Thornton Wilder's novel on which this movie is based, asks what is probably the most fundamental questions that nearly every human who has ever lived has struggled with at some point: why are we here, and why do we die? Are life and death random accidents, or does Someone have a plan for us? The questions can't possibly be solved; the answers can only be believed because they remain unproven.
This is the third attempt to make a film adaptation of Wilder's book, and each of those three have tried to impose answers on Wilder's questions, completely missing the point of the novel. Knowing that they are unanswerable, Wilder makes no attempt to answer his own questions, but instead reassures us that is enough to have lived and loved. Why then do those who wrote the scripts for these movie adaptations feel compelled to try answer the impossible questions? The 1944 version swaps, replaces, and re-writes Wilder's characters, putting "wrong" (ie, different) characters on the bridge, inventing entirely new characters at times, even introducing one victim about whom we learn nothing whatsoever. Then why put him there; did his life not matter as much as the others? Why change the story at all? This 2004 version attempts to find the "reason" that the bridge claimed the victims it did. It seems to want to point to one character in particular (I won't reveal which one) as being the influence that caused the five people to be on the bridge at the climactic moment, even though Wilder's novel makes no such suggestion. Indeed, Wilder's novel leaves us wondering Why? He didn't try to come up with a solution. This adaptation tries too hard and fails.
On the plus side, the costumes, the cinematography, the score, the "mis-en-scene" of this version is beautiful. Some of the acting is good, some is embarrassing. It feels as if all the attention was given to the set dressing, the look and feel, and not much attention was paid to the actors or the script or the delivery of their lines. At times it seems they are acting in different movies, and nobody seems to be in charge.
The script meanders without focus, trying to fit the disparate lives into one cohesive, linear story. The novel does not do that; in fact, the novel avoids that approach entirely. There is a prologue, an epilogue, and in between, Wilder tells us three distinct stories, each one ending at the characters' arrival at the bridge. It is left up to us to decide if the three stories fit together or not, and if so, how?
Would it be too much to ask for a script that follows Wilder's structure?
This is the third attempt to make a film adaptation of Wilder's book, and each of those three have tried to impose answers on Wilder's questions, completely missing the point of the novel. Knowing that they are unanswerable, Wilder makes no attempt to answer his own questions, but instead reassures us that is enough to have lived and loved. Why then do those who wrote the scripts for these movie adaptations feel compelled to try answer the impossible questions? The 1944 version swaps, replaces, and re-writes Wilder's characters, putting "wrong" (ie, different) characters on the bridge, inventing entirely new characters at times, even introducing one victim about whom we learn nothing whatsoever. Then why put him there; did his life not matter as much as the others? Why change the story at all? This 2004 version attempts to find the "reason" that the bridge claimed the victims it did. It seems to want to point to one character in particular (I won't reveal which one) as being the influence that caused the five people to be on the bridge at the climactic moment, even though Wilder's novel makes no such suggestion. Indeed, Wilder's novel leaves us wondering Why? He didn't try to come up with a solution. This adaptation tries too hard and fails.
On the plus side, the costumes, the cinematography, the score, the "mis-en-scene" of this version is beautiful. Some of the acting is good, some is embarrassing. It feels as if all the attention was given to the set dressing, the look and feel, and not much attention was paid to the actors or the script or the delivery of their lines. At times it seems they are acting in different movies, and nobody seems to be in charge.
The script meanders without focus, trying to fit the disparate lives into one cohesive, linear story. The novel does not do that; in fact, the novel avoids that approach entirely. There is a prologue, an epilogue, and in between, Wilder tells us three distinct stories, each one ending at the characters' arrival at the bridge. It is left up to us to decide if the three stories fit together or not, and if so, how?
Would it be too much to ask for a script that follows Wilder's structure?