If you have read the book, then by watching the film, you will be very disappointed because there is one great change in the plot location that will affect and ruin the whole tone of the story:
Yes; both versions are set in Paris: hence the title 'The Woman in the Fifth.'
In the book, the estranged wife and daughter have been left behind in America as 'Tom' flees to Paris alone to avoid a scandal of his own making. This is not so in the film.....Tom arrives in Paris to re-unite his family from estrangement . Furthermore, there are also a great number of plot details missing from a fascinating story from the author Douglas Kennedy... it is like a big gap of a hole that the film can only seem to portray and make sense of.... by compressing the whole story into an 80 minute narrative with occult like interpretations with director's own fancy?
Furthermore, the lengthy plot of the book is vital to hold the story together. I am also not keen on Ethan Hawke who plays Tom ( whose name is 'Harry' in the original story. ) Ethan Hawke, as an actor, looks too introspective and miserable for the character to be liked. I do however, like Kristin Scott Thomas - she is irresistible, and perfectly cast as the mysterious Margit of which the the mystery is based upon.
Having compared the film to the book though, there is great merit to savour - with great artistry of film -making -it is art-house filming -and remarkable in quality. Overall, the film appears dreamy, but drab, and ends abruptly without the full story being told, leaving one feeling sad, confused, and a bit short changed...and it does not help that the filming of the 'imaginary of the woodland' can offer a clue to the 'owl like' magic to solve the mystery?
Again, while the film has merit on its own strength- it would have been a real plot spoiler to have see the film prior to reading the book -to have known the mystery of Margit, to whom: The Woman of the Fifth is so named. I am glad I did not attend the Curzon cinema in Mayfair, London to do just this, as the book is great to read: Of course, I feel sad and confused -having now watched the film....but I wish that the film director, Pawel Pawlikowski could explain his interpretation?
Yes; both versions are set in Paris: hence the title 'The Woman in the Fifth.'
In the book, the estranged wife and daughter have been left behind in America as 'Tom' flees to Paris alone to avoid a scandal of his own making. This is not so in the film.....Tom arrives in Paris to re-unite his family from estrangement . Furthermore, there are also a great number of plot details missing from a fascinating story from the author Douglas Kennedy... it is like a big gap of a hole that the film can only seem to portray and make sense of.... by compressing the whole story into an 80 minute narrative with occult like interpretations with director's own fancy?
Furthermore, the lengthy plot of the book is vital to hold the story together. I am also not keen on Ethan Hawke who plays Tom ( whose name is 'Harry' in the original story. ) Ethan Hawke, as an actor, looks too introspective and miserable for the character to be liked. I do however, like Kristin Scott Thomas - she is irresistible, and perfectly cast as the mysterious Margit of which the the mystery is based upon.
Having compared the film to the book though, there is great merit to savour - with great artistry of film -making -it is art-house filming -and remarkable in quality. Overall, the film appears dreamy, but drab, and ends abruptly without the full story being told, leaving one feeling sad, confused, and a bit short changed...and it does not help that the filming of the 'imaginary of the woodland' can offer a clue to the 'owl like' magic to solve the mystery?
Again, while the film has merit on its own strength- it would have been a real plot spoiler to have see the film prior to reading the book -to have known the mystery of Margit, to whom: The Woman of the Fifth is so named. I am glad I did not attend the Curzon cinema in Mayfair, London to do just this, as the book is great to read: Of course, I feel sad and confused -having now watched the film....but I wish that the film director, Pawel Pawlikowski could explain his interpretation?