And I thought it would be easier to talk about this as an adaptation. Okay, it is slightly easier bit only a smidge. This has to have one the most confusing twists I have ever seen. M. Night Shyamalan has nothing on this story. And the rest of the film is pretty goddamn cryptic as well. It's arty in the purest sense of the word, as much as the book is pulpy in the dirtiest sense of the word. Every shot means something, every line has a double meaning. And after nearly a month since I first saw it, it still makes little sense. The book makes more sense, in parts. Mainly characters back stories.
The film stars Ethan Hawke as Tom Ricks, an American writer who travels to Paris to try and save his relationship with his French wife and young daughter. After every bad thing that could happen happens to Tom (his wife calls the cops on him, and he loses his luggage) he finds himself in the Turkish district of Paris, with only 10 euros to his name. He manages to find a disgusting and tiny room, and a job as a nightwatch-man for some shady figures (where he spends his time writing a letter to his daughter), and he lives a miserable existence for many weeks. Until he meets a mysterious woman named Margit (Kristen Scott Thomas) and they begin an affair. The film follows all the major plot points in the novel. There are a few differences, most of which I will go into later, but there are a few little ones that were changed so that things would fit better into the movie story line, like the age of Tom's daughter changes from 15 to 8, his wife isn't French and he was a teacher in America rather than a writer. There are also several characters compressed into one and they become Sezer (Samir Guesmi), Tom's landlord and boss.
If you want to go to Paris, don't read this book, and most definitely do not see this film. This shows the real, unglamourous Paris, the back streets of Paris. The setting is grey and dirty, which amplifies Tom's mood for most of the movie. Of course, it's sunny ... once, but only after something good happens to him. The rest of the time, the colour scheme is monochromatic blue. This is also enhances the unromantic nature of the movie. Even though the plot has two people who have an affair, it's more of a character study about Tom's complete breakdown after he loses everything he once had. We never find out what exactly caused his wife to leave him. In fact, we hardly find out anything. We don't know what is going on in the building where he does spends the majority of his nights. We only vaguely know what's going on with Margit, and this ambiguous nature is what makes the film more endearing. It stays in your head for so long after, that you come up with a lot of different scenarios as to what could've actually happened. It is also extremely refreshing to here an American actually speak French while in Paris. And I have to give big props to Ethan Hawke for managing to speak French for the majority of the film. Kristen Scott Thomas is also brilliantly elegant, but then again she always is.
So, I guess now we'd better get on to the adaptation, and I have to say that this actually very good. The director Pawel Pawlikowski knew that many things had to be changed in the transfer between book and screen, and the things that were changed were done so to enhance the characters. But there are a few things that were changed that didn't make sense, the main one being that in the book the main character is called Harry, not Tom. The only reson I can think of is that you don't pronounce H's in French but it's still an odd thing to change. There is one other thing that I want to talk in depth about, and that is that the book explains everything. And I mean everything! Harry's job, what happened to his marriage, what's up with Margit. All these elements that made the film intriguing (albeit more frustrating) in their vagueness are all neatly presented to us in a nice package. And it makes the book a lot less thought provoking (apart from that pesky twist).
So, if you were pulling my arm and forcing me to choose between the two, I'd actually say that the film is better than the book. And it comes down to the fact that the only thing that saves the book is the ending. I'm not saying that the rest of the book is bad, no it's fairly well written. But it's written like a pulp novel, and at times can be extremely monotonous. While it could be argued that the film is also rather monotonous, it has a darker, edgier atmosphere which comes fromnever knowing what's going on. Also, it is more of a character study so the long dragging scenes in Tom's office are all used to show just how far he has fallen. There are some similarities between the two, of course. The grey tone of the book is translated excellently and they both just sort of end without providing a solid ending.
All in all, it's one of the best adaptations I've seen. I mean it turned a pulpy romance novel into a serious art film. I'd recommend seeing the film before readong the book because the book really spoils all the mystery that film had. Though the film can be frustrating at times, so maybe if you prefer your stories more fleshed out, then you might be better with the book. It really comes down to personal preference. Well, this was an epic review, and a long time coming. Next up, possibly A Royal Affair. So, until next time readers.
No comments:
Post a Comment