3 Comments

  1. From what I read when looking into this movie, his wife was in fact cast and seemingly filmed but then was cut for some reason. The reasoning I got from Shadow & Act:

    “The character definitely has a big part in the book, but because of the length of the film, (director Ramin Bahrani) decided they needed to change the storyline and the structure of the film,” she (Laura Harrier who was to play Millie) said. “And unfortunately my character didn’t fit with the storyline. It’s something you always hope doesn’t happen, but I’m not the first it’s happened to, and I definitely won’t be the last.”

    Which honestly sounds like BS since, as you said, and as noted in the video above, her role seems to be essential yet they found a way to carve her out. Perhaps leaving this story on life support after all was said and done. Alive, with a beating heart, but barely functional.

  2. As a fan of both the novel and the 1960s film version, I was very sceptical of this production and it seems this blog post has confirmed some of my worst fears.

    Your summary makes it clear that the makers of this production tried to force relationship dynamics that didn’t exist in the novel… Beatty is merely Montag’s superior in the fire department, not an adoptive father figure. Also, the relationship between Montag and Clarisse is platonic in the novel…. Montag’s friendship with both is guarded and very complex, his character arc in the book is as much focused on how he learns to relate to other people emotionally as it is on Montag’s political awakening. Both Clarisse and Beatty serve as catalysts for Montag to come out of his shell, although they are also independent characters with interests of their own… it’s a pity if, as you say, this has been “dumbed down” in favour of a simplified, more conventional relationship dynamic…. Montag’s wife also played a large role in the book, with her attempts at suicide followed by materialistic displays of denial being a prominent part of the drama too. The fact this isn’t mentioned makes me wonder if they’ve botched that too.

    I understand why it’d be a good idea to update the tech aspects of the story (the vision of the future in the 1960s film looks very quaint nowadays) but the core fundamentals of the plot and characterisation in Bradbury’s novel are still very compelling today, and if you’re going to depart radically from that template then it should at least be in a manner that’s interesting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.