Roland needs to be Short (THE LIBRARY message #1989)

Roland needs to be Short

REPLIES - POST REPLY - THE LIBRARY - FAQ - HOME - Q

Posted by Cassia on October 22, 1997 at 19:39:02:

In response to In my movie version..., written by Karen R on October 22, 1997 at 15:21:14

] ] I almost feel like I'm betraying Byatt to wish for a film of this book, but you put it well: even without the richness of language it's a terrific story!

] ] What are your casting choices? Our discussion on Roland made me think about casting him, and I lit upon Noah Wylie. (Okay, he's not English, if Gwyneth could do it, but he could). I think he has the right kind of nonthreatening appeal, and his quizzical eyes and ingratiating smile are not unlike Byatt's description of Roland.

] ] I once suggested CF for Ash and was shot down because the consensus was that he was too young, although I disagree. Frankly, I think one could successfully cast ANY film simply by drawing on the P&P2 cast, so I am "prejudiced."

]

] When I first read the book, I had picked out Daniel Day-Lewis to be Roland and Jolie or Natasha Richardson to be Maud. However, I wouldn't hesitate substituting CF for Roland. Now, the book talks about Roland being short/compact and Maud being tall. I don't think it's important for this couple--just the light/dark contrasts.

] For the second couple, however, the short/tall seems absolutely necessary (but I can't even think at this point whether the book mentions it). For Christabel, I have only one image. Holly Hunter from The Piano, but with blonde hair. She is diminutive and alive inside. For Randolph Ash, now I could see either DDL or Jeremy Irons.

] Dream casting, dream on.

I think Roland must not be tall for one reason: (and this I know because it was my thought the first time a read the novel)it makes them read as less of a likely couple. Yes, were are supposed to be living in enlightened years but most people still believe the man should be taller (we had a debate about this on the Ramble board in June) and as the romantic element of this couple is nearly at the end having them seem "not a couple" at the beginning works well for the story. Visually we can show this by making him shorter. They fall for each other after we fall for each of them, after we've given up hope that they will fall for each other . Byatt doesn't let us see this and I think it is for good reason.

REPLIES:

Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.