I chose William Faulkner’s short story A Rose for Emily for this essay. The work was first published in 1930. The movie I used for comparison appeared in 1983 and was filmed by Lyndon Chubbuck. Both film and story have similar main aspects. They describe a death and life of 74-year-old Emily Grierson who was a town’s heritage. People found that the woman killed her lover Homer Barron and lived with his body like with husband for many years. While Chubbuck saved the main idea, he made several changes that had impact on movie’s perception.
MAIN CHARACTER
Emily Grierson’s appearance was one of the main differences. In the Faulkner’s story Emily was described as “a small, fat woman in black, with a thin gold chain descending to her waist and vanishing into her belt, leaning on an ebony cane with a tarnished gold head. Her skeleton was small and spare; perhaps that was why what would have been merely plumpness in another was obesity in her” (1). In the movie Emily was presented as quite a tall woman who saved her thin figure in spite of age. She did not use cane in the film. This difference changed the impression the character made. Emily Grierson from the original Faulkner’s story excited piety. The old fat woman demonstrated how the excessive hubris led to the desperate life as an insane hermit. Emily Grierson from the Chubbuck’s movie saved her dignity. The actress demonstrated signs of aristocracy that Faulkner’s character tried to show in the story.
STORYLINE
The storyline is the largest combination of similarities and differences. Chubbuck did not change the main part - Emily Grierson was an anchoress who lived for many years with the dead body of her lover. But writer and director showed her fate in slightly different ways. Emily’s father was presented as an irate alcoholic in the movie. Woman’s facial expression showed she was not against men’s attention, but could not accept it because of father’s behavior. Faulkner’s original work described real impoverished Southern aristocrats. Professor of Literature Patricia Ard mentioned that “both father and daughter remained haughty as ever and they rebuffed every man who had courted Emily to pursue a relationship with her or marry her”. In the Chubbuck’s movie the woman suffered from quarrelsome father’s behavior. This version of Mr. Grierson did not look like a person whose achievements could make a mayor to free family from taxes, even if he was his compotator.
Faulkner showed that Grierson’s family had bad heredity with the mention of Emily’s great-aunt lady Wyatt. In the Chubbuck’s movie there was Emily’s aunt – her sister’s father. This approximation in generations could give clues that family’s psyche was in worse condition, than it looked like. Mr. Grierson’s behavior worked the same way. Presence of insane aunt and father made Emily’s actions more understandable, when she did not want to give her father’s body or killed and saved Barron’s corpse.
Chubbuck changed event sequencing and did not use some details. At the beginning of the Faulkner’s story there was a description of Emily’s refusal of tax payment. The author showed that the old lady was able to gain her point. She “gave fight” to representatives of different generations and won it. This attitude described her as a strong, self-minded personality who did not want to accept changes. “Emily enforces her own sense of law and conduct, such as when she refuses to pay her taxes[or] to have numbers attached to her house when federal mail service is instituted” (sparknotes.com). The movie did not say anything about episode with post service and mentioned that Emily did not pay taxes only in passing. It also did not show how the Baptist minister failed to break the union between the woman and Homer. The director demonstrated Character’s persistence only with the episode where she bought poison. But Chubbuck shed more light upon Emily’s mental condition and reasons of her actions.
Faulkner wrote the story from townspeople’s point of view. Narrator described only things happened in public. Chubbuck’s movie showed events “behind closed doors”. For example, it demonstrated that Emily planned to commit a suicide when Homer Barron. He could save her and become woman’s obsession because of that. This event explained why Barron was so important for Emily and why she decided to keep him in that horrible way when she understood the man did not want to marry her. Homer became not only the first man who showed interest to her after many years, but a person who stopped her from suicide. The film also was more detailed in some events, than the story. Faulkner mentioned Emily did not want to give her father’s body for several days. The film demonstrated she did not move him after the man choked during the dinner. These details support author’s implied idea the family had mental disorders. After the movie the auditory can agree with Smith’s article that “Miss Emily suffered from schizophrenia as defined by the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM-IV criteria”. Mental illness developed both because of heritage and woman’s life conditions.
Both story and film did not say directly, but showed enough clues to suggest Emily Grierson had schizophrenia. Faulkner’s description of woman’s changes can be treated as one of the symptoms of the disorder. The “failure to attend to her personal appearance and to perform what mental health practitioners call the “tasks of daily living”—such as hygiene and grooming is one of the criteria for the diagnosis of schizophrenia” (Smith). Miss Emily from the movie looked after herself, but viewers could see other signs of the disorder like social withdrawal, inability to express emotions or expressionless gaze. Most of them were described in the original story, but the movie made symptoms more noticeable in addition to Emily’s close relative’s behavior.
STRUCTURE
The original A Rose for Emily “does not follow the progression of a typical narrative” (Ard). Faulkner started with the description of her death and told part of the story backwards. Author described Emily’s “fight” with town’s administration at first. Then Faulkner mentioned how officials tried to deal with horrible smell from Grierson’s house. Chronological description of Emily’s life started only after these events. Chosen structure showed readers why the woman acted this way and helped Faulkner to “keep a secret”. Person, who would read this story without knowledge of its background, would not think there will be a murder even after the scene with poison. According to author, she bought it before the meeting with Barron. Poison could be a sign Emily decided to kill herself, like townspeople thought. It was also difficult to suggest there was a dead body in the house, because woman’s cousins lived there.
The movie has more chronological structure with different positions of some events. It starts with words about Emily’s death, but then takes on description of her youth. Film’s structure helps to understand the woman decided to kill her lover quickly, than the story. There is a possible moment of a murder, when Emily and Homer had dinner together. Movie showed the woman bought poison already, and it could be in the glass the man drank. Incident with bad smell was just another sign of townspeople’s attitude to Griersons in the Faulkner’s original story. In the movie it was an additional clue that Barron did not leave the house. The film also showed there were no relatives with Emily when she killed her lover. Chubbuck created more comfortable conditions for the crime with cousins’ absence.
DETAILS
The story starts with words that “Miss Emily Grierson died [and] whole town went to her funeral” (Faulkner 1). Author focused on the woman’s character and her position in town’s life after that. Movie starts with the demonstration of Emily’s dead body and preparations for the funeral. This change makes the story gloomier. Faulkner focused on Emily’s temper and life conditions, while Chubbuck decided to show more material aspects of death. Funeral house also gave two additional supporting characters. Doctor and his assistant played an important role in the film because they started and finished it. Faulkner did not write who exactly found Barron’s body. Chubbuck showed they were Emily’s cousins, doctor and his assistant. This decision is understandable. The director needed someone for this role and it was better to choose several already used characters, than to introduce new one. Usage of cousins made the last event more dramatic. It could be a shock for townspeople to find out the person they knew for so many years killed someone and lived with his corpse. But it is even more horrible for relatives to understand the member of family was capable for such actions. Especially, if they looked for valuable things, like cousins did in the movie.
Women’s expectations and discoveries made the story more ironical. Cousins hoped to find inheritance in the locked room and really found it. But, instead of money and other valuable items, it was a prove Grierson’s mental problems were far beyond common eccentricity of Southern high social classes.
Works Cited
A Rose for Emily. Dir. Lyndon Chubbuck. Perf. Anjelica Huston, John Carradine and John Randolph. Lyndon Chubbuck Studio, 1983. Short Film.
SparkNotes Editors. “SparkNote on A Rose for Emily.” SparkNotes.com. SparkNotes LLC. 2007. 20 Feb. 2016.
Ard, Patricia. “Crytical Analysis Essay on A Rose for Emily”. Analysisessay.org. n. d. 20 Feb. 2016.
Faulkner, William. “A Rose for Emily”. PDF.
Smith, Nicole. “Psychological Character Analysis of Miss Emily in “A Rose for Emily” by Faulkner”. Articlemyriad.com. 6 Dec. 2011. 20 Feb. 2016.
