I'll stick to the book

Watching the movie version of the novel Maurice altered my perspective specifically in regards to how I viewed the characters. Through reading the book, I pictured Maurice to be more serious of a character than the movie showed. I realize that Maurice is not supposed to be an extremely intellectual man, but I feel like the movie did him wrong. The movie depicted Maurice on more than one occasion as someone who has little control of his emotions and impulses. When Clive and Maurice were laying together in the field towards the beginning of the movie when they first fall in love, Maurice is very aggressive and does not stop even after Clive suggested they savor the moment without serious physical activity. Also in the movie, Maurice looks very foolish in one particular scene when Clive and Maurice first see each other after Clive’s return from his trip to Greece. Clive and Maurice are in a room alone. Maurice is very excited to see Clive since it has been a long time apart, and, of course, because he is truly in love with him. But unlike the book, which does not include this scene because Forster has Clive send a letter from Greece breaking the news to Maurice that he is no longer in love with him anymore instead, Maurice in my mind is made to look pathetic. Maurice is basically attacking Clive’s lips in hopes of getting a kiss or any sign of affection for an extended time until Clive shoves him straight into a chair. Throughout this entire “scuffle”, ever since Clive looked him in the face and told him they cannot be together any longer, Maurice is sobbing as well. Finally, Clive leaves the room and Maurice continues to sob very intensely. I was disappointed with a few scenes in the film solely because I prefer the way the novel made me visualize Maurice’s character. Although he is naive in both the film and the novel, I thought the movie went overboard and took away from Maurice’s intellect instead of emphasizing that he is simply very sexually frustrated, confused, and heart-broken.
I am changing the subject because I have to add a little bit on how reading the Symposium affected my understanding and perspective towards the novel. First off, I think it is obvious that Plato must have had a significant influence on Forster. Plato’s Symposium. This is easy to see simply from the dialogue between characters in both the movie and the novel. An easy example is how Forster emphasizes Clive’s disgust after he heard Mr. Cornwallis label the Symposium as “a reference to the unspeakable vice of the Greeks,” (51). Also, many of the speakers’ views on love and sexuality in the Symposium are depicted in the novel and the film. Pausanias sticks out to me because he spoke about the uniqueness and beauty of a homosexual relationship very passionately. I am glad we had the opportunity to read the Symposium even though I had trouble interpreting it before we discussed its meaning as a class. Now that I am no longer lost, I strongly believe that the Symposium must be read along with Maurice. I gained a higher appreciation for Forster’s work in Maurice because of the role one of the most historically significant and progressive cultures ever, the ancient Athenians, played in the writing of the novel.