MovieChat Forums > Notes on a Scandal (2007) Discussion > The movie left out some really good stuf...

The movie left out some really good stuff from the book.


***SPOILERS**** (obviously)

I liked the movie well enough but as usual, I found the book way better. I know a movie can't incorporate everything but I felt it did leave out some very good scenarios.

1) In the book, the way Barb tells Brian Bangs of Sheba's affair is totally different. Brian actually asks her to lunch and Barb considers it a "date". Hence she fusses over herself, her clothes, her hair, gets all nervous, etc. All the while admitting she doesn't really like Brian. When Brian confesses he wants info on Sheba, that is the crushing point for Barb when she tells. That's the same in the movie (the crushing point), but the lead up in the book as to WHY it was such a turning point is WAY better. The fact that Brian, a man Barb abhorred, seemingly did not care much for at all, thought was a complete dolt, yet she went out of her way to "impress him" and even HE does not want her... See what I mean? CRUSHING!

2) There is a section in the book that describes Sheba riding her bike to the Connolly home, desperately seeking out Steven after she has been calling and calling and he doesn't answer her calls. She then hides in the bushes and sees him leave with some friends, one of which is presumed to be his new "girlfriend". The parts where SHE is chasing HIM down is not in the movie at all and I think it would have made for a more dramatic representation of Sheba's full character. In the book, she is shown to be having a delusional school girl-like crush on the boy. The movie portrays the relationship as mostly Steven being the aggressor though. It was simply not like that in the book.

3) In the book, Sheba ends up staying with Barb after the discovery of the diary and subsequent fight. Sheba is painted as just as alone as Barb at that point and every bit as desperate. She doesn't have Steven, she has lost her family, and everyone has shunned her. She almost has no choice but to stick with Barb. This I find was the most sinister part of it all. Sort of like Misery. Barb needed to completely crush Sheba so that she would never leave and she won. The book ends on this poignant line: "The rain stopped by then and she wanted to go for a walk. I let her go alone. I dare say she'll be alright by herself. She seems quite steady and calm after her rest. And she knows, by now, not to go too far without me." The movie completely ignored this angle, which IMO was the better way to go. Richard taking Sheba back and Barb meeting the stranger on the bench was not as effecting,

I think those were the three main things I felt were missing. There were a few others but perhaps not as big. I understand you can't get every little thing in but these three I felt changed the feel of the story for me.

Thanks for reading my wall of text! I'd love to hear other opinions on it from those who read the book.

"Danger. Danger. My hooks are flailing wildly."

reply

Wow, that would have made for a chilling ending. I wonder if they filmed that and decided to go the other way for the final version.

reply

I just finished the book and was surprised by the ending , having seen the film a few times. I totally agree with you. The movie doesn't saw how obsessed Sheba is with Stephen. The book is way more powerful .

reply

Clay sculpture anyone?

reply

Yeah, I honestly don't know why they took the movie in that direction. Maybe they did film it the way the book was and decided that was too sinister or something. It's a shame though...

"Danger. Danger. My hooks are flailing wildly."

reply

Many times scripts are changed because the stars of the films force the changes. I would be surprised if the lead actress did not demand it not paint her to be the aggressor of a teenage boy and for lack of better words wanted the aggressor to be more ambiguous or more to the lessor known teen actor. The two female major stars would never do a love scene, in fact it is almost not even mentioned that Dench was in love with the teacher.

A good example of this is you will rarely find a major Hollywood male star take a good husbands wife from him or having an affair on a good woman, they care deeply about there box office appeal and would not want to alienate there woman fans. She must be a widow or have an abusive husband. It would not matter what the script calls for they would write it so he is a hero instead of a cad.

Take the Bridges of Madison County, two of Hollywood's top stars Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep. She is a bored house wife and with lessor stars that would have been enough for her character to dump a good man and run off with her lover....But hear in this film they both do what is right despite disappointing viewers looking for a reunion or a happy ending. Her husband may have been boring but she stayed the course with him until he died. He was a good man and provider. On Clint's side of the coin he never forced her or came back for her once she made the decision. She then looked him up after her husbands death years later. Perfect way for major stars to behave in films. This film written this way brings in ordinary men who dislike cheaters and women who believe in staying with your man. It also brings in old and young and viewers who are looking for something simple, perfect for a classic as this film is as well as a long money maker for investors. I could go on in this manner for ever, but I feel some get the drift....The bigger the star the safer the movie becomes. It's how major stars make there money. I am surprised this slips under the radar so often.

reply

You make a good point. Thanks for sharing that!

"Danger. Danger. My hooks are flailing wildly."

reply

I'm sorry but just in case it isn't a typo: it's their not there. I'm not accusing, I'm recognizing. The meaning of the message is unclear after a while. But good points made. Cheers

reply

Was there a love scene in this book?

Every sin is an escape from emptiness.

reply

Many times scripts are changed . . . [for] the stars of the films . . .
I was just thinking the same thing. I just watched this again for the first time since it came out. I remember laughing for weeks at Judi Dench's biting narration about class, behavior, etc. - sizing everyone up like she was Queen Elizabeth (my favorite being the "Rather mortifying after-lunch family tradition - apparently, they do things differently in Bourgeois Bohemia," and "It's a peculiar trait of the privileged: immediate, incautious intimacy") - then walking down to her dingy, half-basement flat. I wanted to recommend it to everyone, but had to bite my tongue and remind myself to be careful whom I recommended this VERY adult subject matter to.
I don't think I have EVER seen two better actresses in front of the camera. It's a shame it came out in "Helen Mirren's Year" - because one (or both) of them should have carried home a statue.
And I've read that it was "Loosely based on the book 'Notes on a Scandal,' which itself was 'based on the Mary Kay Letourneau case.' " But it obviously was VERY LOOSELY based on that story . . . only the "affair with a student" part seemed to fit that narrative (and this boy wasn't 12 . . . and certainly wasn't an innocent "child" - adding another dimension to the story). This was mostly a story about obsession. THIS is what the God-awful "Endless Love" SHOULD have been (and what the much-superior book was). And I thought the ending was pretty "chilling" as is. Minor quibble: I wish they had explored Sheba's obviously rebellious past, and how it influenced her behavior. They dropped little crumbs, but never explored it.
Speaking of "adult subject matter" - if you liked this, there was another (somewhat overlooked) movie called "Little Children" that came out the same year. It is just as bracing and biting as "Notes." Check it out.

reply

In Bridges of Madison County, the book, they separate too. It wasn't just something which happened in the movie.

reply

Love your screen name - "See my vest, see my vest, made of real gorilla chest . . ." and slogan from Marge's "Lost in Space" dream.
"Like my loafers?
Former gophers . . . "

reply

The movie doesn't saw [sic] how obsessed Sheba is with Stephen

Exactly. Although I thought this was a very good film, that was its main shortcoming, IMO. It sort of distracts you from that (evil, criminal) aspect by diverting your attention to Barbara's more cinematic/hysterical/bitingly funny (at first) "Fatal Attraction-ish" tactics (not to mention the inherent likability of Cate Blanchett - plus her somewhat "unorthodox" family life). While Barbara's actions were certainly disturbing, they were not nearly as bad as a Letourneau-style sex crime. Although this point is certainly debatable, I am not as "dreamy" as some about the sexual maturity of teenagers. I'm not surprised that 15 - 16 year olds are ready, willing, and eager, BUT . . . it's still criminal. What Barbara was doing was less clear-cut (and, as she says, between adults).

reply

I think the "between adults" thing only applies if BOTH people are consenting to the relationship. Since Barbara was hiding her real agenda, maybe even from herself, this was not two consenting adults.

reply

Marber took a sledgehammer to Zoë Heller's book, which I've read a few times now. So much of the subtleties were omitted and the film suffers hugely for this, I feel. Maybe he was under pressure from Fox?

I agree with what you say, especially your third point about the change of ending which for me was the worst decision. The ending in the book is so disturbing, shocking even, but perhaps deemed too subversive to be in a mainstream film. I also didn't like that Barbara's sexuality is made fairly obvious in the film: I think the ambiguity in the book is more involving for the reader.

reply

Yeah, if I had to pick one thing, and only ONE thing from the book to bring back to the movie, it would be the ending...

"Danger. Danger. My hooks are flailing wildly."

reply

I have to disagree here with you. Yes some of the subalties were missed as the OP pointed out, and the ending could have been better with Sheba staying with Barb...but as books being adapted to movies go, Marber did a fantastic job. The leads were amazing, judy dench as barb could not have been more sublime, as did cate blanchett - the writing was fantastic, and in fairness I think he kept very true to what was fantastic about the book. I thought he did a super job with only a few minor issues, so overall i think an excellent adaptation of a super book.

reply

I agree the book was better, but that is always the way with film adaptations, a film can only include so much from the book, something is always going to be left out. A typical example is Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, where David Leans' version was exceptionally good, but over 50% of the novel was left out and an even greater percentage of the characters, but it was still a very good film. In this case I saw the film first, but having read the book it gave me a greater appreciation of how good the film was and what a good adaptation it was.



reply

Maybe the director is just trying to prove that she is not that diabolical and she is just lonely, extremely lonely. I remember there is a line in the movie which is talking about loneliness. I haven't read the book though. But I do find reading the book before the movie may ruin the movie for you just like I read Silver Lining Playbook before watching it.

reply

While Judy Dench did a wonderful job in the movie, the character Barb was much more fascinating in the book. She was more subtle, more manipulative, and way more bitter. And more human, so to say. This was what disappointed me the most about the movie. She was portrait was much more one dimensional.

reply

Didn't read the book and thought the movie was fantastic as is. The movie didn't suffer by omitting unsubtle melodrama.

reply

great discussion....
thanks for sharing.

I thought Blanchett and Dench were great...
Dench was really creepy..

it is nice to see actors/actresses taking such roles...

it would have been really interesting if they had portrayed Sheba more like in the book.

reply

But, Sheba supposedly comes from a wealthy family...why would she end up living off the charity of Barb if she were uncomfortable.

I'd think she could just go out and rent herself an apartment...

reply