1. The film's greatest success is casting. The three protagonists - Anthony Hopkins, the old drama bone, Nicole Kidman's beautiful blonde hair and mysterious temperament, abstinence and sexy combination are very consistent with the original characters, the best casting is Wentworth Miller as the young Coleman Silk, both in terms of appearance and The racial background is impeccable, and there is probably no actor more suitable for the role than him. The other characters are also good, but two characters are a bit disappointing, Delphine seems too ascetic, only the image of intelligentsia does not have the feeling of petite belle in the original, and her role as a half protagonist has been completely deleted, too It's a pity, actually, she's a woman with a lot of stories; Coleman's mother looks too cold and doesn't have the kind of loving feeling in the original book.
2. The story of Les has been deleted in half, and the film almost did not show the pain and psychological torture of Post-war trauma syndrome he suffered as a Vietnam War veteran. In the original book, I liked Chinese restaurant and the Wall very much. The paragraph was completely deleted, causing the Les character in the film to stand upright, just a hazy maniac. But the section of the police station interrogation and the police analysis that was privately added in the film seems to imply that Les is not the murderer, which is the same as my understanding. The death of Coleman & Faunia is the biggest ambiguity in the whole book. How did they die? Readers and viewers have their own answers, or no answers at all, and it would be boring if there was a correct answer.
3. Due to the difference between textual & cinematic narration, some of the very delicate descriptions and character monologues in some books can only be spoken as lines, and some may have been edited and edited in consideration of the length of the movie, which is not pleasing to me personally. Not as good as the original. But there is a very good adaptation. Coleman in the movie chose not to have children because he was afraid of revealing his secrets. This is more tense than the four children in the original book, and it can better express Coleman's inner fear and helplessness.
4. Coleman himself, as a black man, disguised himself as a Jew because he gave up his black identity. As a result, he was framed as a racist who discriminated against black people because he said a wrong word in class. His old age was bleak, and he was a very clever irony. There is a problem that I didn't expect when I was reading the book. When I was watching the movie, I suddenly realized that maybe Coleman was not wronged, maybe he really is a racist, the abandonment of racial identity, and the deep feeling of being a black man. Shackles and pain, in fact, what he hates is not black people, but the pain he suffers caused by the injustice and discrimination imposed on black people by the whole society. But times have changed and everything has changed, and a single "spook" will ruin his well-built life. Philip Roth is really a master of irony.
5. In conclusion, the movie is not as good as the original, but the casting is really good, and there are two good adaptations.
View more about The Human Stain reviews
