The author and her husband should have let competent and passionate directors and screenwriters do their job because pictures are different than a written story. The books were fine; a decent captivating first person point of view about a gentle feminine character who finds reciprocated love and connection to someone unexpected. None of that translates into the movie. NONE. The female lead comes off as harsh. The binding love is non existent. The current between them, the sensual and carnal love is completely missing. Feels like the movie is only loosely based on the books. To top it all, the things the male lead says and does are simply not in line with his screen character either. He comes off weak, and pathetic, despite Jamie Dornan's attempts to save the day. The movie as it is makes it look like the actors can't act. I bet they were in stitches during shooting.
Erika Leonard the author of the books made a 1500 pages long point about the power of connection between two person. She calls it an electrifying current that is in a constant flow between them. Everything else stems from there. They cannot resist one another. They are a slave of this love, cannot get enough of each other, they adore each other. Why is this lost in the screenplay? The screen characters are just lame. Didn't Mr Leonard get the books? Where is the unbearable pain, with the constantly flowing tears brought on by the profound grief of loosing such a love? There is a confusion about the red room too. It should be pretty clear that throughout their relationship its use and meaning transfers as in: "We aim to please" for the man. And comes in play in terms of pleasure for the girl propelled by their trusting and overwhelming love for each other. The books are such a success because they portray the binding and transforming power of love, the palpable connection, the never enough pleasing each other, the overwhelming loveliness of each others company! The characters really do care about each other. It is something we all yearn for, appreciate and celebrate, gives meaning to life. Unfortunately it's all lost in the screenplay. FSD gives out mixed messages, dangerous even.There is a profound problem with almost every scene in the movie. Cudos to Bella Heathcote, she was good. Beside money making there should be responsibility in putting novels to screen!
Erika Leonard the author of the books made a 1500 pages long point about the power of connection between two person. She calls it an electrifying current that is in a constant flow between them. Everything else stems from there. They cannot resist one another. They are a slave of this love, cannot get enough of each other, they adore each other. Why is this lost in the screenplay? The screen characters are just lame. Didn't Mr Leonard get the books? Where is the unbearable pain, with the constantly flowing tears brought on by the profound grief of loosing such a love? There is a confusion about the red room too. It should be pretty clear that throughout their relationship its use and meaning transfers as in: "We aim to please" for the man. And comes in play in terms of pleasure for the girl propelled by their trusting and overwhelming love for each other. The books are such a success because they portray the binding and transforming power of love, the palpable connection, the never enough pleasing each other, the overwhelming loveliness of each others company! The characters really do care about each other. It is something we all yearn for, appreciate and celebrate, gives meaning to life. Unfortunately it's all lost in the screenplay. FSD gives out mixed messages, dangerous even.There is a profound problem with almost every scene in the movie. Cudos to Bella Heathcote, she was good. Beside money making there should be responsibility in putting novels to screen!
Tell Your Friends