My rating: 7/10 if you've read the book, 3/10 if not.
Background for this review: I am a big Philip Roth fan (I got hooked upon reading `The Counterlife', which is an absolute masterpiece), and believe him to be one of America's greatest living writers. I'd rate every Roth book since `The Counterlife' as a 9 or 10 - `The Human Stain' would rate a 9, although it's not Roth's all-time best or his recent best (of the recent Zuckerman books, I thought `American Pastoral' was the best). So, knowing the complexity of the Roth's books, I was amazed to hear that `The Human Stain' was being made into a movie, and naturally I rushed out to see the end product.
For someone who has read and enjoyed `The Human Stain', I think the movie is reasonably good, primarily because it brings back impressions from reading the book. However, if you haven't read the book, I think that the movie is going to come across as overly complicated, jumbled mess, which obscures the many messages Roth is able to communicate in the book.
`The Human Stain' is a very complex story with many disparate elements: current political scandals, coming of age, World War II, boxing, familial relationships, academic politics, race relations, political correctness and modern-day witch hunts, life in the underclass, abusive relationships, homosexuality, and multiple deaths and love affairs. Any two or three of these elements could easily fill up a two hour movie. Surprisingly, the moviemakers chose to bring almost all of these elements into the movie, in an attempt to be faithful. However, without hundreds of pages and hours of the reader's attention, and without Roth's genius to tie it all together and add meaning, I don't think it works as a stand-alone movie.
There is one excellent acting performance in the film: Ed Harris is almost as riveting playing psychotic Vietnam vet Lester as Anthony Hopkins was playing Hannibal Lecter. Casting this film is indeed a nearly impossible task. I was able to suspend some disbelief to appreciate Anthony Hopkins as Coleman Silk, but it is true that the actor who plays the young Coleman Silk (who is actually closer to Silk's racial profile) doesn't look anything like Anthony Hopkins. The worst casting was Gary Sinise as Roth's alter ego Nathan Zuckerman. Sinise is way too young to play an impotent Jewish writer in his twilight years.
What recent Philip Roth book would make the best movie? I think `Operation Shylock': it has the most straightforward plot whose central element (Roth's double identity) could easily transfer to the screen, and there is even a decent amount of action and suspense. I don't know why the producers chose to film `The Human Stain' - it presents a much greater challenge for them and audience members who haven't read the book.
Background for this review: I am a big Philip Roth fan (I got hooked upon reading `The Counterlife', which is an absolute masterpiece), and believe him to be one of America's greatest living writers. I'd rate every Roth book since `The Counterlife' as a 9 or 10 - `The Human Stain' would rate a 9, although it's not Roth's all-time best or his recent best (of the recent Zuckerman books, I thought `American Pastoral' was the best). So, knowing the complexity of the Roth's books, I was amazed to hear that `The Human Stain' was being made into a movie, and naturally I rushed out to see the end product.
For someone who has read and enjoyed `The Human Stain', I think the movie is reasonably good, primarily because it brings back impressions from reading the book. However, if you haven't read the book, I think that the movie is going to come across as overly complicated, jumbled mess, which obscures the many messages Roth is able to communicate in the book.
`The Human Stain' is a very complex story with many disparate elements: current political scandals, coming of age, World War II, boxing, familial relationships, academic politics, race relations, political correctness and modern-day witch hunts, life in the underclass, abusive relationships, homosexuality, and multiple deaths and love affairs. Any two or three of these elements could easily fill up a two hour movie. Surprisingly, the moviemakers chose to bring almost all of these elements into the movie, in an attempt to be faithful. However, without hundreds of pages and hours of the reader's attention, and without Roth's genius to tie it all together and add meaning, I don't think it works as a stand-alone movie.
There is one excellent acting performance in the film: Ed Harris is almost as riveting playing psychotic Vietnam vet Lester as Anthony Hopkins was playing Hannibal Lecter. Casting this film is indeed a nearly impossible task. I was able to suspend some disbelief to appreciate Anthony Hopkins as Coleman Silk, but it is true that the actor who plays the young Coleman Silk (who is actually closer to Silk's racial profile) doesn't look anything like Anthony Hopkins. The worst casting was Gary Sinise as Roth's alter ego Nathan Zuckerman. Sinise is way too young to play an impotent Jewish writer in his twilight years.
What recent Philip Roth book would make the best movie? I think `Operation Shylock': it has the most straightforward plot whose central element (Roth's double identity) could easily transfer to the screen, and there is even a decent amount of action and suspense. I don't know why the producers chose to film `The Human Stain' - it presents a much greater challenge for them and audience members who haven't read the book.