If you’ll remember, I had issues with the book, mostly with the Reynaud-Vianne narration, as well as their conflict. I also wondered how the movie handled the situations book (in this case, I had seen the movie first, but had no recollection of it). Karma/the planets/my Netflix queue finally aligned and I watched the movie last week.
And I think my friend is right: in many ways, it is better. They changed a lot of the plot and characters, adding and subtracting at will. Reynaud is no longer the priest, but rather the mayor, which makes a certain amount of sense. He’s no longer the obsessed man of the church protecting his flock, but a conflicted, obsessed mayor afraid of the unknown and hell-bent on protecting his town. This change made a world of difference in both the conflict between him and Vianne, as well as the basic narration of the story: it made it better, more centered.
Then there was the adding and subtracting: Caro lost her husband (which opened up a sub-sub-plot between her and Reynaud), Charley’s owner gained a love interest (which I thought suited him nicely), the priest became a young, impressionable man, and Roux gained an Irish accent (and the rest of the gypsies faded into the background). The time period was the same — Lent — but it felt different, longer somehow.
I also think the movie did a better job with the magical realism: they changed the story of Vianne’s mother, adding a twist or two that lended itself to a more magical aspect than Vianne’s twisted and tortured relationship with her mother in the book. I still missed the evocative nature of food; even though there were lush shots of chocolate, it just didn’t quite soar.
As for the actors: I admit that I really liked them. Alfred Molina was perfectly obnoxious and obsessive as Reynaud, and Juliette Binoche was perfect as Vianne, as was Johnny Depp as Roux. However, I think I liked the supporting characters more: Judy Dench as Armand and Lena Olin as Josephine were both wonderful to watch. But I think Victoire Thivisol captured Anouk best. She was a delight every time she was on the screen. In a character-driven story as this one, it was essential that they found good actors to embody the parts. And in that, they succeeded exceptionally.
Verdict: the movie is so different it’s almost like comparing apples to oranges, but I enjoyed it more.
This is one of my favorite movies of all time. And I’ve never read the book. I wonder if this would be a time where, for me, the book would ruin the movie? Hmmmm….
LikeLike
Chocolat is one of my very favourite film adaptations. I love what they did with the story! As you pointed out, there are a lot of changes, but they all make sense and help to ease the transition from page to screen.
LikeLike
I’m just dropping by to let you know that I’ve given you an award:>http://athomewithbooks.blogspot.com/2009/03/awards-roundup_28.html
LikeLike
Thanks for this great post, Melissa. I recently read the book and it definitely did not blow me away…but I’ve been tempted to rent the movie. Sounds worthwhile!
LikeLike
You’re welcome, Wendy. I hope you enjoy the movie. š >>Thanks, Alyce. I appreciate the award. š >>Suey — aw, stick with the movie. I enjoyed it so much more. And not just because of Johnny Depp. š
LikeLike
I really loved the book! I didn’t like the movie as much as the book, though I did like it and thought it had a great soundtrack as well.
LikeLike