MovieChat Forums > Madame Bovary (2015) Discussion > If you think she's unlikeable in the mov...

If you think she's unlikeable in the movie...


It's nothing compared to the novel, which also deals with the aftermath of her death: Her husband dies of despair (suffering being ruined, his wife's death and knowledge of her behavior) and her daughter (cut from the movie) ends up being sent to the French version of a workhouse to begin the rough life of a servant/peasant that Emma never had to suffer.

Emma Bovary and Bathsheba Everdene are the two most unlikeable female protagonists in the history of literature in my opinion.


-
You did just fine, Clarence. Now go get yo'self some hot cornbread!

reply

Emma Bovary is probably the greatest anti-heroine of 19th century literature. I agree, she's even more problematic in the book. I think it's her flaws, the difficulty grasping her motivations, that are a big part of her being a fascinating character. She continues to be controversial. I think she's a great character - not a role model.

reply

Exactly. I love how male characters can be awful and people still love them but female characters have to virtous and perfect. Emma Bovary is supposed to unlikeable and pathetic. I think Mia did a great job playing her. I just wish the movie was a better adaption.

reply

I agree, I also think Mia made a great Emma Bovary - I'm a big fan of the book, I read it every several years, and I feel she's really on the psychological wavelength of that character. I'm tired of this thing where people expect a character to be likable - how about complex, difficult, fascinating? Are people critical of Shakespeare because King Lear or Richard the Third are difficult people. I also think there is much less tolerance when it comes to female characters, and it's too bad - it needs to evolve.

reply

Curiously, which popular male characters in literature are considered 'awful, unlikeable, and pathetic', yet loved?

I know in American television, male characters like mafioso Tony Soprano (The Sopranos) and meth cook Walter White (Breaking Bad) are well-liked, even loved at times. At the very least, fascinating to the end. I think this is due to their overall strength in a broad sense. Their loyalty to a select few, usually family or a colleague, endears them to viewers. They have challenging or sad backstories that draw out empathy as well. A character like Emma in this film, is anything but strong and loyal...melodramatically committing suicide instead of facing the consequences in order to continue to be a "bad girl" character that people love to hate. In her case, I would rather see Emma redeem herself by finding important lessons in the mistakes she made, while making amends with those she victimized and affected. However, Emma ended up neither a strong antihero nor a sympathetic hero by redemption.

I remember watching the PBS mini-series of The Fortunes and Misfortunes of Moll Flanders (1996) with the female actor Alex Kingston (mostly known in the U.S. for TV show ER), and found her character despicable in certain ways, but she was oddly likable due to her strength, convictions, and undying determination. Mol's ongoing manipulation of men (sexually and otherwise), and even abandoning her child, while off-putting, were nevertheless interesting because of how she pursued that self-focused life. Emma comes across as a melodramatic juvenile that manages to be dull as standing dishwater. She selfishly obtains things that appeal to her idealistic fantasies rather than appreciate what she has been given with respect to a professional and kind husband, a large home with a servant, and opportunities to grow and find happiness in a time where women had so few choices and it was difficult to be avoid poverty and nearly impossible to be independent. Outside of poverty, few married specifically for love; it was generally a business arrangement for financial security and to produce heirs, not a romantic one. Marriage was meant to be practical, but a self-focused, shop-till-ya-drop dreamer who takes things and people for granted - then rashly kills herself - is just NOT likable at all. There is no strength, conviction, or determination to redeem Emma. There is no loyalty to admire and little sympathy to be felt.

I do not think it's the gender that determines antihero likability; there has to be something strong and resolute about the character, a loyalty to someone or something, and perhaps a vulnerability or sad backstory that elicits sympathy (why they are "broken"). Perhaps, not enough of those female characters have been mainstreamed, but they ARE out there. Even Jessica Lange's recent characters in the popular series American Horror Story were likable even though they were generally selfish and manipulative, while often despicable. Her characters usually had a sad backstory of some sort and a passionate loyalty to someone or something. Again, it's that ongoing strength and unwavering determination that lights up the screen and makes us want to see more of them. They're the seductive sociopaths on film or in print. They would never poison themselves without a major fight to the bitter end. They're survivors that continue to manipulate people and situations in order to selfishly draw out of life whatever it is they want (usually money, power, sex). Characters like that are the ones we truly "love to hate" in fiction, but wouldn't want to cross paths with in real life.

Emma is not that type of character or antihero. When she dies in the film, there is a short-lived sense of justice and relief, until we think of those left in her wake, as some of them search for her. Even in death, she is able to victimize. I'm disappointed to know that in the book her husband, the doctor, consequently becomes a broken man and dies shortly thereafter, while her orphaned child pays the ultimate price for her greed, selfishness, and cowardice by ending up in poverty as a servant/chambermaid with little hope to ever marry out of it. Emma destroyed all that she was fortunate to have...which was apparently not enough.





"Don't get chumpatized!" - The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007)

reply

I agree that the nuance of her character is lost in this film. I actually found myself not so much liking her as sympathizing with her in the original, perceiving her as being originally motivated by something like shame at being a farmer's daughter, like a bumpkin, feeling inferior. Seeing how easily she was manipulated by men on the basis of that insecurity and shame, and a desire to be something more elevated. How at the core she was always trying to be worthy, to deserve love and admiration, to be more glamorous, more sophisticated, like the aristocratic women she'd glimpsed in Paris as a child.

Also lost was the hopeless naivete of her husband's goodness, and all of the different ways that played into events.

Anyway, I agree that much was lost in this interpretation, and that she did many worse things in the novel. But, though I was appalled, I was also sympathetic -- seeing her behaviors as being the externally induced manifestations of a "tragic flaw," a complex, the seeds of which were sown in her when she was a child.

reply