{ Tuesday, March 4, 2003 }
Thus begins Ian McEwan's creepy first novel The Cement Garden, written in 1978. The book tells the story of an English family that lives isolated from the rest of the world in a crumbling house that resembles a castle. The neighborhood around it has been razed to make way for a suburban development that never came to pass, though delapidated prefabs list on overgrown lots. In the distance loom modern high-rise towers, and though their father attends work and the children attend school, all their relatives are dead, they have no friends and no one ever comes to visit them.
First the father dies suddenly, and soon after the mother takes to bed, suffering from a mysterious illness, and dies a lingering death. Only the children remain -- Julie, who is 17, Jack, who is 15, and their younger siblings Sue and Tom. Jack, from whose perspective the story is told, is a revolting, sullen, pimply teen who masturbates compulsively. The children struggle to keep their world together, and untoward, nasty things transpire -- things that, in their loveless world, have a perverse logic of their own. An interloper, Julie's 23-year-old boyfriend Derek is a professional snooker player and the closest thing to the 'normal' in the book. He, of course, threatens to undermine their precarious togetherness by exposing their horrible secrets.
There was something about The Cement Garden that was similar to another book I'd read recently, The Confusions of Young Torless. In both books there is a group of four children living in isolation from both their parents and from the rest of society, acting out the compulsions of adolescent sexuality and the perversity of children. Torless, Jack and their companions are the last representatives of a failing, impotent aristocracy declining into decadence. The telling of the two tales were quite different -- while Jack is mostly cruel, affectless and unreflective, Torless examines his every action and decision with lapidary minuteness, analysing each and every psychological frisson.
A film was made of The Cement Garden which was apparently quite good and faithful to the text -- though eliminating the final paragraph in which (SPOILER WARNING) sirens are heard in the distance, the standard filmic expression of order and rationality prevailing over crime and evil. I thought that last paragraph was a bit of a betrayal too. McEwan has been winning a lot of prizes lately, most recently the National Book Critics Circle Award, and I'd thought to investigate, having never read any of his work before. Now I'm reading Enduring Love.
LINK | 12:42 AM | TB
You're right. The pimples were the most horrible thing about The Cement Garden. Has anyone seen the movie?
Caterina | March 4, 2003 1:08 AMI second Atonement. And I enjoyed Black Dogs altho. (quick check) Amazon reviewers seem less impressed.
c | March 4, 2003 3:05 AMThe film didn't impress me much though it's probably ten years ago that I saw it. I guess the strength of McEwan's books is the phantasy of the writer and reader. In a film you don't need any fantasy anymore. It's like fast food. Therefore films of his books don't work.
I adored Enduring Love. The title is such a great wordplay. It reminded me a little of the early Paul Auster books. Where everything gets worse and worse and continues to deteriorate even when you think now things have to brighten up.
Alex | March 4, 2003 3:11 AMi remember quite enjoying the movie--though it was also about ten years ago that i saw it on the late late late show. i don't remember the pimples figuring largely in the film however.
jack | March 4, 2003 8:44 AMOf the six McEwan novels I've read so far (I bought his ouevre after being blown away by Atonement), The Cement Garden and Atonement have resonated the most with me: the former because of the substantial chances it takes in portraying incestual feelings and helpless adolescence, the latter for its brilliant take on guilt, life choices and prewar life.
Both books are literary exemplars of economic prose. Critics have charged that McEwan writes too clinically. But I would respond that he actually stimulates our ethical perspective by presenting worlds that civilized society is too proud to glimpse upon. And it's very intriguing that McEwan's details are alternately sparse and specific, as if to rival our own fleeting consciousness.
And because we encounter his characters making substantial life choices in enclosed spaces (Robbie and Cecilia in a room in Atonement, Maria initiating Leonard's manhood in her apartment in The Innocent, Vernon and Clive making an agreement in an apartment that dramatically changes their respective lives in Amsterdam), his books portray worlds in which the key moments in life are as equally hidden from our consciousness as the deviance Western society deplores.
I could go on and on about how important a novelist McEwan is, about how brilliantly he weaves thematic elements into well-oiled prose and engaging narratives, but then this comment would transform into a blog entry! :)
As for the film version, I must confess that I was disappointed with it. It was very faithful to the book, but it didn't have the uncompromising emotional resonance that Cement had on the page.
There is also a movie based on The Comfort of Strangers and The Innocent is reported to be in development with Paramount. But I suspect that McEwan, despite the poignance and revealing qualities of his stories, doesn't translate well to the screen precisely BECAUSE his prose is so beautifully labored with behavioral nuance and suitably thematic dialectics with reader.
Apologies again for the longass comment, but McEwan has become one of my top eight living writers. :)
Ed | March 4, 2003 1:50 PMdidn't peter jackson direct the cement garden? i haven't seen it alas! i did see the comfort of strangers tho, a paul schrader movie, but it was ass :D i wanted to get atonement tho after i read about it in time :D but i forgot about it alas! maybe now i'll get it :D thanks!
kenny | March 4, 2003 2:19 PMOkay, I'm a dork. There IS a movie based on The Innocent, with Anthony Hopkins as Glass (!), Isabella Rossellini as Maria (?) and Campbell Scott as Leonard (...).
And, no, Kenny, Peter Jackson did not direct The Cement Garden. You're probably thinking of Heavenly Creatures, which is excellent film.
However, Harold Pinter adapted Comfort. So that makes me VERY curious (particulary since Schraeder directed).
Even so, I'm inclined to go with McEwan's books before the films.
There are also several of McEwan's stories that have been turned into films. And remember that cheesy Macaulay Culkin movie from '93 called The Good Son, in which Culkin tried to break the Home Alone stigma by playing a terrible kid? Amazingly enough, that was a McEwan original screenplay!
Ed | March 4, 2003 2:57 PMyah, heavenly creatures thanks! ed do you know if the sheltering sky is any good? i was thinking about getting it, but can't decide!
also btw i was just thinking kinda sounding along the same lines as the cement garden (altho i wouldn't know cuz i haven't seen it, but maybe similar :) the war zone was particularly good, esp the cinematography by seamus mcgarvey :D
kenny | March 4, 2003 3:15 PMKenny:
The Sheltering Sky: good book, disappointing movie (despite Bertolucci visuals).
The War Zone: This completely blew me away the two times I saw it (once at the '99 Film Festival, once in theatrical release). Never did read the book, but the picture is very disturbing, very honest and I'm glad someone had the balls to make the movie. I'm also glad that it was Tim Roth who direct. In an age where every actor feels the need to direct (and most of them blow at it), Tim Roth showed that he had as much oval brass as any indie director. Why the film had such little notice in the States (beyond the obvious explanation: it was released unrated) is a mystery I'll never be able to fathom. Even got to interview Tim Roth when he publicized the film.
Ed | March 4, 2003 4:54 PMRe.: The War zone
(This is all imo, and isn't an attempt to start any rows!)
I enjoyed (right word?) the book. The ambiguity of it was unnerving, but the book itself left its mark. I was living in Cambridge, UK a few years back, and read that Roth was making a film of it. I was intrigued, so went to see a screening of it. It turned out that Roth would he holding a Q&A session with the audience immediately the film finished.
And I *hated* it. I don't think I've ever hated a film so much. Roth removed any ambiguity that was present in the book and simplified to the point of absurdity. Greys turned into blacks and whites and it seemed that it was all he could do to stop himself putting red horns and a tail on the father character.
And to make things worse, Roth was insufferable. He spent around 2 hours telling us how brave he was to make this film, how much he had suffered in production and made constant allusions to his own personal pain and torment. He answered the majority of audience questions with a snooty "That's for you to decide" and gave no impression that he'd ever read the book.
I was quite upset : I'd always thought that Roth was quite, well, cool. And certainly not, for example, a self-indulgent prima donna luvvie.
...
Reading that back, it seems a little venomous. Can I say imo again? :)
c | March 5, 2003 6:43 AMC: It is venemous. It's also downright unreasonable.
Without sounding equally venemous, I'd say you missed the mark completely on (a) how truly difficult it is to deal with an intense abusive situation, (b) how truly difficult it is to get that kind of movie made and distributed (without a rating, no less!), (c) how truly difficult it is to get realistic performances in this kind of atmosphere from young people (the actors whom Roth cast as the kids had no theatrical experience), and (d) how truly difficult it is to adapt a book (and, incidentally, this screenplay was written by Alexander Stuart, the same guy who did, after all, write the novel) and satisfy all the literary yahoo assassins and other savage deconstructionists who do not understand that film is an entirely different medium from the novel.
Insufferable? You could have walked out in the middle of the Q&A session if you felt that bad.
The father a cardboard cutout? Did you and I see the same movie? He was portrayed as a man sympathetic and protective of his family as much as he was portrayed as an abuser. Both well-written by Stuart and well-acted by the incomparable Ray Winstone.
And a filmgoing, book or artistic experience IS for you to decide. What's so goddam snooty about saying that? Sounds to me as if the man didn't boast about his film at all.
Ed | March 5, 2003 2:28 PM"The Comfort of Strangers" was a very good book (novella? only 134 pages). Creepy, dark, and strange.
roe | March 5, 2003 7:52 PMHey Ed -
Apologies (seconded in an earlier email); I was hoping that the "imo" would dilute the vitriol - seems more water would have helped! I was also hoping to avoid feuding with anyone who liked the film, so - in a belated effort to repent for my venom - here's a few things I did enjoy about the film :
Lara Belmont as Jessie. As you say, for a young actor with no acting experience, she was impressive.
The cinematography. If nothing else, the film looked good! I've no idea who to credit for this, but I'd be interested to know who s/he is. Anyone know?
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned The Child In Time. A truly powerful book.
I enjoyed Black Dogs as well but if I had to choose just one McEwan book it would be The Child In Time.
On a related note, this article by Ian McEwan is without doubt the best piece of writing prompted by September 11th:
Only love and then oblivion. Love was all they had to set against their murderers
Jeremy | March 8, 2003 2:38 PMdid anyone else think that the incestuous relationship between jack and julie began to mimmick the relationship between their parents? with jack being a cold and sometimes authority-hungry 'father' figure, constantly jealous of how close Derek was to julie; and julie playing the part of mother to the younger siblings, in particular to Tom? I read this book and didn't really know what to make of it.I certainly didn't find the pimples the most disturbing aspect of it though...
To what extent do you think Julie lost her connection with normality, though through most fof the book she appears to have the strongest connection to normality via her social life?
{ Post a comment }
'Atonement' is good too. Excellent, even. I couldn't quite take all the pimples in the Cement Garden, so I think I never even finished it. Was interesting to see how McEwan started out, though.
marrije | March 4, 2003 12:52 AM