tyler2
Posts: 21
Joined: 14/5/2006
|
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!
|