I bought and watched this movie (Cate Blanchett, Minnie Driver, Rupert Everett, Julianne Moore, Jeremy Northam) and liked it well enough to want to read the play and see the differences between the two.
I generally like Oscar Wilde, although I feel wary of what seems to be a deep streak of cynicism in most of his rather fluffy plays. He reminds me of Jane Austin in some ways too, as he writes social commentaries that contain romance, comedy and commentary.
In this play, an ideal husband is found to have feet of clay. Can he leave the past behind him and act with integrity even though it may cost him his relationship with his wife and his reputation in society? Can his wife forgive him?
There are other elements here too, of course. A rake who is really a philosopher, a romance, a designing woman...lots of good stories happening.
It was significantly different from the movie in some pretty substantial ways. This doesn't surprise me when I'm watching a screen adaptation of a book, but it did surprise me a little bit in this movie since this is a screen adaptation of a stage play. Why the plot substitutions, I wonder? It's a play, not a book, after all. Anyway, they're both enjoyable.
Sex: No--although the movie inserts some provocative scenes (including a glimpse of a totally nude lady, btw--to earn that PG-13 rating, perhaps?), but this is a review of the play, not the movie, right?
Bad Language: No
No comments:
Post a Comment