I read this book 3 times because I loved the story. Funny enough, I discovered it in a tiny cabin up way up in the Superior National Forest of Minnesota. This book had been written in the early 60's and many critics hailed it as one of the first books of the feminist movement. And that's one theme I took away from it. A city woman gets trapped in the Alps and has to figure out how to live in an environment completely foreign to her. It celebrated her as a woman - a creature who's nature is to nurture and becomes capable of caring for herself and her menagerie including defending what is precious to her. She struggles with depression and illness and loss. Most importantly, she does it on her own without the help and tutorage of a MALE. To understand the poignancy of the story you have to understand the gender politics of the times - women still weren't seen as capable of running their own lives. It was assumed a woman needed a man to care for her and all a woman was good for was rearing children, cooking , getting her hair done. So please forgive what's going to feel like man-bashing - I'm only trying to explain how women felt during the feminist movement. It's also a tale of self reliance through almost insufferable loneliness.
I was excited to see that one of my favorite books had been made into a movie (even though I was almost a decade late in finding it). I DID like this movie but IMO it missed the mark. It should have taken place in its original time frame. Updating it to current time misses a huge part of this story - all she had to learn and how vulnerable she felt having no skills or physical strength in an environment which, at the time, was associated with just men (a hunting lodge with no heat or running water). She even drove up there with a MAN and his wife while wearing city clothes and shoes.
It had the opportunity to show ALL the things the woman had to learn, more of her ingenious ideas, her suffering through famine and illness. Basically, her becoming an independent, capable woman and surviving through very difficult circumstances without the lead of A MAN (meaning a person that would be skilled at living in that environment as hunting lodges are usually used by men). I felt that the movie's main theme was 'animals are people too' and spent too much time on her relationship with her dog. In the book, the woman loves and cares for ALL her animals - equally - even bringing her cow into the cottage for the winter to keep her warm. However, she does have a closer bond with her dog, Lynx.
I feel that when the man comes toward the end, the woman shooting him has multiple meanings. Not only is she protecting what has become 'her family' but she's cementing the fact that she doesn't need a man to help her or continue her lifestyle. There was an opportunity there for her to have another person to talk to and live with and have help from but she chose to eliminate the threat to what had become her family. This movie missed on a lot of what the book offers, and in doing so made it difficult for people to understand. It turned into a depressing tale of loneliness and loss without showing what she had gained throughout her tale.
IMO - read the book. The story makes more sense if you read the book.
I was excited to see that one of my favorite books had been made into a movie (even though I was almost a decade late in finding it). I DID like this movie but IMO it missed the mark. It should have taken place in its original time frame. Updating it to current time misses a huge part of this story - all she had to learn and how vulnerable she felt having no skills or physical strength in an environment which, at the time, was associated with just men (a hunting lodge with no heat or running water). She even drove up there with a MAN and his wife while wearing city clothes and shoes.
It had the opportunity to show ALL the things the woman had to learn, more of her ingenious ideas, her suffering through famine and illness. Basically, her becoming an independent, capable woman and surviving through very difficult circumstances without the lead of A MAN (meaning a person that would be skilled at living in that environment as hunting lodges are usually used by men). I felt that the movie's main theme was 'animals are people too' and spent too much time on her relationship with her dog. In the book, the woman loves and cares for ALL her animals - equally - even bringing her cow into the cottage for the winter to keep her warm. However, she does have a closer bond with her dog, Lynx.
I feel that when the man comes toward the end, the woman shooting him has multiple meanings. Not only is she protecting what has become 'her family' but she's cementing the fact that she doesn't need a man to help her or continue her lifestyle. There was an opportunity there for her to have another person to talk to and live with and have help from but she chose to eliminate the threat to what had become her family. This movie missed on a lot of what the book offers, and in doing so made it difficult for people to understand. It turned into a depressing tale of loneliness and loss without showing what she had gained throughout her tale.
IMO - read the book. The story makes more sense if you read the book.