books to film

The book versus the movie: Should you read EM Forster’s ‘Maurice’ or watch the James Ivory version?

In a new series that compares books with their screen adaptations, we revisit the movie based on the gay-themed EM Forster novel.

The Merchant-Ivory film Maurice was released in 1987, a mere 16 years after the publication of the novel on which it was based. The writer, EM Forster, had finished writing the novel in 1913, but took no interest in publishing the work. It was finally published after his death in 1970.

The reason for Forster’s squeamishness was the novel’s subject matter: the struggle of a middle class English man with homosexuality. Maurice Hall is a fatherless boy who grows up with his mother and two sisters, attends the best schools and Cambridge, and becomes a stock broker. At a time when homosexuality was still a crime in England – the novel alludes on more than one occasion to Oscar Wilde’s trial – Forster presents Maurice’s condition as tragic but ultimately redemptive.

Maurice and another Cambridge student, Clive Durham, fall in love and spend a blissful three years in one another’s company until Clive decides to marry and live the “proper” life. This unhinges Maurice who undergoes abundant grief, tries to “cure” himself, and ultimately finds love in a gamekeeper, Alec Scudder.

In the film version, directed by James Ivory, James Wilby plays Maurice, Hugh Grant Clive, and Rupert Graves Scudder. As with most Merchant-Ivory films set at the turn of the century, Maurice explores a genteel British aristocracy that is only gingerly aware of its imminent demise. This is particularly true for Clive, who owns a giant estate in Penge, and is being groomed to become a politician like his late father.

Play
Maurice (1987).

The screenplay was written by Kit Hesketh-Harvey who, for the purposes of cinema, left out much of the philosophy underpinning the novel. As a modernist, Forster gives the reader rich insights into his characters’ motivations. This is especially the case with Maurice, whose initiation into same-sex love is triggered by Clive’s open wooing of him.

The novel devotes a substantial part to the two men’s Cambridge years, where Maurice loses his faith and discovers his sexuality not just in the arms of Clive but in the words of the Greeks, especially Plato. The university as a place for unexplored ideas is a seductive theme that the novel amply reproduces.

Much of this is greatly condensed in the film, so that Wilby’s Maurice can come across as a bumbling fool who cannot reconcile his Christian faith with his latent desires. It is perhaps silly to expect an interior medium like the novel to translate faithfully to the screen, but the richness of Forster’s descriptions sits uneasily with a medium that can only be driven by plot.

This is particularly annoying when the pruning is overdone. By the novel’s end, Maurice has suffered such soul-crushing loneliness that his caution at cavorting with a gamekeeper must bleed into his desire for companionship. A misunderstanding over Scudder’s intentions ensues between Maurice and him in the London museum.

In the book this is resolved with the sort of violent emotional intensity that is deservedly cathartic. In the film, however, the bad blood is explored only on the surface, giving no allowance to Maurice’s twisted feelings and leaching the scene of poignancy.

James Wilby (left) and Hugh Grant in Maurice (1987).
James Wilby (left) and Hugh Grant in Maurice (1987).

On the other hand, there is also the liberty that the screenwriter has taken with events in the novel, a necessity borne out of its weaknesses. Clive undergoes a sudden transformation during a vacation in Greece from where he returns determined to marry. For a novel that issues lucid depictions of its characters’ inner lives, this change of heart seems forced, certainly in light of what Clive and Maurice share.

The film takes a more straightforward approach. Risley, a Cambridge acquaintance of Clive and Maurice, gets arrested on charges of “gross indecency”, the same law that sent Wilde to jail. Clive is shown to turn irredeemably after this event, and Grant has several scenes that encapsulate the ruinous effects on Clive of the scandal that Risley is caught up in.

Indeed, there are some things only the moving image can achieve. In the book, Clive’s revelation of his plan to break up with Maurice is a tragic scene, but not one that is unexpected, given Forster’s detailed build-up.

In the film, however, the scene guts the unaware viewer. Wilby’s passionate “I am done for” captures a painful intensity rarely reached otherwise.

Ultimately, the book and the film work as complements. The book is an expansive look into the moral and social codes that kept homosexuality beyond the pale. It is a brilliant dive into the private torments of a class of people whose lives were marked by shame. The happy ending is a benediction that, while unreal, seems only justified.

The film has its own successes, narrating a gay love story that crosses barriers of class and time while refraining from all sentimentality. It shares this quality with Forster’s book, whose clear-eyed prose gives the subject matter greater heft.

The Merchant-Ivory team made many other films, all capturing, with a sureness of touch, the inspirations and impulses of English society. Yet, Maurice remains a seminal work, a brave precursor to imminent social and cinematic revolutions.

Play
An interview with the cast of Maurice.
We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content BY 

Not just for experts: How videography is poised for a disruption

Digital solutions are making sure it’s easier than ever to express your creativity in moving images.

Where was the last time you saw art? Chances are on a screen, either on your phone or your computer. Stunning photography and intricate doodles are a frequent occurrence in the social feeds of many. That’s the defining feature of art in the 21st century - it fits in your pocket, pretty much everyone’s pocket. It is no more dictated by just a few elite players - renowned artists, museum curators, art critics, art fair promoters and powerful gallery owners. The digital age is spawning creators who choose to be defined by their creativity more than their skills. The negligible incubation time of digital art has enabled experimentation at staggering levels. Just a few minutes of browsing on the online art community, DeviantArt, is enough to gauge the scope of what digital art can achieve.

Sure enough, in the 21st century, entire creative industries are getting democratised like never before. Take photography, for example. Digital photography enabled everyone to capture a memory, and then convert it into personalised artwork with a plethora of editing options. Apps like Instagram reduced the learning curve even further with its set of filters that could lend character to even unremarkable snaps. Prisma further helped to make photos look like paintings, shaving off several more steps in the editing process. Now, yet another industry is showing similar signs of disruption – videography.

Once burdened by unreliable film, bulky cameras and prohibitive production costs, videography is now accessible to anyone with a smartphone and a decent Internet bandwidth. A lay person casually using social media today has so many video types and platforms to choose from - looping Vine videos, staccato Musical.lys, GIFs, Instagram stories, YouTube channels and many more. Videos are indeed fast emerging as the next front of expression online, and so are the digital solutions to support video creation.

One such example is Vizmato, an app which enables anyone with a smartphone to create professional-looking videos minus the learning curve required to master heavy, desktop software. It makes it easy to shoot 720p or 1080p HD videos with a choice of more than 40 visual effects. This fuss- free app is essentially like three apps built into one - a camcorder with live effects, a feature-rich video editor and a video sharing platform.

With Vizmato, the creative process starts at the shooting stage itself as it enables live application of themes and effects. Choose from hip hop, noir, haunted, vintage and many more.

The variety of filters available on Vizmato
The variety of filters available on Vizmato

Or you can simply choose to unleash your creativity at the editing stage; the possibilities are endless. Vizmato simplifies the core editing process by making it easier to apply cuts and join and reverse clips so your video can flow exactly the way you envisioned. Once the video is edited, you can use a variety of interesting effects to give your video that extra edge.

The RGB split, Inset and Fluidic effects.
The RGB split, Inset and Fluidic effects.

You can even choose music and sound effects to go with your clip; there’s nothing like applause at the right moment, or a laugh track at the crack of the worst joke.

Or just annotated GIFs customised for each moment.

Vizmato is the latest offering from Global Delight, which builds cross-platform audio, video and photography applications. It is the Indian developer that created award-winning iPhone apps such as Camera Plus, Camera Plus Pro and the Boom series. Vizmato is an upgrade of its hugely popular app Game Your Video, one of the winners of the Macworld Best of Show 2012. The overhauled Vizmato, in essence, brings the Instagram functionality to videos. With instant themes, filters and effects at your disposal, you can feel like the director of a sci-fi film, horror movie or a romance drama, all within a single video clip. It even provides an in-built video-sharing platform, Popular, to which you can upload your creations and gain visibility and feedback.

Play

So, whether you’re into making the most interesting Vines or shooting your take on Ed Sheeran’s ‘Shape of You’, experience for yourself how Vizmato has made video creation addictively simple. Android users can download the app here and iOS users will have their version in January.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Vizmato and not by the Scroll editorial team.