Introduction
William Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” is a melancholic short story based on the life and death of a spinster named Emily Grierson. An unknown narrator tells the story in his or her point of view, as the eccentric Emily goes through uncanny circumstances in her life: the complicated relationships she had with her father, lover and people around the Jefferson community. Her mysterious life had puzzled the townspeople of Jefferson and later on they were appalled to know the horrible secrets she kept in the mansion.
Faulkner kicks off the short story during Emily’s funeral. On the other hand, Lyndon Chubbuck’s film adaptation of this short story made it all different by picking up the events in chronological order. Although the film can be helpful in interpreting Faulkner’s eerie story, the treatment made the film very predictable and less enigmatic.
Comparison of story and film
In Faulkner’s original version, he opens the tragic story of Emily at her funeral where people disclosed their puzzling reactions to her death: “the men through a sort of respectful affection for a fallen monument, the women mostly out of curiosity to see the inside of her house, which no one save an old man-servant–a combined gardener and cook–had seen in at least ten years.” With utter grace, Faulkner describes how Emily’s mansion looks like and how her face matches the whole place.
Everything was plain and depressing. The large house in which she lived stood in a decaying state among signs of the new South, where there are “cotton wagons and gasoline pumps.” Miss Emily is described as being “a tradition… a sort of hereditary obligation upon the town.” Curry (1994) believed that the “stylistics of Faulkner’s language… serves to subordinate Emily, ostensibly the subject of the tale, and to elevate the town as the truer subject”. Emily was described to be “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.” She had a small frame which only caused the extra weight to make her look “bloated.”
The death of Miss Emily’s father devastated her and she rarely left her home. Then, when her lover abandoned her, Miss Emily became more of a recluse. The only evidence of life that could be observed at the Grierson home was “the Negro man… going in and out with a market basket.” Inevitably, a smell began emanating from the Grierson home and some of the local women thought it was because “a man [couldn’t] keep a kitchen properly.” As more neighbors complained to local authorities about the smell, the authorities argued over how to handle the matter. After all, as Judge Stevens asked, “Will you accuse a lady to her face of smelling bad?”
Later, it was revealed in the story that Emily was a victim of a tyrannical father, who believed that no one was good enough for Emily. After her father died during the summer, Emily fell in love with a construction foreman named Homer Barron. Because of this sudden relationship, townspeople began gossiping about the love affair and wondered if the two were bound to get married. They were seen driving around town together and this pleased some people. Still, they believed that she would never wed “a Northerner, a day laborer.” However, everyone was puzzled when she purchased some arsenic from the local druggist.
When he informed her that, by law, she must tell him for what she would be using the arsenic, she simply stared him down until her package of arsenic was wrapped and produced. The druggist had written “For rats” on the box. After her purchasing the poison, the townspeople speculated that Miss Emily was contemplating suicide. Ultimately, it is revealed that Homer had said that he wasn’t “a marrying man.” In fact, “he liked men, and it was known that he drank with the younger men in the Elks’ Club.” This evoked pity for Miss Emily from the townsfolk. After Emily’s death, it later turned out that Emily killed Homer because he disappointed her of bringing her to the altar for their wedding.
While Faulkner was effective as a writer, Lyndon Chubbuck struggled to effectively convince viewers that he is doing a film adaptation for “A Rose for Emily”. The film, which was produced in 1982, literally exposed Chubbuck’s inexperience in doing films, as he is more attuned to television directing. In the film version, Emily was portrayed by Anjelica Huston in a lackluster performance. What was unbelievable in the film is that there many discrepancies that avid Faulkner readers would generally find absurd.
For instance, the physical appearance of Emily in the film was surprising because Faulkner’s short story portrayed Emily to be “fat and short”. In the film version, Huston remained beautiful all throughout the movie. Also changed in the short story was that it was Emily’s cousins that discovered the dead body of Homer in a bed inside a locked up room. It was then viewers will find out that Emily creepily slept beside him for many years, despite the fact that he is dead. This destroyed the original dramatic and horrific ending seen in the original short story.
Another observable flaw in the movie is when Emily is buying arsenic in the drugstore. When the drugstore owner asked her on how she planned to use the drug, she looked away, instead of staring back as suggested in the original short story. Because of these changes in the film, Clark et al. (1984) determined that Faulkner enthusiasts will definitely be disappointed with this movie. The camera work, however, succeeded in evoking the important emotional moments in the film.
For example, it effectively showed the gloominess of the house by effectively panning through the pale curtains and dusty furniture. To demonstrate the horror of being poisoned to death, the camera did amazing close-ups while Homer was choking in Emily’s kitchen. The set design was also remarkable as it was suitable to complement the film’s Gothic theme. Another worth mentioning is that the costumes were anachronously appropriate as it exhibited the 19th century look among the actors.
Although the camera work was quite satisfactory in evoking emotions in the film, the whole enigmatic appeal is lost when the scriptwriter decided to change some of the more important scenes that were issued by Faulkner in the original story. Ultimately, the film did not do proper justice to Faulkner’s classic short story. It changed essential parts that might have had been effective to delineate the viewer’s reactions about the scenarios presented in the short story.
Works Cited
Clark, Betty D., Gerhardt, Lilian N., and Mandell, Phyllis Levy. “A Rose for Emily”. School Library Journal, 30.7 (1984): 128.
Curry, Renee R. “Gender and authorial limitation in Faulkner’s ‘A Rose for Emily.’ (Special Issue: William Faulkner).” The Mississippi Quarterly. 47.3 (1994): p391.