I HAPPENED UPON A INQUIRY AS TO WHETHER KATHLEEN
WINDSOR EVER MADE A SEQUEL TO "FOREVER AMBER". TO MY
KNOWLEDGE, SADLY THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. KATHLEEN DID
WRITE OTHER BOOKS, BUT NOTHING TO MATCH THE RICHLY
TEXTURED QUALITY OF "AMBER". NOT SURPRISINGLY,
APPARENTLY, WINDSOR LACKED THE TIME TO RESEARCH
ANOTHER BOOK IN THE DEPTH THAT SHE HAD SPENT ON
"AMBER ", WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE CONSIDERING THE
LENGTHS TO WHICH SHE WENT TO BRING FORTH SUCH A
CLEAR,VIBRANT VIEW OF THE REIGN OF KING CHARLES II OF
ENGLAND, INCLUDING THE MANNERS, MORALS, ATTITUDES,
CLOTHES, FASHIONS, FOODS, AND TURNS OF PHRASE OF THE
ERA, ALONG WITH ALL THE HISTORICAL FACTS OF THE TIME. IT
IS TRULY TO HER CREDIT AS A WRITER THAT KATHLEEN
WINDSOR WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE PUTTING ALL OF THAT
INTO AN IMMENSELY ENJOYABLE NOVEL, WHICH CAME OFF
NEITHER AS STILTED NOR AS DISJOINTED, BUT FLOWED
SMOOTHLY AND AT TIMES DELIGHTFULLY SCANDALOUS FROM
PAGE TO PAGE.
IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK, YOU MAY BE INTERESTED TO
KNOW THAT HOLLYWOOD DID MAKE A FILM OF THE NOVEL,
BUT IN THE STYLE OF THE DAY, THEY DID NOT TAKE AS MUCH
CARE WITH THEIR VERSION OF "AMBER" AS THE WRITER DID.
CASTING LINDA DARNELL AS AMBER, I THOUGHT WAS BASED
SOLELY ON THE FACT THAT SHE WAS A POPULAR RISING YOUNG
STARLET, COMPLETELY IGNORING THE FACT THAT SHE IN NO
WAY RESEMBLED THAT CHARACTER'S DESCRIPTION. OTHER
THAN THAT, THE MOVIE MAKERS RAN TRUE TO FORM, AND
DID THEIR OWN VERSION OF "AMBER".
HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE NOT A STICKLER FOR DETAIL, THIS IS NOT
A BAD MOVIE.
JUST AS, SAY, "GONE WITH THE WIND" WAS STILL A WONDERFUL
PRODUCTION, EVEN THOUGH THEY MADE CHANGES FROM THE
ORIGINAL BOOK, SO IT IS WITH "FOREVER AMBER", WITH THE
HUGE EXCEPTION THAT THE CASTING FOR GWTW WAS
IMPECCABLE, PUTTING VIVIAN LEIGH IN THE ROLE OF SCARLETT.
NOW, IF THEY HAD TAKEN THAT KIND OF CARE CASTING "AMBER"
THE WHOLE EXPERIENCE, FOR ME WOULD HAVE BEEN
DIFFERENT. I KNOW THIS IS NIT-PICKY, BUT WHEN THE GIRL
NAMED AMBER, IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE AMBER EYES AND AMBER
HAIR, SHE SHOULD NOT SHOW UP ON THE SCREEN WITH
REDDISH BLONDE HAIR, AND QUITE INDISCERNIBLE EYE COLOR.
THERE IS MORE I COULD SAY, MUCH MORE COMPARING THE BOOK
TO THE MOVIE, BUT THAT WOULD ONLY BE ME, OFF ON A RANT
AGAINST HOLLYWOOD'S WHOLESALE PENCHANT FOR TAKING
A PERFECTLY WONDERFUL PIECE OF WORK, AND TURNING IT
INSIDE OUT, AND DECLARING IT TO BE THIS BOOK, "COME TO
LIFE!"
ALLOW ME TO DIGRESS FROM "FOREVER AMBER" FOR THE
MOMENT BECAUSE FRANKLY, I DON'T WANT TO TURN YOU OFF
ON THE MOVIE. YOU REALLY SHOULD SEE IT.
LET US CONSIDER INSTEAD, THE WORKS OF THORNE-SMITH.
NOW, I HAVE HIM ON MY BOOK LIST, HAVING WRITTEN
"THE STRAY LAMB". AN UPROARIOUSLY FUNNY NOVEL, WHICH
WAS COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE MOVIE MAKERS. THEY
CHOSE INSTEAD TO DO "TOPPER", ANOTHER OF THORNE-SMITHS
NOVELS, AND A GOOD ONE, TOO. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT
THORNE DID A BAD NOVEL. THEY WERE ALL WONDERFUL.
"THE NIGHT LIFE OF THE GODS", "THE GLORIOUS POOL"
" THE PASSIONATE WITCH", JUST TO NAME A FEW. AND, I
BELIEVE ALL OF THEM WOULD HAVE BEEN SUCH FUN FILMS,
BUT THE ONLY ONE PRODUCED WAS "TOPPER".
WHY?
I BELIEVE IT HAD TO DO WITH EASE OF PRODUCTION.
ALL OF THESE BOOKS HAD MAGIC OVERTONES, AND ALL WOULD
HAVE PRESENTED DIFFICULTIES FOR THE STUDIOS TO MAKE.
POSSIBLY, COSTLY AS WELL, BACK THEN. IN THE 40'S AND
50'S.
BUT NOW, INSTEAD OF GOING BACK AND REMAKING OLD MOVIES,
OR TURNING TO CARTOONS, WHY DOESN'T HOLLYWOOD
MAKE SOME GENUINELY ORIGINAL, TRUE TO THE BOOK
FILMS, LIKE "THE STRAY LAMB?"
OF COURSE, THERE IS ONE MOVIE I WOULD BE IN FAVOR
OF THEM DOING OVER AGAIN, AND DOING IT RIGHT THIS TIME.
"FOREVER AMBER."
OUI?
Comments