![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
I saw the film version of The Little Stranger before I read the actual Sarah Waters novel, and then read the book out of curiosity to see the differences. It turns out there really aren't many huge differences plotwise -- it's all in portrayal and cinematography, of which more under spoiler-cut.
The Little Stranger is very much set up like a Gothic in reverse, Boy Meets House, from the very first line: I first saw Hundreds Hall when I was ten years old. (Compare: Last night I dreamed I went to Manderley again.) So from the start we know that the House is going to be Sinister, and the people who live in it (dreamy mother, plain and sensible daughter, stressed-out war vet son) are going to be Dramatic and have Secrets, and our ordinary, lower-class doctor hero is going to be hopelessly enmeshed with all of them.
But of course in fact the book really is a reverse Gothic, as is veeeeeeery slowly intimated over the course of the novel; sure, the house is in a slow decline, and the Ayres' attempts to hold onto their aristocratic way of life is definitely futile, but the real menace is most likely what our politely possessive, buttoned-down hero brings into it.
This is where I wonder how the book reads to people who haven't seen the film, and how long it generally takes to start mistrusting good Dr. Faraday. In the film, Domnhall Gleason is highkey unnerving right from the start, a desperately awkward presence in every scene he appears in. His first entry to the house is already shot sort of like The Shining, with Tiny Faraday and Hundreds both radiating creep factor, and his resentment of the Ayres is played up 300% -- the film layers levels of significant cinematic bitterness onto everything that happens on the day of their Significant First Meeting, which in the book is pretty much a non-event. I don't know that I like one version or the other better, but I suspect it does for sure make a different experience.
A thing I like better about the book -- Roderick Ayres is actually doing pretty OK before the house destroys him? The film plays up how tormented he is by his injury and PTSD, in the book he's stressed by business but otherwise doing fine.
One thing I like better about the film -- Roderick Ayres rolls up at the end after everyone else has kicked the bucket to be like 'welp, looks like a sanitorium was the right place to be! Well, I'm off to put this entire sad episode behind me, bye!' Nice to see you, Roderick, glad you got yourself back together and are doing okay, sorry about the loss of ... the entire rest of your family ..... and your dog ......
The Little Stranger is very much set up like a Gothic in reverse, Boy Meets House, from the very first line: I first saw Hundreds Hall when I was ten years old. (Compare: Last night I dreamed I went to Manderley again.) So from the start we know that the House is going to be Sinister, and the people who live in it (dreamy mother, plain and sensible daughter, stressed-out war vet son) are going to be Dramatic and have Secrets, and our ordinary, lower-class doctor hero is going to be hopelessly enmeshed with all of them.
But of course in fact the book really is a reverse Gothic, as is veeeeeeery slowly intimated over the course of the novel; sure, the house is in a slow decline, and the Ayres' attempts to hold onto their aristocratic way of life is definitely futile, but the real menace is most likely what our politely possessive, buttoned-down hero brings into it.
This is where I wonder how the book reads to people who haven't seen the film, and how long it generally takes to start mistrusting good Dr. Faraday. In the film, Domnhall Gleason is highkey unnerving right from the start, a desperately awkward presence in every scene he appears in. His first entry to the house is already shot sort of like The Shining, with Tiny Faraday and Hundreds both radiating creep factor, and his resentment of the Ayres is played up 300% -- the film layers levels of significant cinematic bitterness onto everything that happens on the day of their Significant First Meeting, which in the book is pretty much a non-event. I don't know that I like one version or the other better, but I suspect it does for sure make a different experience.
A thing I like better about the book -- Roderick Ayres is actually doing pretty OK before the house destroys him? The film plays up how tormented he is by his injury and PTSD, in the book he's stressed by business but otherwise doing fine.
One thing I like better about the film -- Roderick Ayres rolls up at the end after everyone else has kicked the bucket to be like 'welp, looks like a sanitorium was the right place to be! Well, I'm off to put this entire sad episode behind me, bye!' Nice to see you, Roderick, glad you got yourself back together and are doing okay, sorry about the loss of ... the entire rest of your family ..... and your dog ......