I don't think it had necessarily a lot to do with censorship.
It just less "messy", in terms of story-telling, if you know what I mean: it's much simpler, but it still conveys the same main "point" Flaubert was trying to make. (Bovary "blows" his one chance of gaining Emma's admiration AND love, sinking even deeper in his wretched wife's eyes.)
I think Minelli handled it rather well, all things considered.
What I particularly appreciated was his inclusion of poor Hyppolite's dreams of being pleasing to the "ladies". (Gawd, that part really got me in the book!)
In the film, it emphasises Bovary's personal integrity and goodness, which was necessary in order NOT to make him look like a total "loser" he was in his wife's eyes.
reply
share
nyjack
12 years ago
Having seen this in November 2012 I noticed that huge difference from the book too. My feeling is that the film wanted to have the audience have some sympathy for Doc Bovary. Van Heflin was one of those actors that played a lot of loser roles but usually with some saving grace {see his biopic of Andrew Johnson, or even Shane]. If the story line went the way of the book and that poor young guy died for the sake of the doctor's vanity there's no way the audience would have any sympathy left for him. In the book you could perhaps get away with it as there is still a long ways to go and the reader could still regain a feeling for the doctor--even though that's not what Flaubert wanted--but in a two-hour film, no way. Minnelli slanted the film more towards the doctor than in the book; guess a completely true representation of the book wouldn't fly in 1949. But the movie still follows the book very well, even if we are left with shots of hats and horse whips lying so euphemistically in the grass.
reply
share