The hereditary system no longer exists, and most of the emerging wealthy people still can’t understand why they support those artists for no reason. They can’t rely on a lot of land deeds to provide for their families to live a prosperous life for several generations. They are rich and lazy. Everyone knows art Most of the appreciation of art is triggered by the indolent and luxurious life, and the sense of lag in the value of classical art has gradually moved away from our time. The publication process of Foster's novel itself relied on the opportunity of this era, and it was even made into a movie. The movie was used to cherish the lost years-it used the conflict between the individual and the era to reflect the richness. The British atmosphere is like the irony of irony. The two middle-class men who received the most orthodox education in the British Empire developed an inexplicable goodwill. Clive changed from active to passive and then turned his back, and Morris kept making progress. The weakening of sociality guaranteed Mr. Hall's affection. The integrity and the perfection of humanity, and in the end he was able to boast to Clive exactly that. In the second half of the novel, Foster treats Mr. Durham with a tone of hatred that makes one feel almost irritable. Because of this, the novelist exposes too much inexperience in this work, which makes people believe that the Londoners, especially the London gentlemen from Cambridge, have some origins in the avoidance of Mr. Wilde in Oxford.
The film adaptation was quite successful, albeit vulgar, but instead of Foster letting an illness ruin Clive's infatuation with his best friend, using Risley's trial to teach Mr. Durham "to love a beautiful woman" is a good idea" is much more plausible. In other words, psychology has become a lot more scientific. The movie is kind to Mr. Drum, but Mr. Hall is not so lucky, so he still loses this almost concentric friend - in the final scene, when Morris turns around, Drum The gentleman drew the curtains and stumbled. Standing in front of the window, he seemed to see Hall in school uniform raising his face to greet him, he responded unconsciously, and then he had to tell Anne that he was reciting a speech - a real gentleman.
So I was quite puzzled by the appearance of Scudder, and Foster told readers in the postscript that Scudder's appearance had at least two functions: it led to Morris's awakening to sexuality ("Alec was in Millthorpe's Born, he is the tactile sensation of the part under my waist"); perfecting Morris's double satisfaction in love and humanity. Foster has worked hard on Alek's appearance, showing excellent skills as a novelist, but the hidden crisis one is the complete abandonment of poor Clive, who has fully grown into a good statesman So at the end, a lesson between two old lovers was arranged almost to save oneself. Although it is not bad, it is not a good choice. The second is that readers still have a little idea of what is going on with Mr. Scudder, especially the fact that he gave up going to Argentina. It can only be said that Mr. Foster gave him and his friends an extra favor. In addition, the damage to the value of the novel is already large enough. Foster said that the first draft had Morris standing on the pier, watching the boat carry Alek away, then turning to face England, emotional and fearless; this setting may be closer to reality Aleks in.
But, I think, Foster's mistake, in the modernist view, may have been committed at the moment when Alek had to go to Argentina. Although the author can attest that this was nothing in 1910, especially for its bourgeois classicism, it was Alek's departure that brought him closer to Dickens in a sense. Or, as women writers can do, Austen had to arrange a two-run elopement, the Bronte geniuses clamored for equality all day, and the novel looked like yet another Dickens preparation. A coming-of-age novel, typical, yet very special - I don't think there could be a greater irony for Mr. Foster.
But I still have to praise Foster for his conservatism and prudence. He has the same prudent charm as the bourgeois Christians that Buñuel mocks. He carries many of the bad habits of the British since the nineteenth century and the unconscious complacency of these bad habits, but the nature of restraint is still reflected in him and fully controls others, so Morris was created, and Let him share with Alec. In this approach, we follow the old view that Morris has a spirit of rebelling against the concept of hierarchy, and that Morris has a sound human nature, avoiding being corrupted, vulgar and degraded by society. Yes, we have to praise the British on this point, the idea of civilization, although not able to amend the statute in 1910, has effectively witnessed the efforts of a generation and preserved the results.
In 1914, "Morris" was written; in 1971, the novel was published; in 1987, James Ivory made it into a film and put it on the screen.
Thanks to Ivory for showing me the classical perspective, I was gradually moved in the slow switching of the picture, I believe this is what a movie needs, especially Morris needs the subtle, but deep and vigorous temperament with tricks. Thanks to Hugh Grant, who had the best smile and shyness in his best years, and played the role of Clive brilliantly; thanks to Rupert Graves, who brought Alek's sensual, reckless A good rendition of Sturdy; of course, thanks to James Wilby, Morris deserves to be so sincere, friendly, with the possibility of having a noble sentiment.
View more about Maurice reviews
