POSSESION IS RUB.

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

it was awful. gywenth had a lousy accent, the writing was horrid. the logophillia was blanched out, there was normoative hetrosexism, their passiontie love seemed muted at best, there was condoning of theft and grave robbing, there was not enough of aaron eckharts wonderus chest and nipples and ass. it had good actors and a good director and a great novel- how could it have turned out so banal and stupid and middle class. i am offended. deeply offended.

WHAT DID YOU THINK ?

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 14:58 (twenty-four years ago)

It had okay actors, a limited director, and an impressive novel to start with.

The novel's anti-Americanism (central to the plot) was reversed. The dramatis personae was chopped in half (shows how clumsy LaBute's wimmin-hatin is that he passed up bringing Leonora Stern to the screen) The dramatic drive of the lead love plot (ie leaving it unresolved until the last page) was also altered & soapified. That's how.

Oh, and "aaron eckharts wonderus chest and nipples and ass" do not a put-upon post-doc make. The bit where he disrobed and lept into the drink was the utter nadir of the picture.

Another what-went-wrong factoid: DH Hwang had a writing credit.

― gcannon, Wednesday, 28 August 2002 15:18 (twenty-four years ago)

I did very much enjoy the book, but the whole prospect of the movie saddened me. Probably due to Gwyneth, of course.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 15:22 (twenty-four years ago)

i think the drink was the worst part as well, but manflesh is manflesh.

― anthony easton (anthony), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 15:50 (twenty-four years ago)

I suppose so... the best we got on our side of the fence was Ms Paltrow in her pj's. Crying.

― g.cannon (gcannon), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 17:48 (twenty-four years ago)

I knew better than to see it once I saw Gywneth was going to be in it. Anything where she does her cack-handed British accent is bound to be craptastic.

It's a damn shame because I love the book, but it was always going to be really difficult to film no matter what the circumstances.

― Nicole (Nicole), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 21:34 (twenty-four years ago)

is this the book by a.s.byatt? why does everyone think it's good?

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 21:35 (twenty-four years ago)

ha ha I'll tell you when you explain Hornby.

― Nicole (Nicole), Wednesday, 28 August 2002 21:41 (twenty-four years ago)

Normative heterosexism in Possession = shockah! (Um, did I spell that right?)

― Mary (Mary), Thursday, 29 August 2002 00:01 (twenty-four years ago)

yeah, surely the problem is that the book is rub?

― toby (tsg20), Thursday, 29 August 2002 06:27 (twenty-four years ago)

I dunno why Possession got to be such a big thing, mark. Maybe there's something particularly appealing about a clever, knowing Romance (it indulges your sentiment whilst flattering your brane?). I gave in after I ended up with 3 people making repeat 'you must reads' (two women - older, younger - and my middle-aged male tutor at university). I remember enjoying it very much (I quite like some Byatt anyway, although I'd go for short stories - especially *THe Matisse Stories* - over the novels anyday). Re-read it a couple of years ago - hopeless. I had this also with Alan Hollinghurst's *The Folding Star*; both I think I read first time in a state of swoon that proved unrecoverable on a second reading.

― Ellie (Ellie), Thursday, 29 August 2002 08:08 (twenty-four years ago)

I don't know, maybe it is rub, because I read it at least ten years ago, and there's not an awful lot of things I liked then that I still like now. I really can't be bothered to re-read it and find out, too many other books I keep meaning to read must come first.

― Nicole (Nicole), Thursday, 29 August 2002 10:06 (twenty-four years ago)

Wot R logophillia?!

― Sarah (starry), Thursday, 29 August 2002 10:34 (twenty-four years ago)

I echo Nicole's sentiments exactly, down to the ten years ago deal, which is when it was big here in the States at least. And yes, too many new and old books to read = publishers: delete your catalogues, please. Time for catch-up!

I liked it for the mystery element (such as it was) first and foremost.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 29 August 2002 13:30 (twenty-four years ago)

logophillia, love of logos, the word.

― anthony easton (anthony), Thursday, 29 August 2002 16:42 (twenty-four years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.