2 Answers | Add Yours
Personally, I really enjoyed Parker's take on the play. The actual differences were in the interpretations behind the scenes. Cecily is so hopelessly romantic that she is constantly in a dream state with the knight in shining armor. Also, Jack and Gwendolyn get tattoos--this is quite amusing in our time period, but nothing like that would have occurred. It helped create more irony in the end when Gwendolyn finds that he truly is Ernest.
However, on a more cynical yet realistic note, the real focus of the play should have been on Lady Bracknell. Instead, it was focused on both of the bachelors and their lives. Wilde used Lady Bracknell to express his frustration with the Victorian era, and Lady Bracknell was the figure who represented all of absurdity of the time period. She should have been the focus, and yet Parker had her play the controlling matriarch instead of a pompous and almost idiotic character. The reason for Parker to create the movie in this light was most likely to keep up with the romantic comedies that take up so much of the movies that are presented to us every day.
i agree w/ you on this one troutmiller.
We’ve answered 330,591 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question