The Original Story by Cheever

Thank you for posting this.

I ordered the movie from Netflix after hearing the New Yorker audio and noting that the author who read it was also a fan of the film.

I'm curious: why do you prefer the film? I had high hopes, but I was disappointed. I feel like the film began to show him being treated with pity or hostility far too early compared to the story. In the story, it's a gradual transition: from one party (after leaving the first house) where he's greeted very warmly and kisses a number of women on the cheek, etc., to the older couple who are friendly but ominously express their sympathy about his "recent troubles", to being treated a bit coldly by the hostess he felt was beneath him, and so on ever downward. In the film, before he even leaves on his quest, there are hints from his friends that he is not remembering things right, and then the next couple seems to act alarmed at his mention of wanting his daughters to get married at his house; then the very next place he goes, the woman there (whose son died and was not visited by the Lancaster character at the hospital) is openly hostile to him. It's almost like he has dementia from the beginning of the movie, which is certainly not how I read the story.

It's surprising, because coming from a relatively short written work, filling it out to feature length would have, I'd think, made them take their time and really give us a fair bit of extrapolation of the party scene where he is warmly received, before going into darker territory.

--------
Daily single-tweet movie reviews: https://twitter.com/SlackerInc

I find the short story very different than the film. It is, well, "short". Reads more like a 20th century fairy tale or proverb. Much more deliberate and less open to debate than the film. It's a morality tale. Ned is presented as more of an egotistical man in the story, rather than the delusional state of the character in the film. Ned in the short story, really is that man. Successful and confident, and his life changes drastically within the story, with the rapid, surreal, changing of the seasons, a metaphor for his downfall.

The supporting characters in the short story, are less developed than in the film. And seem to be there to advance the story line of Ned's decline, rather than have any real personal history with Ned, that leads to their opinion of him.

The encounter with the nymphet, former babysitter, isn't present in the short story,but is an important part of the film.

Overall, the film seems more of an exploration of late 1960's society, while the short story could have been written for any era, or about any social class in the economic strata.

Bro, your links don't work anymore.