A few weeks ago, I finished We Were the Mulvaneys and I really didn't want to see it end. As I drew near the last pages, I purposefully slowed down my reading of the printed words. I wanted to savor the last morsels before turning the very last page.
There was a Lifetime movie made of Ms Oates' work, However, I'm upset that the movie version of the mother Corinne doesn't have flaming red long hair.
I'm not the only reader to question the casting of a main character. The fans of Fifty Shades of Grey were so vocal in their discontent of the announcement of Charlie Hunnam was going to portray the lead character Mr Grey, they started a petition to recast the role.
Why do readers become so enraged when a character from a book doesn't make the seamless transition to screen? Why should it matter so much? For me, when I thoroughly enjoy a book, the characters take on a life of their own. The personifications on screen should feel authentic.
I remember a classmate in high school saying when she read a book, she would make a movie in her mind. What made this method so unique is she wasn't just a casting agent to actors who were alive. If she decided that a character's description resembled Cary Grant, then by Jove, he was cast in the theater of her mind.
That was a very clever method, especially when characters are described with minimal visual cues. However, with We Were the Mulvaneys, Corinne's hair was described to great length. I could picture her in my mind with her youthful, frizzy flame red hair and watched it become striped with gray streaks. Ms Oates spoke of her hair as if it was a character on its own. (Only Marianne's mane was spoken about in as much detail and this was to show her dramatic transformation.) I guess that's why I was surprised to see that Blythe Danner was cast with her shorter, smooth blonde hair.
However, I'm a bit curious to see the movie.After all, it would be a way of prolonging the story. I've added the Lifetime movie to my Netflix DVD queue. When it arrives, I'll see if I can watch the movie on its own merit, or spend my time ruthlessly comparing it to the book. Either way, it should be a fun time!
There was a Lifetime movie made of Ms Oates' work, However, I'm upset that the movie version of the mother Corinne doesn't have flaming red long hair.
I'm not the only reader to question the casting of a main character. The fans of Fifty Shades of Grey were so vocal in their discontent of the announcement of Charlie Hunnam was going to portray the lead character Mr Grey, they started a petition to recast the role.
Why do readers become so enraged when a character from a book doesn't make the seamless transition to screen? Why should it matter so much? For me, when I thoroughly enjoy a book, the characters take on a life of their own. The personifications on screen should feel authentic.
I remember a classmate in high school saying when she read a book, she would make a movie in her mind. What made this method so unique is she wasn't just a casting agent to actors who were alive. If she decided that a character's description resembled Cary Grant, then by Jove, he was cast in the theater of her mind.
That was a very clever method, especially when characters are described with minimal visual cues. However, with We Were the Mulvaneys, Corinne's hair was described to great length. I could picture her in my mind with her youthful, frizzy flame red hair and watched it become striped with gray streaks. Ms Oates spoke of her hair as if it was a character on its own. (Only Marianne's mane was spoken about in as much detail and this was to show her dramatic transformation.) I guess that's why I was surprised to see that Blythe Danner was cast with her shorter, smooth blonde hair.
However, I'm a bit curious to see the movie.After all, it would be a way of prolonging the story. I've added the Lifetime movie to my Netflix DVD queue. When it arrives, I'll see if I can watch the movie on its own merit, or spend my time ruthlessly comparing it to the book. Either way, it should be a fun time!
Comments
Post a Comment