Whatever it is, you can safely expect a television writer to do something crazy with the original story, like taking innocent little Catherine Moreland and stripping her of all her clothes for the camera… which is exactly what they did, except that, while Catherine is indeed naïve, she does not turn out to be as “innocent” as we thought. Perhaps it really is that television audiences generally need more perverse content to hold their attention through the advertisement breaks. I’m still not quite sure what it is about made-for-television films that makes them so much more offensive than cinema films. Perhaps we wouldn’t call Northanger Abbey evil, exactly I don’t think it merits that but I’m afraid we aren’t able to call it innocent or pure, either.
In Northanger Abbey’s heroine, Catherine Moreland, we discover at least one of them, and it’s more important than we might realize to ask ourselves whether it’s the good one or the bad one because the fact is that we don’t always remember the difference between innocence and naïveté-or even good and evil-when it comes to film. And yet what often happens is that innocence and naïveté are lumped into the same category, endowed with the same sweet smile, and either loved or hated as an inseparable pair-the one being unjustly associated with stupidity, and the other incorrectly associated with virtue. One is good, and I would posit that the other is not. It’s the difference between the pure and the primitive, between inexperience and ignorance.
I think it is important, in times when it is unpopular to avoid extra exposure to worldliness, to bear in mind that there is a great difference between the words “innocent” and “naïve”. Some of the older reviews may express opinions and judgment calls that are not in line with our current standards. NOTE: This review was written under a previous rating system.
0 kommentar(er)
