Difference's between the book and the movie? - A Room with a View (1986) Discussion

[–] shakespeare_girl88 19 years ago

Very little, I've found, though I haven't seen the film since I finished the book. The characters are played almost to perfection; Daniel Day-Lewis's Cecil, Maggie Smith's Charlotte, and Judi Dench's Miss Lavish in particular come to mind. The book is superior to the movie, of course, (with such a book, how could it not be?) but, whether or not you've been to Florence, it's absolutely delightful to see the story play out in the Tuscan scenery that is so key to "A Room with a View." Merchant and Ivory, I believe, understood quite well the importance of views as complements and not mere backgrounds to the story.

reply

[–] AND77 19 years ago

The film version was brilliant, but it did not reflect the family's disapproving attitude in the end about Lucy's marrying George. George and his father are Socialists, which was highly frowned upon by "good society" at the time. The end of the novel explains how things will never be the same between Lucy and her family for marrying George.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pamjp 17 years ago

The way the mother's character is played in the movie, you could never believe Mrs. Honeychurch would let such a thing come between their relationship (although she is obviously quite a proponent of class distinction). But she's so warm and down to earth, despite being a product of her time.

I have never read the book because of this break in the Honeychurch family - I adore this movie so much that I want to protect my vision of it. (I know that's awful, you don't need to tell me.) Mrs. Honeychurch says she will miss the Emersons when they leave, so in my mind she's delighted with the marriage.

(But SURELY she prefers George to Cecil - doesn't she???)

I admit I'd love to learn more about the secondary characters - Mr. Beebe, Freddy, and Charlotte most especially.

reply

[–] Mandyjam 17 years ago

When I saw the movie on TV, there was a scene which is missed out of the video, to my disappointmment. It is the scene where Cecil explains to his mother that he cannot marry Lucy. I remember thinking after watching it on TV that all the young people were fortunate in their parents, because, in the movie, Lucy's mother was NOT a snob, Cecil mother said the right things about his disappointment, and George's father was a gem.

"great minds think differently"

reply

[–] la-31 18 years ago

As far as screen adaptations go, the film did a fine job. The casting was perfect, and all the actors were excellent. Another poster did point out what the film sort of glosses over at the end. Another key difference - the type of flowers in the field when Lucy and George are alone in Italy. I read that the filmmakers were unable to locate the same sort of flower which is specified in the book.

What I truly appreciated was the script of the film keeps much of the same dialogue as in the film. EM Forster is one of my favorite writers.

reply

[–] midnight_muse 13 years ago

The flower was violets (a recurring motif in the novel). The love-scene was set amongst barley and poppies in the movie, but is much more spectacularly described in the book:

At the same moment the ground gave way, and with a cry she fell out of the wood. Light and beauty enveloped her. She had fallen on to a little open terrace, which was covered with violets from end to end.

"Courage!" cried her companion [the driver], now standing some six feet above. "Courage and love."

She did not answer. From her feet the ground sloped sharply into view, and violets ran down in rivulets and streams and cataracts, irrigating the hillside with blue, eddying round the tree stems collecting into pools in the hollows, covering the grass with spots of azure foam. But never again were they in such profusion; this terrace was the well-head, the primal source whence beauty gushed out to water the earth.

Then George kissed Lucy.

Miss Lavish's fictional account mentions the violets too, and violets were the flower with which the Emersons decorated the room of the Miss Alans (the movie used cornflowers):

[Mr. Beebe:] "They picked violets and filled all the vases in the room of these very Miss Alans who have failed to come to Cissie Villa. Poor little ladies! So shocked and so pleased. It used to be one of Miss Catharine's great stories. 'My dear sister loves flowers,' it began. They found the whole room a mass of blue — vases and jugs — and the story ends with 'So ungentlemanly and yet so beautiful.' It is all very difficult. Yes, I always connect those Florentine Emersons with violets."

I wish violets had been available for the film, but I'm guessing they were filming in summer instead of spring.

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

reply

[–] piapaya 11 years ago

Even so, it was said that the only reason this aspect deviated from the book was that they couldn't find a field of violets or create a realistic one.

reply

[–] midnight_muse 11 years ago

Even so, it was said that the only reason this aspect deviated from the book was that they couldn't find a field of violets or create a realistic one.

I understand they couldn't find a real field of violets because they didn't film in spring (as I said above). It's interesting they couldn't create something that looked realistic, though. The long shots wouldn't be hard; there are violets all over my yard right now, and from even a little distance, they are just streaks of blue-violet color. As for closer shots, realistic faux flowers are used in movies all the time. Ah well, it's a minor detail to most, and still a beautiful scene in a beautiful film.

_____________

[i]I don't come from hell. I came from the forest./i]

reply

[–] liberalmedia 18 years ago

I think you will really enjoy the book. Watch for the description of the skinny dipping scene; I think James Ivory captured theimagery of that scene particularly well.

Some of the characters and situations are fleshed out a bit more in the novel. You will learn, for example, a little more about the Rev. Mr. Beebe's motivations.

I've only read three of Forster's novels (naturally, they're all Merchant-Ivory adaptations) but have found them all readable and emotionally satisfying. Sometimes the film adaptations soften certain aspects of the characters or story, but generally the spirit of the works is captured very well.

reply

[–] NordicLady1 17 years ago

And a little difference: in the book George kisses Lucy on her cheek:)

reply

[–] smegzilla 16 years ago

no...in the book it says "He stepped quickly forward and kissed her". it doesn't say cheek so one can assume it was on the lips

reply

[–] noracharles05 16 years ago

I thought that the biggest difference had to do with Charlotte Bartlett. In the book, she's a sort of horrifying specter of what Lucy might become if she remains in her muddle ("her long, narrow head drove backwards and forwards, as if diminishing some invisible obstacle" - applied to Charlotte early in the novel, and to Lucy when she is in the muddle). In the book, Lucy and George talk about the part she plays in their coming together at the end, and wonder whether she was trying to give them their chance; in the film, this is fairly ambiguous, and I never got the sense that Lucy was in danger of becoming like Miss Bartlett. The film doesn't include that possible redemption of Charlotte's character (though if she's receiving letters from Lucy at the end, she must have at least condoned her marriage to George).

I think that this film was (in spirit, at least) one of the most faithful adaptations I've ever seen.

reply

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

Oh, I really disagree with you. I have ONLY seen the film, and I very much thought Charlotte was trying to get them together in the end. I turned to my wife and commented "apparently she's had a change of heart since they were in Florence".

reply

[–] midnight_muse 14 years ago

Elsewhere in the book it's implied that it was the cheek, at least once if not more. I remember that she woke from a dream with a cry at the Vyse's, her hand covering her cheek, and she kept it there over her cheek while Mrs. Vyse comforted and kissed her. The implication is that she was dreaming of George.

________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

reply

[–] hannab723 14 years ago

As she was dozing off, a cry--the cry of nightmare--rang from Lucy's room. Lucy could ring for the maid if she liked but Mrs. Vyse thought it kind to go herself. She found the girl sitting upright with her hand on her cheek.
"I am so sorry, Mrs. Vyse--it is these dreams."
"Bad dreams?"
"Just dreams."
The elder lady smiled and kissed her, saying very distinctly: "You should have heard us talking about you, dear. He admires you more than ever. Dream of that."
Lucy returned the kiss, still covering one cheek with her hand.
-----------------
The original ghost-- that touch of lips on her cheek--had surely been laid long ago; it could be nothing to her that a man had kissed her on a mountain once.

------------------
Later references to the kiss clearly show that it was on the cheek, which was scandalous enough for the time - I just watched the 2007 version and was surprised at the kiss on the lips - I am now watching the Merchant Ivory movie on youtube.

reply

[–] niomithegirl 13 years ago

NordicGirl is right -- it was on the cheek, but the reader really is led to believe it was a full-on kiss until Lucy informs us otherwise (way later in the book!).

If you read closely there's a really interesting 'distance' thing going on with this: the final mention we get of the kiss is in Lavish's book, where she calls it a romantic embrace. I think the author was playing with us. At first we think it is a kiss. Then a distance develops as we realize it was really just on the cheek. And THEN we reach Lavish's passage and are presented with an 'embrace,' an image that is much more intimate than either of those. So my conclusion is that he kissed her on the cheek but in a passionate embrace type of way...

It probably also has to do with the social barriers that the characters put up for themselves - according to Forster more flexible in Italy, but rigid in England. The irony though is that people are much more accepting of the Emersons in Surrey than at the pension! And as the location changes (and in turn the social barriers) so too does the depiction of the kiss shift. But this is all very much based on prose, not dialogue.

There were lots of tidbits in the book like this. Lighthearted dialogue combined with the profound, yet easy, introspection of the novel is something that is very hard to translate to the screen. And ultimately it was really for that underlying emotion that I loved the novel. So I don't think I liked the movie as much although I did love the film Lucy!

reply

[–] Spring15 13 years ago

I like the kiss on the lips (movie) much better than the one on the cheek (book).It clearly shows the passion between the two; not so with the kiss on the cheek.

reply

[–] carliewr147 17 years ago

There was one major difference between the book and the movie: the ending. In the book, it is not explicit that Charlotte knows Mr. Emerson is sitting in the library before she goes to church. Lucy only realizes that Charlotte brought her and George together at the end of the novel, when she discusses it with George.
I especially liked that part of the book because it makes Charlotte's character so much more likable. It also brings to mind the line (which almost seems like a throw-away line, since it is given such little attention) in the book that Charlotte once had the chance to love someone and was in a situation much like Lucy's.

reply

[–] noracharles05 16 years ago

Thank you, carlie - that was what I was trying to say :)

reply

[–] wco81 15 years ago

I wasn't ever conscious of class in the movie and didn't read the book.

It wouldn't be surprising that class would be an issue given the time and place.

But it was very underplayed if it existed at all.

The Emersons may not have been from an aristocratic family but it sounds like they had some means, to be able to travel to Italy, live in London, etc.

The movie played out more about a naive young girl "transfigured by Italy," having this potential (susceptible to "physical sensation") to either love passionately or be stuck in a joyless marriage to Cecil.

Or worse, a life of seeming self-abnegation like that of Charlotte.

Lucy lies to her family, to George, to herself. She was going to run away to Greece with spinsters but then comes to her senses.

reply

[–] ethrush 13 years ago

Money has very little to do with class in England. One can be impoverished, like the family in Sense and Sensibility, and still be considered "above" the townspeople, or rich and shut out of society for not being of the right class. The fact that they had money to travel to Italy doesn't change the fact that they were not considered Lucy's equals. Missing that point makes the whole story unintelligible.

reply

[–] tovangar2-321-223220 12 years ago

Class is a big part of the book and the film

The Emersons (stand-ins for the authors views), being all round social and religious non-conformists try not to be guided by class and class attitudes (but of course they cannot help falling in with other educated people).

In the film much is made of the class differences of the Vyse & Honeychuch matriarchs, Mrs Honeychurch more successfully I thought. She's very warm, makes pets of her children, is concerned about sunlight fading the upholstery, etc, but the most telling is how she relates to the servants. For example, she's worried that if they get home late, the fish for supper will be ruined, putting the cook in a foul mood. Being concerned about whether or not one's inconvenienced one's servants is a sure sign of being hopelessly middle class.

The Vyses on the other hand, want to purge Lucy of the Honeychurch "taint" and make no plans to socialize with the Honeychurches whatsoever after the wedding. They know Lucy has something valuable that they do not have, but they want to capture Lucy while rejecting her family and her class. (I really don't think the actress who played Ms Vyse hit exactly the right note, plus her house didn't come off as grand enough.)

Lucy (following her natural inclinations) embraces the values of the Emersons, escaping the clutches of the Vyses, but also leaving her own family's values behind (represented by Freddie's tiresome middle-class disapproval of her to-his-mind overly-quick marriage to George).

reply

[–] Wonderland26 16 years ago

Another couple scenes:

-George screams out abstract ideas when he climbs a tree while the others have a picnic. A few minutes before George kisses her for the first time. And we actually see George walk home in the rain.

-Cecil properly shows us how to put on your shoes lol.

These are the only ones I noticed besides the others that you guys mentioned.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] midnight_muse 11 years ago

Excellent, excellent post. I just read the book again (I re-read it every year in February or March) and your observations are all spot on.

The only other thing I really miss from the book is the violets. :)

_____________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

reply

[–] shilling119 10 years ago

Ha, y'alls posts have made me nostalgic to read the book again. The movie is probably my favorite period piece romance film. I manage to watch it at least a couple times a year. However, I haven't read the book in over 20 years. I was in my late teens then and I lived and felt the romance in the words. It will be interesting to see how effectual it will be to my heartstrings now that I'm older and wiser. (Well somewhat wiser) I'm off now to Amazon to order a copy.

reply