I’m going to see a movie today, and I am trepidatious.

I rarely see movies; they’re too darned expensive for what they are, and frankly, Hollywood sucks. The Paramount is dreadful too. Thirteen fifty for an hour and a half of second-rate entertainment? Not bloody likely. I also find the Paramount too flashy – loud, bright, sparkly… just the thing for people with no attention spans. It gives me a headache. If I see movies, I try to see them in any of the smaller theatres, just on principle.

Three years ago (bear with me, this is pertinent) I began writing my thesis. I wrote about three modern British novels set in academic surroundings, namely, A.S.Byatt’s Possession, Graham Swift’s Waterland, and David Lodge’s Nice Work. (I passed brilliantly, thank you very much for asking.) Possession is a book I have loved since it was published in 1990.

For as long as I can remember (no, this is pertinent too) I have generally been disappointed by movies based on books. (Until Fellowship of the Ring came along, bless Peter Jackson’s little heart, and the hearts of his creative team, too.) They’re inevitably flat, and miss the point of the novel. I know they’re different forms of storytelling, but they’re so different that I find directors in search of a hit movie discard the heart of the novel in their single-mindedness. Notable exceptions to this rule include Howard’s End (but not Remains of the Day, alas), and Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (thanks be to all the supreme beings out there), as well as the aforementioned LOTR:FotR.

For the past year and a half, there has been a movie of Possession being retouched and re-edited. At first I was delirious – a movie! They’ve made a movie of one of my favourite books! And then the reality sank in – what if they ruined it? In fact, ruination was likely, considering that it finished shooting over two years ago, they set three different release dates, and scrapped them all. When I discovered that they’d changed the main characters around, I sank further into despair. No, no, no – the fact that both main characters are British is integral to the plot! If they make one American, that means one of the main plot threads is eliminated! Woe!

Equally as delighted at first when we discovered the movie was in the works, another Eng Lit MA agreed that when it finally came out, we’d see it together. Two years later, today is that day. Possession is premiereing this afternoon, and we will be in the audience. (And it’s not at the Paramount – sigh of relief!)

Now, it’s got Gwyneth Paltrow, so it can’t be that bad. It also has Jeremy Northam (who was deliriously good in Emma). And the basic story – that of two modern-day academics slowly uncovering a hithero unknown and certainly unsuspected romance between their respective academic focii, both poets of the Victorian era, through letters and poems. (Give me a break – I’m an academic, and the thought of making such a discovery is heavenly. This sort of thing makes me all weak in the knees.) The book moved back and forth between the modern researchers and the epistolary evidence, so it was, in effect, two novels in one. The term “Possession” ends up being significant on several levels, namely the ownership of body, heart, historical documents, and of course, the spiritual control exterted by another entity, as well as the concept of self-control. (I wrote a thesis on this, remember? They gave me a degree for it.)

The film would be pretty boring if all it showed was modern academics flipping through piles of letters, relying on them to read the information about the Victorian pair aloud, or (even worse) having the camera focus on a handwritten letter in silence for the audience to read. Hence, the Victorian poets have been brought to life for their scenes. Right away, I wince; the point of the novel was to have the poets live only through their words. I know perfectly well this can’t work on-screen, and that due to the story-telling medium the portrayal must change. Apparently, though, Antonia Byatt read the scripts and gave her blessing and approval, believing that the spirit of her story was being preserved. When an author is comfortable with a film, then I know that I too am likely to be comfortable.

The web site describes it as:

Well, even if I’d never read the book before, I’d be hooked: power of language, history, literary mysteries. I told you, this stuff makes me weak in the knees.

So away we go. I am attempting not to have any expectations whatsoever. Alas, however, I do have high standards when it comes to things like this. At least I haven’t re-read the book before seeing it, a sure way to make me hate the movie. No, I’ll read it again soon, after having allowed the movie to sink in for a while. If the movie makes sense on its own, it succeeds. If upon re-reading the book, the movie still works, it gets a big shiny star next to its name and goes on my future DVD list. And, who knows? I might even want to see it in theatres again…