The book has a different ending. I liked it better and wonder why it was changed for the film. So much for the tradition
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Keeper of the Flame
moviegoingcat — 15 years ago(June 23, 2010 09:30 AM)
The book has a different ending. I liked it better and wonder why it was changed for the film. So much for the tradition of 'Hollywood endings'.The book is quite close to the film but the heroine does not die (and O'Malley is looking forward to a future with her).There is more detail about Robert Forest's plans and supporters in the film .
-
Foxlair45 — 14 years ago(August 18, 2011 04:37 PM)
Your post made me curious, so I found a copy of the book (a first edition which still had the librarian's 1942 notes about when it was received!). I also enjoyed the book quite a bit and was surprised at a couple of things. Robert Forrest was the Governor of his state (Connecticut?) and had been employed by an arms manufacturer (Remington?)after WWI. He rose to CEO and eventually married the founder's daughter. There was no mention of Nazism or fascism; but Forrest was immensely popular war hero and leader. He had formed a movement with clubs or cells all over the country. He had believed that his ideas for government and the country were superior and planned to use a strike at the factory to declare martial law and take over the media with the expectation that the American people would follow him in an over throw of the US Government.
Christine injured her horse trying to get back home to try to convince him to abandon his plans; she had not noticed that the bridge was out, so there was no deliberate murder involved. Clive, the secretary, was just that and not part of any outside group. Only Christine knew what Forrest was planning and in the end, she could not stop him.
Steve O'Malley wrote a positive memoir of Forrest (believing that to do otherwise would cause more harm than good given the looming war) and it was clear at the end that he and Christine were in love and planning a future. -
jrhpax — 13 years ago(August 28, 2012 08:23 AM)
Because of the Production Code, you can always be certain that when a character is responsible for a death or believes himself/herself responsible the character will die before the end of the movie (or at least be hauled off to prison).
-
butaneggbert — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 09:15 PM)
It's not necessary to ascribe an agenda when the plain realities of a studio production of the era account perfectly well for all the changes.
A book has one author, with some input from an editor or two.
A Hollywood team taking on that book would involve multiple writers (some credited, some not); a director, multiple tiers of producers, a hands-on studio head whose primary concern was box office numbers, and - in this and many other productions - top-of-the-line stars with influence on the story and its characters.
Most authors had no say-so in what became of their story, and from all appearances it was fairly rare for a book plot to make it to the screen without major surgery. Gone with the Wind was a rarity in how little was changed (two of Scarlett's children evaporated entirely), but even in that case Margaret Mitchell signed the check, handed over the movie rights, and walked away.
Donald Ogden Stewart was a great screenwriter, well-regarded with a good number of hits. But his "agenda" if he had one wouldn't stand a chance against Louis B. Mayer's greater interests.
Nothing to see here, move along.