SHE-DEVIL
Comments by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper
Last Tuesday and Wednesday night I watched the television adaptation of Fay Weldon's novel THE LIFE AND LOVES OF A SHE-DEVIL. Friday I saw Susan Seidelman's version of the same story for Orion Pictures. The television version took its title directly from the novel; the film version abbreviated the title to just SHE-DEVIL, perhaps causing some confusion with the 1950s science fiction movie of the same title. Having seen the two versions so close together and with the television version being about two and a half times as long, I will disqualify myself from actually reviewing SHE-DEVIL and just discuss the contrasts in the two versions. The film is a very pale, very weak, and almost entirely forgettable rendition of the same story. Even now, an hour after having seen the film, the television version is more immediately memorable. Let me say why.
First, the television play had drama, comedy, and horror story mixed together into whatever proportions seemed right as it went along. The film aimed at a market for comedy and always tried to keep the tone light and frothy. So right from the start the film was less ambitious than the movie.
The film had a dream cast for the story. It had a popular serious actress, Meryl Streep, to play Mary; a popular television comedienne, Roseanne Barr, to play Ruth; and a number of other good actors. The television version had virtual unknowns in the major roles. So why was the casting so wrong for the film? Because everybody was cast exactly right in the television play for the play's approach. Streep could have played Mary Fisher in the television play and done a reasonable job of it. The film, however, had more physical comedy. Streep is hardly known for comic roles and she is just not very good with it. Julie T. Wallace who played Ruth in the television play did not always have to be appealing to the audience. She starts out with the personality of a red brick. She is large, ugly, heavy, sullen, and not outgoing at all. Roseanne Barr got popular because she has a bright personality. Her weight does not stand in the way of her being basically attractive and charismatic. Even at the beginning of the film it is hard to think of her as a loser.
Thematically Ruth is very much like Stephen King's Carrie White. She is a woman who has almost nothing. She does not have looks, she does not have talent, she does not have money. The only thing she has is her rage. And her rage is enough. From her rage she forges the power to destroy her tormentors. At least that is how it is in the television play. In the film she does not start nearly so low and she falls well short of destroying Bob and Mary. The ending for all three is reasonably happy in the film. That is how comedies work. The television play did not have to worry about box- office and could allow itself to be bleak.
If I had to rate the two versions on the -4 to +4 scale, I would give the television play a +2 and the movie a low 0. But I do not trust those ratings because each rating is probably too much affected by the other. Let me leave these ratings unofficial and say that the play (which runs periodically on the Arts and Entertainment Network) IS worth your time to see, probably much more than the film.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzx!leeper
leeper@mtgzx.att.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews