumed that Dr. Aziz absolutely did nothing wrong, defibitely did not rape the British girl. (Again, I have not read the book, which I understand is ambiguous on this point.) To me, the whole rape allegation was a fabrication (or maybe committed by the guide, if anything) so to me, it seemed as if Dr. Aziz is accused falsely, and then the girl recants, and he goes free. So what. I mean, to me it was so obvious that he was plainly innocent, I was even waiting for some big twist to happen - like maybe a crazy flashback will show us that he really raped her and the movie was fooling us all along - and then, ok, so she recants; yeah, exactly what we knew all along, Aziz did nothing wrong. So what. Again, seems a pretty long and roundabout way to make the point that never the twain shall meet
In a sense, it doesn't matter if he raped her or not. This is why the matter remains ambiguous. What's important is that the allegation of rape is the occasion for the two sides to go after each other. The trial and the attending publicity is a bigger deal then the initial act/non-act.

It's interesting that the girl ultimately withdraws her accusation. I don't think we know exactly why she does this. Initially, she really thought she had been raped, but she seems to be less certain as time goes by. It's not that she becomes convinced she wasn't raped, just that she can't be certain enough to cause the ruin of a man's life. She errs on the side of caution. She withdraws her charge even though it's contrary to what the power structure wants. It costs her standing in her community and makes her liable for damages.

I don't remember how it goes in the film, but in the play Aziz is vindictive and wants to take the girl for all she's worth. His English friend pleads with him to let the girl off the hook. Aziz says no, that would be the gentlemanly thing to do, the English thing. He's past all that, he says. He just wants revenge and the money. But then the Englishman makes a final appeal that's quite interesting--he asks Aziz to forgive the girl for Mrs. Moore's sake. Is that what Mrs. Moore would have wanted? he asks. Yes, comes the reply. OK, Aziz says, on that basis he will give up his claim for damages--but he will explain ever after that he did so at his English friend's request (all the while maintaining that he would have preferred to have his revenge and the money).

When Mrs. Moore goes into the cave she has a crisis of faith (Lean passes over this, probably because it's non-cinematic). The novel is quite explicit about it. Mrs. Moore experiences the apprehension of Nothingness, and begins to suspect that human religious beliefs are mere convention. She is forever changed by this occasion and dies soon after. The caves are where one is able to separate oneself entirely from habit, culture, civilization itself. Perhaps one is able to experience the cosmos without filters there. Or perhaps one only finds what one is afraid of. Either way, the experience is unsettling. Maybe Miss Quested had a similar experience. She was not raped by Aziz, but she felt another kind of violation, a spiritual hurt that she felt someone should be blamed for. Aziz was the convenient target. Finally, though, she realized she couldn't hold one man responsible for the entirety of the cosmos.

Not only is the book/film/play better than Drink knows, it's better than he CAN know.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: May 09, 2016, 09:27:06 AM »

My objection has more to do with the way Lean distorted the source novel. He decided to emphasize the repressed sexuality of the young English lady (he invented the monkeys-in-the-temple scene) and minimized the importance of Mrs. Moore. Mrs. Moore--and her crisis of faith--is really the heart of the book.

Lean also credits a play adaptation of Forster's novel, so some of his revisions were already prepared for. That play emphasizes the political implications of the story.

As I mentioned, the shame about reading a book is that you almost always end up preferring it to the movie; no matter how much you like the movie, you always say "but they left this or that out" or "they changed this or that" or "they could have done this or that better"  Wink

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
drinkanddestroy
Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8313

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: May 09, 2016, 09:32:15 AM »

RE: what DJ mentioned about the movie not showing Mrs. Moore's crisis of faith:

The book has a lot about thoughts, which are hard to film. This may have been a reason why Lean chose not to use the crisi-of-faith part in the movie. Also, perhaps he felt that that crisis of faith thing doesn't stick to the theme of the British-Indian relations, never the twain shall meet, etc.

Logged

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
Groggy
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11458


This post gets Agnew's stamp of approval!


View Profile WWW
« Reply #97 on: May 09, 2016, 09:43:58 AM »

In the play Aziz is vindictive and wants to take the girl for all she's worth. His English friend pleads with him to let the girl off the hook. Aziz says no, that would be the gentlemanly thing to do, the English thing. He's past all that, he says. He just wants revenge and the money. But then the Englishman makes a final appeal that's quite interesting--he asks Aziz to forgive the girl for Mrs. Moore's sake. Is that what Mrs. Moore would have wanted? he asks. Yes, comes the reply. OK, Aziz says, on that basis he will give up his claim for damages--but he will explain ever after that he did so at his English friend's request (all the while maintaining that he would have preferred to have his revenge and the money).

That's pretty much how it happens in the movie.

Quote
When Mrs. Moore goes into the cave she has a crisis of faith (Lean passes over this, probably because it's non-cinematic). The novel is quite explicit about it. Mrs. Moore experiences the apprehension of Nothingness, and begins to suspect that human religious beliefs are mere convention.

There is the scene where she's staring at the daytime moon and commenting on being passing figures in a godless universe. I found that really affecting, even if it's one scene rather than a major plot thread.

Logged


Saturday nights with Groggy
stanton
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2934



View Profile
« Reply #98 on: May 10, 2016, 05:54:21 AM »

As I mentioned, the shame about reading a book is that you almost always end up preferring it to the movie; no matter how much you like the movie, you always say "but they left this or that out" or "they changed this or that" or "they could have done this or that better"  Wink

No, films are often enough better than books.

Reminds me that a novel has only a serving function for films.

Logged

dave jenkins
Bounty Killer
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13635

"One banana, two banana, three banana, four...."


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: May 10, 2016, 05:57:27 AM »

Sometimes a subject is so interesting that the book, the play, and the film are all of equal value, as is the case here.

Logged


That's what you get, Drink, for getting out of bed this morning.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Visit FISTFUL-OF-LEONE.COM

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.044 seconds with 19 queries.