"A Rose for Emily", by William Faulkner, is a southern Gothic horror story that reveals the disastrous romance between Emily Grierson and Homer Baron. Despite a lifetime of repression under Emily's tyrannical father, who denied all of her would be suitors, Emily finally found Homer, a man that she wished to marry. Although many in the town felt that Emily was disgracing her family name by this affair, Emily desired this relationship enough to kill for it. While Faulkner masterfully leads the reader through this bizarre romance using glimpses of the past, the movie version of "A Rose for Emily," directed by Lyndon Chubbuck starring Angelica Houston and John Randolph, presents the story chronologically which creates a predictable ending.
Although the story "A Rose for Emily" is widely read and loved, the movie fails to bring about the same attached feeling. The beauty of Faulkner's version is that it is not until the resolution that the reader realizes the true crime of Emily revealing a classic Gothic horror story. Placing the plot in chronological order makes the ending expected thus nullifying the dramatic surprise, as well as, a feeling that something terribly wrong is happening that the viewers cannot discover. What would possess Lyndon Chubbuck to tell the story in chronological order that Faulkner purposely wrote out of order, is beyond my comprehension. Chubbuck has yet to direct a successful feature film but has had some acclaim as a director of a few television series. The performance of John Randolph leaves the viewer running to the ticket booth or rental store to attempt to obtain a refund. The scene which shows him dying by choking on his food, which is not in the short story, was suppose to alarm and strike fear into the viewers, when it actually made them laugh hysterically. Although Angelica Houston is a great actress and will win many awards, she delivers a lack luster performance and fails to ever bring the viewers deep into her characters twisted almost psychotic mind. In the short story, the character of Emily makes a drastic change in age, which the movie fails to convey. The only scene which somewhat salvages the movie is the final scene in which the cousins discover the body of Homer in a locked up room in a bed. They soon find out that Emily has been sleeping next to him for many years, despite that he is dead. When the screenwriter changed this final scene from the townspeople finding Homer to the cousins, he loses one of the underlying themes Faulkner hopes to convey that nosy neighbors often corrupt small towns by influencing the behaviors of its inhabitants. This theme is completely missing in the movie version diminishing the overall horrific tone.
To those who enjoy classical literature and well-crafted film-making, this movie is not worth viewing. Time would be better spent rereading the original Faulkner tale. Hopefully, some day a screenwriter, director and some skilled actors will create a new movie that reflects the genius of Faulkner and the universal appeal of Gothic literature. Until that time, reading is better than watching.
Although the story "A Rose for Emily" is widely read and loved, the movie fails to bring about the same attached feeling. The beauty of Faulkner's version is that it is not until the resolution that the reader realizes the true crime of Emily revealing a classic Gothic horror story. Placing the plot in chronological order makes the ending expected thus nullifying the dramatic surprise, as well as, a feeling that something terribly wrong is happening that the viewers cannot discover. What would possess Lyndon Chubbuck to tell the story in chronological order that Faulkner purposely wrote out of order, is beyond my comprehension. Chubbuck has yet to direct a successful feature film but has had some acclaim as a director of a few television series. The performance of John Randolph leaves the viewer running to the ticket booth or rental store to attempt to obtain a refund. The scene which shows him dying by choking on his food, which is not in the short story, was suppose to alarm and strike fear into the viewers, when it actually made them laugh hysterically. Although Angelica Houston is a great actress and will win many awards, she delivers a lack luster performance and fails to ever bring the viewers deep into her characters twisted almost psychotic mind. In the short story, the character of Emily makes a drastic change in age, which the movie fails to convey. The only scene which somewhat salvages the movie is the final scene in which the cousins discover the body of Homer in a locked up room in a bed. They soon find out that Emily has been sleeping next to him for many years, despite that he is dead. When the screenwriter changed this final scene from the townspeople finding Homer to the cousins, he loses one of the underlying themes Faulkner hopes to convey that nosy neighbors often corrupt small towns by influencing the behaviors of its inhabitants. This theme is completely missing in the movie version diminishing the overall horrific tone.
To those who enjoy classical literature and well-crafted film-making, this movie is not worth viewing. Time would be better spent rereading the original Faulkner tale. Hopefully, some day a screenwriter, director and some skilled actors will create a new movie that reflects the genius of Faulkner and the universal appeal of Gothic literature. Until that time, reading is better than watching.