Reply to comment

but i would argue that the beauty of both a literary and filmic adaptation is that they provide an interpretation of the book, they add to it, if you want you could say "they are evolved." i completely disagree with something caroline said in class last tuesday -- i don't think a film adaptation should just be an accurate version of the book translated into a new medium. there's no art in this. the director (or other writer, like smith) should add something unique to the story. and while i strongly dislike "on beauty" as well as elaine scarry's "on beauty and being just" which i just finished, smith really does depart from forster's novel. i really don't think people are giving smith enough credit here. one tries to create parallels, but smith thwarts them, because she introduces modern material, has a different writing style, talkes about universities which forster doesn't do at all, talks about race issues which forster doesn't do at all, talks about liberal guilt or lack of it which didn't exist in forster's time, and as i've said in another post, if you look at the kipps and belsey families, the children do not precisely correspond to those in the schlegel and wilcox families because the numbers are different. there are three main points i can think of where smith follows forster closely, but she mostly departs from him. the three points are: the very beginning, the concert where they play mozart instead of beethoven (though the way smith describes listeners is very different from the way forster does, no goblins here) and then a part later on i don't want to give away. i will say though that the end is not at all a mimicking of forster, and is, in a sense, the opposite of his.