Originally posted by plawrence:
You can't simply divorce the book character from the film version of that person.
Goodness, don't tell that to JustMe!
Of course, it can be done. Film makers do it all the time in the process of adapting the narrative to the screen. Also, when an actor enlivens the "on paper" character with his own voice, mannerisms, appearance, etc., the audience can often see a different personality than the one they pictured.
Look at the way John Cazale portrays Fredo, for instance. From what I've read, his book character was a confident ladies' man and a somewhat tougher and more amoral character. The film Fredo is more awkward, rather afraid of Michael, and not as enmeshed in mob life. But granted, you do allow for this when you say the following:
Absent any direct evidence to the contrary, I believe that it is the intention of the authors of the screenplay that their film characters think and feel the same way as their counterparts in the book on which the film is based...
Yes, that's certainly true in Fredo's case, where it's obvious that the film makers tweaked the character to serve the narrative.
But there IS
direct evidence to the contrary in Mama's case as well, which you yourself point out: In the novel, there is no episode of Mama telling Connie she's wrong when she asserts that Michael killed Carlo. But the film makers ADDED such a scene to the movie. Why do you think they did that? They could have left out the part where Mama argues with Connie in the limo and just jumped to Connie confronting Michael. They obviously inserted such a scene,
which is contrary to the book characterization of Mama, to show us that there were certain things Mama didn't want to face.
So if I want to discuss that -- or the scene in GF2 when Michael speaks to Mama about losing his family -- then I have to speak about the "film Mama," since those aspects of her are not in the book.
