I wish to ask if any of you know, but in the book Edward wears a ring with the hair of ELinor, unlike the film where he gives her a hanfkerchief, does anyone know why the director changed the object? I have to make a work on the film and the book and I do not seem to catch up why such thing was changed?
"Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken..."
Actually, in the book, it is later explained that the ring was given to Edward by Lucy, and it is her lock of hair that it contains--not Elinor's. Also, there were countless differences between the book and the movie. For example, in the movie, Sir John Middleton was a widdower who lived with his mother-in-law, Mrs. Jennings. Why was Austen's Lady Middleton and her obnoxiously ill-behaved children omitted from the movie script? Perhaps the script writers/director/producer found her to be a superfluous character and decided they didn't need to pay another actor, nor perhaps did they want to deal with children on the movie set. Who can say why any writer/director/producer deviates from the book?Originally Posted by Evermore
SUGGESTION: You may want to rent the movie (if you haven't already). Perhaps there will be an interview with the director, and he may explain why he changed any of the things that were different from the book.
Good luck with your report!
;-)
AG
Last edited by AutumnGal; 12-31-2006 at 05:15 PM. Reason: Darn typo!
Evermore, I love you signature line. That's my favorite sonnet.
If you're looking for a resource, Emma Thompson put out a book with the manuscript she adapted. It also contains her notes and journal entries she made about the filming of the movie.
I hope that helps.
No one knows for certain except the director (Ang Lee) and the screenwriter (Emma Thompson) but I am not surprised they altered that bit. First of all, in the book Lucy and Elinor must have almost the same color hair if Marianne can mistake the hair on the ring (it is Lucy's) for Elinor's. In the movie Elinor is blond while Lucy has darker hair. Then there is the fact that Edward's visit to Barton Cottage, where the ring figures in (chapters 16-19), is not included at all in the movie--so the ring would have been difficult to include anywhere else.
But these are just my ideas...hope you find a suitable answer!
"Forgive me, forgive me," Marianne threw her arms round her sister's neck, "I know you feel for me; I know what a heart you have; but yet you are-you must be happy; Edward loves you-what, of what, can do away such happiness as that?"
"Many, many circumstances," said Elinor, solemnly.
Think also about film vs books. Film is a visual medium. I thought Emma Thompson did an excellent job of using the handkerchief as a device. It shows Edward with a tender heart when he finds Elinor crying when Marianne is playing their father's favorite tune. Then Lucy, after disclosing her engagement to Edward, pulls out an identical handkerchief that Lucy received from Edward . I read into Lucy's face that she is purposefully pulling out the handkerchief and blowing her nose to make sure that Elinor sees the handkerchief.
If a ring was used for this purpose, it would be much more difficult. And I hate to say it, but most movie audiences don't want to work that hard when they watch a movie, so unless you make it very plain, a lot of people would miss the connection.
it was lucy's lock of hair...but i never saw the movie, i am always dissappointed by the movie afer the book its about.
For a simple reason - we don't use locks of hair as tokens of affect as much anymore. No one would understand. They would say something like "Why does Edward have a lock of her hair?" A hankercheif accomplishes the same purpose, and it is easier to pull of. Also, there's the scene where we know she misses Edward because she pulls out the hankercheif and looks at it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote