Marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films


Empire Admin -> Marriage (9/5/2006 12:43:53 PM)

Post your comments on this article

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (14/5/2006 7:39:14 PM)

I know that the magificent Rachel McAdams plays "the other woman," but there seems to be some confusion about who plays the cheating husband. Is it Chris Cooper or Pierce Brosnan.

Anybody know for sure?

McAdamsFan -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 12:44:10 AM)

I don't know, but I have a feeling Chris Cooper will play the cheating husband.  Rachel seems to be really keen on working with him so I hope they have a lot of scenes together.  Are you almost finished the book?  Has Rachel's character shed her sweet and innocent guise yet? 

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 1:18:54 AM)

I'm three-quarters finished with the book and she's still quite innocent -- although the wife isn't as innocent as she seemed at first. She's staying with the husband because she thinks he can't manage without her, even though she's fallen passionately in love with another of their friends and is having an affair with him.

Rachel's character isn't really IN love with the husband, but loves him mainly because she feels sorry for him and because her own husband, whom she loved passionately, was killed after they'd been married for only two years and she hasn't allowed herself to get over it and to love another man passionately.

There are a lot more complications involving the husband, the husband's friend (who's passionately in love with Rachel without having touched her yet), and even the family dog! It's very British.

McAdamsFan -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 1:29:21 AM)

Wow, it's a lot more complicated than I thought it would be.  I was feeling sorry for the wife but she has her own little affair going, and Lorna was married before.  So far, the husband's friend seems to be the most devious.  And I'm not even going to ask about what the family dog has to do with all this sordidness.  What, he's having an affair too?  With the neighbor's cat?   

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 1:39:14 AM)

The husband lovingly poisons the dog (who's old and blind) as a test case, to make sure that when he poisons his wife with the same stuff that she won't suffer. As I said, veddy civilized.

As you may have noticed from my previous post, there's a lot of talk about passion without there actually being any.

McAdamsFan -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 2:01:16 AM)

Haha, yeah, tender poisoner indeed. 

"As you may have noticed from my previous post, there's a lot of talk about passion without there actually being any."


tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 2:06:13 AM)

But perhaps the American adaptation will sizzle with unfettered lust.

McAdamsFan -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 2:32:39 AM)

That's more like it.  I lust to see Rachel and Chris Cooper get it on.  Ahem. 

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 3:26:27 AM)

I'll let you know if Rachel's character and either of the guys in the book get it on (or talk about getting it on, or look as if they might be thinking about getting it on).

McAdamsFan -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 3:38:03 AM)

Thank you.  I would like that. 

OT:  Go over to IMDB.  We've been dealing with a sadistic, delete-happy Admin.  We got our starmeter thread deleted for no discernible reason, and a whole bunch of "What happened to the (blank) thread?" threads.  We're being crushed like ants while you're having your little fun here.  Sniff. 

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (15/5/2006 3:43:10 AM)

I wasn't having my fun here. I was feeding hungry people. When I went back to the imdb board, I sent another post to the adiministration telling them about the disappearance of the star-meter thread. It might help if I was not the only one complaining.

McAdamsFan -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 5:03:21 AM)

OK, let's forget about Bloody Sunday and carry on.  So, are you finished the book yet?  Any hint of any of the characters getting it on or wanting to get it on but can't because his best friend is with his dream girl so he cooks up a plan to off him so he finally CAN get it on? 

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 5:19:39 AM)

I'm up to page 169 (of 220 pp.). The husband has been having second thoughts about offing the wife -- but then decides that he must because he has made certain mistakes that demand that he finish the job or perhaps find himself arrested for suspicion of having talked incessantly about murdering her. (I think there may be a law against that in England.) There is almost as much talk about murdering Beatrice as there is talk about kissing Lorna, but so far -- all talk. Nice descriptions of Lorna's lips, however.

The friend doesn't know yet about the husband's plan to murder his wife, so he's talking a lot about convincing Lorna that it would not be fair to marry Barty (the husband) once he's divorced, when she's admitted that she isn't in love with him. I'm desperately hoping that in the next chapter he will stop talking about wanting to tell her that and will, in fact, tell her that.

I suspect that once the friend finds out about the plan, all heck will break loose.

McAdamsFan -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 5:27:55 AM)

Gee, so much talk, so little action.  Maybe Bingham's saved the best for last.  I like where this is going.  I have a feeling that someone will die but it won't be the wife.

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 5:31:42 AM)

Yes, I'm gearing up for the exciting conclusion.

NewBreed7 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 5:55:08 AM)

Thanks for inviting me, McAdamsfan.. Sorry, I took so long, I've been watching a compelling basketball game..

Hey, seems that we look for the same things in films.. Unfortunately, after reading this thread, I don't think we'll get any hot action in the book. In the movie, I think we'll definitely get some.. There's no way the movie will be as dry as the book appears to be.. I hate plots that take too long to develop.

McAdamsFan -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 6:13:20 AM)

"Hey, seems that we look for the same things in films.."

You mean...SEX?  Yeah, well, this is such a good-looking cast.  It would be a shame not to take adavantage of their good genes. 

NewBreed7 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 6:19:01 AM)

Yes, SEX or sexuality.. I like to see it in my films, even if it's subtle.. This book doesn't seem to have any.. J is practically finished with the book and the most we have to look forward to is a description of Lorna's lips.. Were her lips doing anything interesting?? Rachel McAdams does have nice full lips, so I can imagine them while reading the book.. The book sounds like a snoozer.. I can't wait to read it though, to see for myself..

BTW, my birth date is wrong on my profile.. It says 6/6/1980.. My birtdate is 6/16/1980

CTtoo -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 6:30:18 AM)

Hi, it's me!  [sm=engel27.gif]

That took some time. I gave the wrong email address, they wouldn't let me have CT.

Woo Hoo.

NewBreed7 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 6:31:04 AM)

yeah, I think that too tyler2. From what you've described, the book probably has a huge pay-off at the end.. Please let us know what the outcome is. I will still read the book, even if I know what happens.. I'm off for the evening.. You ladies have fun..

BTW, for those who like Eva Longoria, her boyfriend's team just lost a really good basketball team.. Yes!! Rachel McAdams rocks soooo much more than Eva..

Don't forget to post details, tyler2.. Goodnight.. See ya around..

NewBreed7 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 6:33:48 AM)

YAY!! CT's here so the party can begin.. Is it just me, or is this board much slower than IMDb.. CT, we're basically awaiting tyler2's next update of the book Five Roundabouts to Heaven.. I'm off for the evening.. I've been getting the evil eye the past two nights.. lol..

CTtoo -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 7:01:49 AM)

It's slower and the emoticons don't work. 

I'll try again![sm=schild15.gif]

NewBreed7 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 3:06:32 PM)

I'm hearin crickets.. Where the heck is everyone??

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 4:29:01 PM)

I have finished the book, and I actually love this book. It may not have any overt sexuality (it was published in 1953, after all), but it's extremely well-crafted and so... tidy, for want of a better word. All the pieces fit; the characters are utterly consistent and true to themselves. As long as you can accept that these are imperfect people and that the two men are utter nutjobs, you, too, will adore this book.

As for the sexuality, it's made clear in the book that the husband and Lorna "had it off" at some point (that's British for "got it on"). There are no sex scenes per se, although Lorna kisses Barty (the husband) quite warmly before she breaks up with him.

Lorna could possibly be seen as a femme fatale, but an unknowing one. She is an unwitting object of desire. The men do the daft things they do because they must have her. And there's no irony in their obsession. I mean, if they follow the book, no one's gonna say, wow, what a couple of jerks, doing the things that they did just to be married to that slag bag. There's definitely something about Lorna, and with Rachel in the role, I'm sure that what the something is will be completely obvious -- unless she decides to play the role against type.

If the adaptation follows the novel closely, I don't get what Rachel saw in the role, but I do get what she saw in the project as a whole. She seems to enjoy complicated, non-black-and-white characters and story lines. In the novel, a great deal is going on in the minds of the two men, but the two women are not dealt with in the same detailed manner. It's the relationship since boyhood of the two men that's central to the story. I don't think Rachel or Patricia Clarkson would have signed onto this project unless the screenwriters had explored their characters in more depth, so I'm hopeful that the movie won't be a disappointment to Rachel fans. Can't wait to find out more about the screenplay! 

NewBreed7 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 4:43:30 PM)

Thanks for the wonderful sneak peak, tyler2.. I can't wait to read it.. Seems that the book is based on the male characters and the females are secondary characters, but I can deal with that.. As long as the plot is well formulated and the characters well developed.. Rachel must've seen something in both the role and the story to sign on to the movie..

I understand the book was written in 1953, so the sexual content really wouldn't be too overt, but that's also fine. As long as the director subtly allows the viewer to see what traits in Lorna, these men would go to such lenghths for.. The way you first described her, she seemed pretty ordinary, but now you say that you can see why the two men would possibly kill for this woman.. I can't wait to read the book, but most of all I can't wait to see the film..

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 5:23:45 PM)

"Rachel must've seen something in both the role and the story to sign on to the movie."

Which tells me that the screenplay doesn't follow the book closely in regard to the development of the female characters. They are outlined in the book -- in other words, there's stuff there that isn't developed but can be (and apparently WAS) in the screenplay, which, I think, is the reason she and Clarkson signed on to it. Had they merely read the book, I'm sure they'd've passed on it. Rachel would've felt that it was just another girlfriend/other woman role.

Don't get your "BTW," NB7. I don't think I've ever said or implied that I was in my mid-50s, or younger, or older. Does my post about the book indicate how old or young I am?

NewBreed7 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 7:53:48 PM)

I do agree that the screenplay was probably gripping for Rachel.. Perhaps, it was the same as "The Family Stone" for her. I don't know much about Clarkson as an actress, so I don't know what she looks for in her roles.. I guess, we'll just have to sit tight..

Also, no, nothing you've said indicates your age.. I respect your privacy, so please forgive me. I offer my humblest apologies for my previous comment regarding your age.. It's really none of my business.. See ya!

tyler2 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 8:37:17 PM)

Deleted by poster.

NewBreed7 -> RE: Marriage (16/5/2006 8:48:29 PM)


Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI