Death and the Maiden

After reading and watching Death and the Maiden, I was very surprised to see how closely the play and the film resembled one another. Nine times out of ten, if I read a book then see the film later, there are multiple inconsistencies, holes in the plot, or sometimes, the plot has been completely rewritten. It is disappointing to read a book and think that the film adaptation will follow closely, then varies so greatly. The fact that both the play and the film were so similar was refreshing. I feel as if I would have been able to read the play while watching the film and it would have been the same. The ending was confusing though because it did not make it known definitely who was right or wrong or whether Dr. Miranda was the man who tortured Paulina. I felt like that was kind of left up in the air to be interpreted however the reader/ viewer wanted. I would have rather have known for sure that Dr. Miranda was guilty or that Paulina was mistaken.

            It was also interesting that the film took place in one scene in one room. The actors stayed within the confines of the home, except for when Paulina stole and crashed the car. The majority of the plot took place in the living room area of the house with occasional trips to the porch right outside. There were no flashbacks or other interrupting scenes. In a way, it reminded me of an amateur film, as if the director did all of the shots in sequence on a continuous film. From the moment Paulina sets the table and the power goes out until she and Gerardo leave Dr. Miranda at the cliff, it was one continuous scene which spanned the course of a night. The only scene that did not happen that night was when the characters were at the concert hall and Dr. Miranda stares at Paulina as Schubert plays. I think that was an interesting way to film the movie, but it made it appealing because it focused on what was happening in the scene rather than confusing viewers with changing locations or utilizing flashbacks.

            In comparing both the play and the movie to The Reluctant Fundamentalist, there are stark differences. The Reluctant Fundamentalist uses flashbacks, various locations and settings, voiceovers, and spans the course of a few years. Changez starts out in college at the beginning of the film but by the end he has graduated, worked at a big company for a few years, and returned to his home in Lahore. Death and the Maiden spans the time of one night, without changing scenery or using flashbacks. Another difference is that The Reluctant Fundamentalist does not follow the book closely at all. There are many differences, some which are substantial to the plot and storyline. Although there are various differences, both the novel and the movie are compelling in different ways. Although I am often disappointed when watching films that differ from the novels they were based on, I found both versions of The Reluctant Fundamentalist to be entertaining. The film did not take away from the novel and the novel did not make me feel differently towards the film. I think this shows that there can be differences, even major ones, between films and their book counterparts so long as they convey the same message and leave the viewer with the same interpretations, perspectives, and feelings as the book did. Obviously when making a book into a film, some things need to be cut, shortened, or added in order to make sense on the screen while keeping within a time frame. It is interesting that Roman Polanski was able to stick so closely to the play without having to drastically change the plot.