I like the 71’ version. They really kinda showed why McBee did what he did to survive. They heavily implied the woman’s school was gonna turn McBee over to the confederacy! And Clint Eastwood played it up with an animal backed into a corner.
Thanks for a great review and analysis! I grew up watching the '71 movie on TV and I love it. Disliked the '17 version, mostly because it was too tasteful and got rid of Halle the slave, who was of of my favorite characters in the first movie. Just finished reading the book. I have to agree with you that the '71 movie is the best version. The book started off strong but ended up being a slog. I read two other whole books before finishing that one. So much longer than it needed to be. And the '71 version really played up the horror of the amputation more than any of the others. I was surprised at how not a big deal it was in the book. I also like that the '71 movie changed Mattie from an elderly Black woman to a much younger one (named Halle) so that she too could have sexual tension with McBurney. I understand why both movies eliminated Edwina's biracial background since it's never really confirmed and nothing comes of it anyway. I did like the inclusion of little Marie in the '17 version because she's hilarious, in both the move and the book. I was disappointed that we didn't get more chapters from the point of view of Mattie, but I was happy that she got the final chapter.
How did Mae Mercer not get nominated for any awared for her portrayal of Hallie. The slave character minimizes her power over the characters, and her blunt explanation of the war to McBee was unheard of in 1971. The opening credits are so close to Ken Burns' Civil War phot montage in the 90s, . Both films play down the fact that McBee was a Union deserter, as flashbacks show McBee burning crops ( literally scorched earth ) so he earns no empathy from the audience . The 1971 version was more realistic in costumes and the set where much of it was filmed.
Great review. You make a great point, in regard directors advertising their new film as a new adaptation faithful to the book, but ends just being a remake. Nightmare Alley one of new adaptations that's incorporates elements from the 47 film while being much more accurate to the book. The problem with 2017 film its existence really not needed since 71 was faithful to the book.
Thanks! And yeah, I actually covered Nightmare Alley and Del Toro made his version a mix of thr book and older movie. And yeah, I agree that 2017 beguiled seemed unnecessary considering she didn't make any significant changes
The 2017 version gave me such a wrong idea of who John was as a person. I knew he was slightly full of shit but it didn’t get across how genuinely manipulative he was. Like when he grabbed Amelia’s turtle and threw it, I was so surprised because he seemed to show actually kindness towards her the entire time.
I kinda feel like the 2017 version made him kinda look more like a victim (just my opinion) not really showing how manipulative he was. It was like making his character not as bad he was in the book.. i don’t understand why Sophia said it’s from the “female” perspective “ when it kinda made him seem “less bad” in the 2017 movie.. maybe just my personal opinion on it idk
I mean in the '17 movie made me think alice was really manipulative, he didnt show much interest in her and it kinda just seems like she pursues him. But seeing thats how she was meant to be is eye opening haha. In '17 i honestly think alice was the downfall and he fell for the seduction but it seems like he only became unhinged and nasty bc his leg got cut off, i agree i wanted to hate him more and see more manipulation
I never read the book, but seen both versions of the story. The ‘71 film is pretty dated but the performances of Clint, Elizabeth Hartman & Geraldine Page are strong and Don Siegel’s direction matched well. I also liked how their version humanized their slave and gave her a “friendship” (if you can call it that) with Clint’s John till she gets sick of his attitude/behavior and hypocrisy. The 2017 version by Sofia probably has the best aesthetic with the grainy-like cinematography & I do like Nicole’s matriarch a bit more than Geraldine as she’s much more suspicious of John and when he rejects her she doesn’t hesitate to get him gone. Kirsten Dunst as the more naive teacher is equally strong, but she isn’t quite as tragic as Elizabeth Hartman’s performance; I think she masters that even more in “Power of the Dog”. I do like Colin Farrell, but he kinda drops his facade way too quick compared to how manipulative Clint is in the original, but I still rooted for his demise like the ‘71 movie
@@WhytheBookWins definitely agree that the ‘71 movie did the climax and finale so much better. Especially with how heartbreaking Elizabeth Hartman’s reaction is to what Clint’s John does. Course Don Siegel knew how to build tension in his best work; considering Dirty Harry was released the same year and he had done the original “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”
The painted devil actually makes a lot of sense because all the characters project an image or “paint” the idea of who they are but deep down each is driven by their inner devil.
It is very telling that Pamelyn Ferdin eventually became an animal rights activist; the turtle scene and the demise of the crow tethered to the balcony. Profound.
watched both movies yesterday. i felt more pained when they killed corporal in '71 than in '17. comments down suggest otherwise. anyways it was worth watching!
This was a good review.... I didn't see the 2017 version of this movie but to be honest .... I have no interest... Most movies today in my opinion are not very good.... But your review was really good....
How are you doing mrs Laura thank you for your wonderful cultural channel we appreciate your efforts as foreigners subscribers as overseas students want to increase our cultural level improve our English language as well literature lovers too iam only Arabic subscriber in several British and American TH-cam channels but honestly book tubes channels it’s great ideas to show people titles of books and encourage them to read learn new information so that I gathered key points about novel main theme and author biography briefly here it’s beguiled plot summary when injured union soldier is found in Virginia woods as civil war rages he is brought to nearby miss marth farsworth seminary for young ladies to recover for sheltered girls and their teachers arrival of attractive John mcburney is thrilling distraction from normal life . In the end marth convinces girls that only way to end mcburney terror to kill him at send off dinner they serve him poisonous mushrooms which kills him within seconds . In 1971 American gothic film directed by don Siegel starring Clint Eastwood page script was written by Albert maltzand is based on 1966 novel written by Thomas cullinan originally titled painted devil .
The characters' secrets featured in the novel were anti-climatic? I don't know if I completely agree with that assessment, especially in regard to characters like Martha Farnsworth and Edwina Morrow. The novel also featured a rape. Neither movie is perfect, but I did enjoy the 1971 film. I thought the 2017 movie stripped the "sturm und drang" from Cullinan's narrative.
Yesterday i watched the 2017 sofia coppola version of the beguiled not knowing anying about the oiginal story and i really enjoyed it, defenitly a very pretty looking film and i also enyoed the acting, the movie really cautiveted me cause until the point where edwina discovers McBurney at alices room i tryuly belive him to be a good person and then realizing in the last part of the movie that it was all a lie and watch as he falls out of the pedestal the woman have put him in was so shoking to me i was tense for te remaining of the film and i found my self suporting the woman as they kill him off, cause how sad that after they went throgh so much troblue and risk them selves to help him (lets remember he was a soldier from the north) he lied to them and manipuleted them fo his benefit and went to the room of a TEENAGER, anyway thats why i look for some reviw of the book today so that i could understand the story better and now knowing the changes that were made i think i came to the conclusion that maybe the 2017 movie its enjoyble for what it is as long as you dont have perspective as how it compares with the original material, but istill like it, great reviw
Last part of my research author of novel beguiled is Thomas cullinan ( born in 1919 - died in 1995) he was American novelist and playwright as well as writer of television he is perhaps best known for his novel 1966 beguiled which was made into two films of same name 1971 and 2017 award he won Cleveland art prize 1971 and ford fondation grants 1969 and 1966 thank you again for giving us chance to read learn new information improve our English language as well ihope we became intimate friends from now on my name is Turkish origin means Nobel lady as princess iam Arabic lady citizen and your name means sweet bay tree symbol of honor victory Latin origin stay safe blessed best wishes for you your family friends.
![Cruel Intentions vs Dangerous Liaisons [book vs movies]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OHmmwmWx87s/mqdefault.jpg)
I like the 71’ version. They really kinda showed why McBee did what he did to survive. They heavily implied the woman’s school was gonna turn McBee over to the confederacy! And Clint Eastwood played it up with an animal backed into a corner.
Yeah the 71 movie is great!
Thanks for a great review and analysis! I grew up watching the '71 movie on TV and I love it. Disliked the '17 version, mostly because it was too tasteful and got rid of Halle the slave, who was of of my favorite characters in the first movie. Just finished reading the book. I have to agree with you that the '71 movie is the best version. The book started off strong but ended up being a slog. I read two other whole books before finishing that one. So much longer than it needed to be. And the '71 version really played up the horror of the amputation more than any of the others. I was surprised at how not a big deal it was in the book. I also like that the '71 movie changed Mattie from an elderly Black woman to a much younger one (named Halle) so that she too could have sexual tension with McBurney. I understand why both movies eliminated Edwina's biracial background since it's never really confirmed and nothing comes of it anyway. I did like the inclusion of little Marie in the '17 version because she's hilarious, in both the move and the book. I was disappointed that we didn't get more chapters from the point of view of Mattie, but I was happy that she got the final chapter.
Glad you liked the video! Thanks for sharing your thoughts 🙂
How did Mae Mercer not get nominated for any awared for her portrayal of Hallie. The slave character minimizes her power over the characters, and her blunt explanation of the war to McBee was unheard of in 1971. The opening credits are so close to Ken Burns' Civil War phot montage in the 90s, . Both films play down the fact that McBee was a Union deserter, as flashbacks show McBee burning crops ( literally scorched earth ) so he earns no empathy from the audience . The 1971 version was more realistic in costumes and the set where much of it was filmed.
Great review. You make a great point, in regard directors advertising their new film as a new adaptation faithful to the book, but ends just being a remake.
Nightmare Alley one of new adaptations that's incorporates elements from the 47 film while being much more accurate to the book.
The problem with 2017 film its existence really not needed since 71 was faithful to the book.
Thanks! And yeah, I actually covered Nightmare Alley and Del Toro made his version a mix of thr book and older movie.
And yeah, I agree that 2017 beguiled seemed unnecessary considering she didn't make any significant changes
The 2017 version gave me such a wrong idea of who John was as a person. I knew he was slightly full of shit but it didn’t get across how genuinely manipulative he was. Like when he grabbed Amelia’s turtle and threw it, I was so surprised because he seemed to show actually kindness towards her the entire time.
Yeah i think that movie totally missed the mark on so many levels!
I kinda feel like the 2017 version made him kinda look more like a victim (just my opinion) not really showing how manipulative he was. It was like making his character not as bad he was in the book.. i don’t understand why Sophia said it’s from the “female” perspective “ when it kinda made him seem “less bad” in the 2017 movie.. maybe just my personal opinion on it idk
I definitely agree with you! The new movie didn't show how manipulative he was.
Nice analogy!
Super interesting analysis of all three stories
Thank you!
I mean in the '17 movie made me think alice was really manipulative, he didnt show much interest in her and it kinda just seems like she pursues him.
But seeing thats how she was meant to be is eye opening haha.
In '17 i honestly think alice was the downfall and he fell for the seduction but it seems like he only became unhinged and nasty bc his leg got cut off, i agree i wanted to hate him more and see more manipulation
I never read the book, but seen both versions of the story. The ‘71 film is pretty dated but the performances of Clint, Elizabeth Hartman & Geraldine Page are strong and Don Siegel’s direction matched well. I also liked how their version humanized their slave and gave her a “friendship” (if you can call it that) with Clint’s John till she gets sick of his attitude/behavior and hypocrisy.
The 2017 version by Sofia probably has the best aesthetic with the grainy-like cinematography & I do like Nicole’s matriarch a bit more than Geraldine as she’s much more suspicious of John and when he rejects her she doesn’t hesitate to get him gone. Kirsten Dunst as the more naive teacher is equally strong, but she isn’t quite as tragic as Elizabeth Hartman’s performance; I think she masters that even more in “Power of the Dog”. I do like Colin Farrell, but he kinda drops his facade way too quick compared to how manipulative Clint is in the original, but I still rooted for his demise like the ‘71 movie
Yeah you make some good points! I just wish Coppola did more with the story. *that* scene and reveal was just done so much better in the 70s movie
@@WhytheBookWins definitely agree that the ‘71 movie did the climax and finale so much better. Especially with how heartbreaking Elizabeth Hartman’s reaction is to what Clint’s John does. Course Don Siegel knew how to build tension in his best work; considering Dirty Harry was released the same year and he had done the original “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”
Just dropping a fun fact, the 2017 adaption was filmed in Jennifer Coolidge's house in New Orleans
Oh wow! I had no idea
That’s cool it’s nice house
Clint Eastwood looks like Wolverine in the 1971 film. :)
Thank you for this incredible review. There is no other way, i will have to do make a better version than these 3 😂
The painted devil actually makes a lot of sense because all the characters project an image or “paint” the idea of who they are but deep down each is driven by their inner devil.
Ooo yeah that's a great point!
It is very telling that Pamelyn Ferdin eventually became an animal rights activist; the turtle scene and the demise of the crow tethered to the balcony. Profound.
watched both movies yesterday. i felt more pained when they killed corporal in '71 than in '17. comments down suggest otherwise. anyways it was worth watching!
This was a good review.... I didn't see the 2017 version of this movie but to be honest .... I have no interest... Most movies today in my opinion are not very good.... But your review was really good....
Thanks!
71 movie left a mark on me it was different and kinda creepy, the women were so off something was wrong with them.
Yes! Agreed, that's why I love the 71 movie
How are you doing mrs Laura thank you for your wonderful cultural channel we appreciate your efforts as foreigners subscribers as overseas students want to increase our cultural level improve our English language as well literature lovers too iam only Arabic subscriber in several British and American TH-cam channels but honestly book tubes channels it’s great ideas to show people titles of books and encourage them to read learn new information so that I gathered key points about novel main theme and author biography briefly here it’s beguiled plot summary when injured union soldier is found in Virginia woods as civil war rages he is brought to nearby miss marth farsworth seminary for young ladies to recover for sheltered girls and their teachers arrival of attractive John mcburney is thrilling distraction from normal life . In the end marth convinces girls that only way to end mcburney terror to kill him at send off dinner they serve him poisonous mushrooms which kills him within seconds . In 1971 American gothic film directed by don Siegel starring Clint Eastwood page script was written by Albert maltzand is based on 1966 novel written by Thomas cullinan originally titled painted devil .
The characters' secrets featured in the novel were anti-climatic? I don't know if I completely agree with that assessment, especially in regard to characters like Martha Farnsworth and Edwina Morrow. The novel also featured a rape. Neither movie is perfect, but I did enjoy the 1971 film. I thought the 2017 movie stripped the "sturm und drang" from Cullinan's narrative.
Yesterday i watched the 2017 sofia coppola version of the beguiled not knowing anying about the oiginal story and i really enjoyed it, defenitly a very pretty looking film and i also enyoed the acting, the movie really cautiveted me cause until the point where edwina discovers McBurney at alices room i tryuly belive him to be a good person and then realizing in the last part of the movie that it was all a lie and watch as he falls out of the pedestal the woman have put him in was so shoking to me i was tense for te remaining of the film and i found my self suporting the woman as they kill him off, cause how sad that after they went throgh so much troblue and risk them selves to help him (lets remember he was a soldier from the north) he lied to them and manipuleted them fo his benefit and went to the room of a TEENAGER, anyway thats why i look for some reviw of the book today so that i could understand the story better and now knowing the changes that were made i think i came to the conclusion that maybe the 2017 movie its enjoyble for what it is as long as you dont have perspective as how it compares with the original material, but istill like it, great reviw
Thanks for sharing! I agree it is a beautiful looking movie and got agree right, it's best to go into it not having seen the original.
Last part of my research author of novel beguiled is Thomas cullinan ( born in 1919 - died in 1995) he was American novelist and playwright as well as writer of television he is perhaps best known for his novel 1966 beguiled which was made into two films of same name 1971 and 2017 award he won Cleveland art prize 1971 and ford fondation grants 1969 and 1966 thank you again for giving us chance to read learn new information improve our English language as well ihope we became intimate friends from now on my name is Turkish origin means Nobel lady as princess iam Arabic lady citizen and your name means sweet bay tree symbol of honor victory Latin origin stay safe blessed best wishes for you your family friends.
The 1971 fim was so unique... this southern gothic hornet's nest of female repression unleashed in all it's fury.
Yes! It's so good!