The Movie vs. The Book

After watching the movie, I feel that I have gained a better understanding of the book. I have had difficulty reading the book through various parts, partly because of the language. For myself, it is difficult to retain some of the information that the book provides unless I reread and reflect certain parts of the book. Although the book portrayed the characters differently than Foster did, I feel as though a visual comparison helped me understand Maurice’s story. It was also interesting to see the correlation of Plato’s “Symposium” throughout both the book and the movie because I was able to better understand the connection between the two. The influence of Greece and various historic articles, such as the “Symposium” have greatly affected the lives of many people and scholars during the books particular time, which helps to explain the attitudes towards homosexuality. However, the movie and the book portray homosexuality through different respects. For example, the book’s approach to homosexuality appears to be more reserved and something that people ignore, whereas the movie handles sexuality as a sinful dead and unspoken deed. It is difficult to declare which form of the story was more beneficial because the movie and book manage the story in different ways. Maurice’s risk for love and Clive’s resistance for a relationship with Maurice was the main point of the movie, while the book focused more the struggle of sexuality and its impact on society during the 1900’s. Like most books turned into movies, there were parts of the book that were lost and added; however; the story of Maurice was successfully capture through both representations for visual and conceptual purposes.