I think it was an interesting perspective for me to read the play after watching the film, based on what others were saying about the written play. During the film I was conflicted until the end because I was really unsure of who to believe, which I think is the point. I think Roman Polanski wanted those who only watched the film to be curious if Dr. Miranda was actually telling the truth or not. I was truly engaged at what would happen next. I was waiting and waiting until Miranda would confess, and when he wasn't confessing for the longest time, my thoughts wandered. Throughout the film I wanted to believe Paulina, and for the most part I did, but there was a small part of me that thought an alternate ending might occur. Perhaps another man would come in and confess to everything, and it was not Miranda all along. Or she was making the whole thing up, while Miranda was actually telling the truth. While reading the play, however, maybe it was because I knew the outcome or because there was a different tone, I believed Paulina without any doubt. The way she described her experience had more emotion, and the details she knew about Miranda made me certain it was him. Paulina letting Miranda go also struck a nerve with me. Although I'm glad she did not kill him, she completely let him go. The look on his face, watching her from above made me feel sick and if that were to happen to me, and knowing that man was still out there would make me frightened each and every day. I wished she would have reported him at least. I was hoping she was recording his confession and she could turn it into someone.
With The Reluctant Fundamentalist, I felt that film was much more Hollywood driven. There were flashbacks, action, a love story all glorified to keep the viewer's interest. There were those aspects in the book, but not as cheeky as they were in the film. The fact that Death and the Maiden took place in one single room for the majority of the film emphasized how important the plot was, rather than special effects and action. Having only three characters in the film also was surprising to me for keeping my attention. I was engaged in the film and the play, which was interesting to me because its not what I am used to. The Reluctant Fundamentalist kept my interest as well, but that is most likely because it was more like the Hollywood movies I am used to.
It's interesting that you referred to "The Recluctant Fundamentalist" as being a Hollywood film. While I get why you would say that (I thought the same thing), it's important to realize that neither film is from Hollywood. Both are Western films, brought to us by American and European directors, which is why I think a lot of the class enjoyed them so much and felt more comfortable with them. Both films were super suspenseful, so it's no surprise that our collective attention was captured and held while watching these films. I also totally agree with your stance on the ending of the film. It is very frustrating as a viewer to have read the play and know how that ends and to see the film go completely against that. I don't think Polanski's choice to end the film with Paulina simply being satisfied with Miranda's confession was realistic or satisfying in anyway. If he were going to change the ending, I almost would have enjoyed it more if Paulina had just beat the crap out of Dr. Miranda or even killed him. I think the film probably should have had the same open-ended conclusion as the play, ultimately.
ReplyDelete