While I can't say that this story is "exciting," it does have some interesting points. Firstly, on the differences between the movie and the book, I was curious why they existed at all. But I guess that's Hollywood, nothing more. I found a couple of things worthy of note.
The first is that the professor made no appearance at the end of the movie, while he had the very last line at the end of the movie. I found his whole character to be very mysterious. Why is it that he knows so much about Rappachini and his daughter, and how does he just happen to have an amphora of antidote lying around??? And that brings up another good point: did he know the effect that the "antidote" would have on Beatrice? He sure didn't seem to shocked when she died.
The second thing that I was what is to happen from here? And if there were any antidote left in the amphora, would it kill Giovanni too? If that is the case, then the professor is hiding something big. I guess this blog entry has become a character analysis of this professor, but I really feel like he plays a vital role despite the few number of appearances he makes. If I happened to completely miss what you wanted me to discuss in this entry, let me know and I will do another, but this is the first thing that came to my mind.
I like Hawthorne's work. He is always a bit mysterious; he seems to like to leave some ideas to the reader's imagination. I don't think that we can miss his point about science bereft of compassion. Perhaps the message about the missing professor is that he is just as bad as Rappaccini. You might find it interesting to look up B.F. Skinner and find out what he did with his own children. Perhaps there is more truth to Hawthorne's tale than he ever knew.
ReplyDelete