(This review briefly touches on elements of the film and book, and so I have tagged it as having spoilers.)
So, I read The Rachel Papers and watched the film about two days after.
My initial opinion is as follows. As a film, it is kind of average. As an adaptation of the (also in my opinion, brilliant) book it is terrible. There were so many scenes and ideas and character nuances that did not make it into the film that really set an atmosphere for the book. I feel the main problem is that they tried to make an 80s teenage romantic comedy out of a book that has much, much more going for it - not to mention that the ending is not very funny or happy (the book, I mean).
One of the better characters portrayed in the film is Norman, and I must just say that he was rather fantastic. DeForest (James Spader) was also very good, despite having little screen time. However, the characters of Charles and Rachel seem underdeveloped in the film. In the case of Charles, I only notice this lack of development because I read the book. As far as Charles is concerned, he is way too likable in the film, especially when compared to the book. This may be subjective, but by the end of the book readers tend to hate him, and rightly so. Charles Highway is a narcissistic asshole. He does things for experience and doesn't really care about other people. Rachel gets close to him actually caring about someone, but by the end Charles is still rather unsympathetic and doesn't know how to handle emotion. In the film, he is funny and a little confused, and he manages to become a better person. I was a bit taken aback.
Why am I upset about them making the film 'happier'? Because that was the appeal of the book - it was gritty, raw and had real characters. This was lost in the film, and in my opinion, that is losing a large part of the narrative. The same atmosphere and ideas were not generated in the film, and it is a pity. Some of the scenes in the book lend themselves so well to film adaptation. For example, right before Rachel and Charles are to have sex for the first time, they head out to buy condoms. This scene contains very interesting dialogue and sets an important tone for their relationship. Yet, the director ignored these key scenes and focused on the funny or witty moments of the book, turning it into a fun-loving experience for young adults. For me, this really did not work.
All in all, I just think that it is a very bad adaptation. Too much was changed. Important scenes were left out. Characters were not developed (as they are in the book). And like I said, even without having read the book, the film was rather mediocre for me. 5/10 at best.
So, I read The Rachel Papers and watched the film about two days after.
My initial opinion is as follows. As a film, it is kind of average. As an adaptation of the (also in my opinion, brilliant) book it is terrible. There were so many scenes and ideas and character nuances that did not make it into the film that really set an atmosphere for the book. I feel the main problem is that they tried to make an 80s teenage romantic comedy out of a book that has much, much more going for it - not to mention that the ending is not very funny or happy (the book, I mean).
One of the better characters portrayed in the film is Norman, and I must just say that he was rather fantastic. DeForest (James Spader) was also very good, despite having little screen time. However, the characters of Charles and Rachel seem underdeveloped in the film. In the case of Charles, I only notice this lack of development because I read the book. As far as Charles is concerned, he is way too likable in the film, especially when compared to the book. This may be subjective, but by the end of the book readers tend to hate him, and rightly so. Charles Highway is a narcissistic asshole. He does things for experience and doesn't really care about other people. Rachel gets close to him actually caring about someone, but by the end Charles is still rather unsympathetic and doesn't know how to handle emotion. In the film, he is funny and a little confused, and he manages to become a better person. I was a bit taken aback.
Why am I upset about them making the film 'happier'? Because that was the appeal of the book - it was gritty, raw and had real characters. This was lost in the film, and in my opinion, that is losing a large part of the narrative. The same atmosphere and ideas were not generated in the film, and it is a pity. Some of the scenes in the book lend themselves so well to film adaptation. For example, right before Rachel and Charles are to have sex for the first time, they head out to buy condoms. This scene contains very interesting dialogue and sets an important tone for their relationship. Yet, the director ignored these key scenes and focused on the funny or witty moments of the book, turning it into a fun-loving experience for young adults. For me, this really did not work.
All in all, I just think that it is a very bad adaptation. Too much was changed. Important scenes were left out. Characters were not developed (as they are in the book). And like I said, even without having read the book, the film was rather mediocre for me. 5/10 at best.