Differences Between The Film and Novel
The most significant difference between the 1955 novel and the 1958 film is the ending. At the end of the novel, the free-spirited Marjorie Morningstar settles down with a man her parents would approve of. In a criticism of Herman Wouk's ending, Alana Newhouse writes in Slate Magazine that "In the final nine pages, the formerly vibrant Marjorie gives up on her career, gets married to a man named Sidney — er, Milton — Schwartz, and moves to Westchester... Most female readers cry when they reach the end of this book, and for good reason. Marjorie Morningstar, as they came to know her, has become another woman entirely: 'You couldn't write a play about her that would run a week, or a novel that would sell a thousand copies. … The only remarkable thing about Mrs. Schwartz is that she ever hoped to be remarkable, that she ever dreamed of being Marjorie Morningstar.'"
In the film, Marjorie seems to go off with Wally Wronkin, the playwright. Though he is successful, unlike Airman, he is far more artistic than the Milton Schwartz Marjorie settles down with at the end of the novel. This ending suggests a different prejudice in the film than Wouk's novel - the lesson is that Marjorie is able to mitigate her desire to break away from tradition, with her parent's wishes. In the novel, the moral seems to be that her only solution is to settle down into the tradition of her parents.
Read more about this topic: Marjorie Morningstar (film)
Famous quotes containing the words differences between the, differences between, differences and/or film:
“What strikes many twin researchers now is not how much identical twins are alike, but rather how different they are, given the same genetic makeup....Multiples don’t walk around in lockstep, talking in unison, thinking identical thoughts. The bond for normal twins, whether they are identical or fraternal, is based on how they, as individuals who are keenly aware of the differences between them, learn to relate to one another.”
—Pamela Patrick Novotny (20th century)
“The differences between revolution in art and revolution in politics are enormous.... Revolution in art lies not in the will to destroy but in the revelation of what has already been destroyed. Art kills only the dead.”
—Harold Rosenberg (1906–1978)
“Quintilian [educational writer in Rome about A.D. 100] hoped that teachers would be sensitive to individual differences of temperament and ability. . . . Beating, he thought, was usually unnecessary. A teacher who had made the effort to understand his pupil’s individual needs and character could probably dispense with it: “I will content myself with saying that children are helpless and easily victimized, and that therefore no one should be given unlimited power over them.””
—C. John Sommerville (20th century)
“Is America a land of God where saints abide for ever? Where golden fields spread fair and broad, where flows the crystal river? Certainly not flush with saints, and a good thing, too, for the saints sent buzzing into man’s ken now are but poor- mouthed ecclesiastical film stars and cliché-shouting publicity agents.
Their little knowledge bringing them nearer to their ignorance,
Ignorance bringing them nearer to death,
But nearness to death no nearer to God.”
—Sean O’Casey (1884–1964)