By Tanith L. Balaban
Arizona Daily Wildcat
February 5, 1998

What to expect from Great Expectations

Photo courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox. Arizona Daily Wildcat Lustful stares speak louder than words when Finn (Ethan Hawke) and Estella (Gwyneth Paltrow) get together in "Great Expectations."

Almost all of us had to read the book "Great Expectations" some time in high school. We all expected it to suck rocks. I mean, who could relate to a guy named Pip in the 1800s? So, when I heard about the film version months ago, even before the hype started, I was intrigued. The more trailers I saw, the worse I thought the movie was going to be. I complained that the idea was so far off from the book as to be unrecognizable. But, as usual, I was wrong.

Not that the book and the movie follow each other exactly - far from it - but the differences aren't so great that you can't interpret the film as a modern version of Dickens' classic.

However, some of the "updated" features are just a tad bit bizarre. Take, for example, Finnigan Bell: He's new and improved! He was Pip, but now he's Finn. Either way, the names are silly, but somehow Finnigan is a modern name while Philip is just too darned old fashioned.

Estella: First, in the book, Estella has brown hair. Of course, Hollywood needs the big name stars, and of course, the idea that blondes are sexier than brunettes probably influenced the choice of Gwyneth Paltrow for the role just a little. More significantly, the cruelty aspect of Estella's personality is downplayed. In the book she tells Pip straight to his face that he's a dirty, low-class, inferior being, not worth her talking to, or even looking at. In the movie, she simply leads him on, from the time he's about 10 until he's 30-something.

The house: The names have been changed to protect - um, well, I don't really know. They changed the house's name from Satis to Paradiso Perduto (Paradise Lost). Go figure. The idea of the house has been changed as well. In the movie, the house is not as run-down as it was in the book - it has more of that posh, "groomed," look to it. Every leaf, every vine, even the weathered decor, has been artfully placed for your viewing pleasure.

Photo courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox. Arizona Daily Wildcat Mean Ms. Dinsmoor (Anne Bancroft) gets a little bit of help for her broken heart.

Miss Dinmore: Again the name is changed, for no apparent reason. Is Miss Havisham a less likely last name today than it was in 1860, when Charles Dickens's weekly serial ran in the magazine "All The Year?" Additionally, Miss Dinmore/Havisham is infinitely more psycho in the book than she is in the movie. In the book, she is still wearing the wedding dress she was stood up in 25 years ago. In the movie, she is just an eccentric old lady who has a knack for fucking up people's lives.

Sex: To no one's surprise I'm sure, Finnigan and Estella have sex in the movie. She gladly strips naked at a moment's notice. In the 1800s, a proper woman like Estella would have worn a corset, a couple of petticoats, boots that laced up to the knee and a variety of undergarments that take a very determined person to undo. In today's version, she wears backless dresses, black lace panties - she's showing a little more than just ankle in this movie, folks.

For all the changes, and to the movie's credit, this is the first time in over a year that I've managed to sit through a whole movie without fidgeting or looking at my watch every two minutes. Does that mean it's good? Well, it's Hollywood distortion, and it's fluff, but it is entertaining. If you have to read the book for a class, don't see this movie and expect to pass your test or essay. But if you want to go and just see a movie that requires no thought, this is for you. Hey, everyone needs distraction now and then.