Completely agree. If it had been made into a film in the 00's or 90's it might have been a classic but it just wouldn't have the same affect now. Also not every good book makes for a good film.

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

Yes 100%, I think the 90s was its time for sure! Thank you so much for watching 🤍

@samanthacouto3808

11 ай бұрын

DUDE! It woulf have been an awesome film had it been made in the late 90s for sure. I would probably watch it the way I do Dead Poet Society.

the fact that half of the fan-casted actors are almost in their forties is funny

I think it could possibly be really effective if it was launched as a limited series by HBO (who did a great job with the Big Little Lies book-to-screen adaptation) and written/produced by people who would push for a more nuanced and critical understanding of the grey area in the text, not just for the aesthetic. The longer length of a limited series might allow for more complexity than just romanticism. Great video! :) now I need the new edition

@ellagreen-lynch8383

Жыл бұрын

i would love to see the director Autumn De Wilde direct it, i think she could do a really good job on the aesthetics but otherwise i don’t think it should be adapted!

@ritzcrackerz4921

5 ай бұрын

Same thing w Sharp objects- they did a fantastic job w that novel 😁

I honestly would much prefer if it were maybe converted into a stage play. Think of all the various drama productions you could create with this story. You could go surrealism to plunge the audience into Richard’s unreliable narration; you could theatre of cruelty it all the way up in the murder/attempted murder scenes to show how all of these characters are fucked up people; you could full-on epic theatre the whole thing and just have characters straight up go “I’m the douchebag” so the audience’s possible romanticisation is squashed. It would fit narratively well with all of the Greek allusions and the brilliance of a drama script is that so much can be made out of it, while with a movie it’s that one done and then usually never again (unless you make an adaptation a couple decades later). Is this also cuz I’ve really wanted to make a drama production of The Secret History since I learned about this book? Yes. Yes it is.

@whysomy

Жыл бұрын

This is a fantastic idea.

@izzyfoord

Жыл бұрын

omg yes

@dean1111

Жыл бұрын

oh god yes absolutely

@evelynvas3800

Жыл бұрын

oh my god what if it was turned into a 'the glass menagerie' sort of play, with richard serving as both narrator and character (like tom wingfield) ? there are so many elements of that play that could work for tsh too. like how there is still narration that is meant to be taking place years after the events that are unfolding on stage, the way that the narration often contradicts what we see, the fact that the play itself is often staged in such a way that the characters are in dim lighting/behind glass, something that adds to the play's dream-like quality and adding to the fact that the whole thing is a memory- but also- my greek ass needs a satirical production of this hypothetical play in modern greek, something to showcase the romantisization of our culture by foreign, classist, rich assholes that still misinterpret it all despite their dedication to their studies.

@Gregsistentialism

Жыл бұрын

@@evelynvas3800 holy shit this is brilliant

It sounds like a film that would be very uncomfortable to watch today. I think that’s exactly why it would also be good to make it.

@erinys2

8 ай бұрын

People would start hating richard more because of his indifference

i pitch the secret history where george mckay just plays every character

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

Not a one man show

Yea I agree. Without using those heinous slurs the audience wouldn’t even understand why everyone hated bunny enough to kill him but there’s no way anyone wants to hear those awful things on screen in this day and age.

@swiftlylovestruck

8 ай бұрын

Having said that; someone using slurs and being and arguably awful bigot is still NOT a good enough reason to murder them or root for their being murdered 😭

@amberamber100

8 ай бұрын

@@swiftlylovestruck obviously

7:56 I relate to the “third” category of opinions on the book. I was a Tumblr, 2010s dark academia girly and attended an expensive private university that was brimming with privilege and elitism. My college years were beautiful and it was like living in a Pinterest account, but I saw so many students romanticize overwork and forego morals by using trust funds and ample allowances. I fell into the illusion myself as well, studying until I broke down, and pridefully thinking I was above others because I was part of such a highly-ranked program. That being said, the book was nostalgic to me. The haze that Richard found himself in was an experience I’ve had myself. I appreciated the ambience and immersion of the early chapters, but it felt clear to me that these characters were caught in an illusion of their own creation, and were not meant to be good people - and that’s ok. It was good fun following their story and seeing the curtain get pulled back to reveal the consequences of their actions felt messy but vindicated. To come back to the main point of the video, I agree. I think it would be incredibly hard to make a movie or even a miniseries in this day and age that would be both politically correct but also encapsulate the sentimentality of the book. A lot of the experience is in tiny little actions and Richard’s inner monologue, which would be hard to translate on camera.

@halisroom

8 ай бұрын

Thanks for sharing, this is so interesting! And thank you for watching too 🤍

You wonderfully articulated my exact thoughts regarding the romanticization angle. Far too many readers are unironically enamored with the worst characters in this book, and I honestly think Donna scoffs at that reaction. The satire is clear to me, but I can see how the message would be even blurrier on screen, and I do not think she would like that at all.

I don't think they shouldn't make it just because they're afraid that the audience would romanticize the wrong things. I mean, nothing would ever get made if people were that afraid of it being received wrong--because, let's be real, some people WILL receive it in a way that goes against the author's intentions. They will get caught up in the aesthetics, they will love the murderers without reservation or nuance. It's ironic, it's a little sad, and that's okay. That doesn't mean the movie shouldn't be made, because many others WILL get the point. As for Bunny saying the slurs--I don't see why they should censor that out of the film. As a gay person, I was totally fine with that scene. Tartt even uses the waiter's nonverbal negative reactions to wink at the reader that these aren't her beliefs. It's not these are the personal beliefs of the author. I find it kind of strange that some people see bigoted characters and say that the author is problematic. It's more about what the author is trying to say by putting that in there. And regardless, it's not important to the plot, so the movie could go with or without it. It's not like it'd be hard to cut out. Privilege is definitely an aspect of why the characters are the way they are. This school is a privileged environment, and race is a part of that. That's why I don't see a problem with a white cast . . . ? Usually I think writers should strive for diversity and representation, but in this case, it doesn't exactly make sense for the story. We should definitely support and push for diverse stories in media, but this just doesn't really fit that, and that doesn't mean it shouldn't be told. My real concern is how the story will be told. Tartt has such a distinct and in-depth style of description, and I think that's one of the main reasons the book is so good. You also see the book through Richard's point of view, and he offers insight through his thought processes on what's going on. His mental "indoctrination" into the cult-y group, and his attachment to them, is part of what makes the book so interesting. The thing about movies is that you can't access a character's thought processes nearly as much as you can in a book. So losing both the unique descriptions and Richard's thoughts, the movie may plummet, like The Goldfinch. That's not to say that I think it can't be done! It would just take some really talented filmmakers, who really get the story.

@evesapple

5 ай бұрын

I think it’s ridiculous to think it a character says something it is therefore the belief of the author. To suppose that means authors self censor and in the end produce nothing but placid, anodyne beige content and just one character reproduced many tumes

i am so intensely against the secret history being made into a film. in my opinion, donna tartt's writing doesn't at all translate into cinema, which was unfortunately exhibited in the goldfinch. also, why does everything have to be turned into tv and movies, can't books just be books anymore...

@matchamelon330

7 ай бұрын

as someone who adores both versions of the goldfinch, its just that-two versions. i agree with her writing style not adapting too well, and honestly i think the secret history works best as a book

Real question, if we can’t invoke those words then how do you portray our recent history accurately? Can you imagine how frankly incorrect and skewed a piece of writing would be if it glossed over the language that was used?

@hoesmad8207

10 ай бұрын

Imo the problem is more about triggers, people have the capacity to contextualize characters and times, but maybe they simply don't wanna go through that sort of stuff in something that is supposed to entertain

@AbiCroCro

10 ай бұрын

@@hoesmad8207 but art is more that just entertainment, it can be to inform and educate as well. I think it just skews things. The Secret History is a valuable snapshot of the time it’s set. Like how does Ken Burns make his documentaries so full and informative? By using contemporary literature, letters and diary entries for context. If people are going to be triggered by something then use the trigger warnings and they can roll on if they think they’re not going to like it, I don’t think attempting to erase literal factual history is interesting or smart, I think it’s more valuable for future generations to understand where we’ve come from to understand better who we are. In fact, understanding where we’ve come from is the only way I really think we can understand the state we find ourselves in.

@hoesmad8207

10 ай бұрын

@@AbiCroCro yeah but remember that hollywood, ecc are industries, they want to make money before making art, if art don't sell, they simply won't make it, and If they are not sure if TSH is profitable, then we can keep on dreaming

Look what they did to The Goldfinch. Inexcusable. They’d destroy TSH…probably give them cell phones and dumb down the classical references or just make them all women’s studies majors.

@raisinbranturtle5364

Жыл бұрын

I mean, as ironic as it is for someone so vehemently homophobic to be a classics major, I think bunny being a gender studies major would seriously stretch believability lol.

@craigbenz4835

8 ай бұрын

The plot would be impossible with cell phones. Does a modern audience even understand that world?

100% agree with you here- this is my favorite novel/book of all time, but I am very well aware of the problems with it and the culture/aesthetic surrounding it. I don't think a movie or mini series would do anything but hurt it. Thank you for this lovely breakdown! I had no idea the journey the film rights had gone through

My thing about making it a movie- I listened to the abridged audiobook first to see if I liked the premise enough to buy the actual one. A movie would be about the same length as the abridged audiobook (2.5 hours) and that version has almost no detail. It’s all •plot point •plot point •plot point. I remember just blinking and going “oh ok they’re all friends now”.

I think even ignoring the themes and the culture surrounding it, structurally it would only really work as a book. So much of the Secret History is split into small encounters: parties, dinners, conversations between the Greek class, Richard monologuing, etc. The descriptions are also highly detailed (both in the visuals and in Richard's emotions) and like to linger on seemingly innocuous details. In a book this is really compelling because it tells you all these subtle things about the world and cast, and it's more realistically structured than if it was strictly linear, since these guys are living their lives around the murder and not just deadset on it. But then I feel like as a film or miniseries this kind of structure would be extremely boring and meandering. Films have expected lengths, episodes are expected to drive the plot forward in every scene, but a book can be as long as it wants - it can afford to keep all the little details that a film would typically consider filler and cut out to focus on the actual story

I think a series would work well, because I feel like it is impossible to show the events leading up to, and resulting from bunny's death in 1-3 hours. Still, without using the language or slurs it is almost impossible to make bunny the same character as he is in the book. Also, I feel like it is hard to explain the romantisization of the characters and the breakdown of those illusions without Richards thoughts behind them.

@emiloberg2110

11 ай бұрын

Exactly! And I think it's here many readers miss the point, they don't see or accept the breakdown of the illusions which is why they romanticize the characters. Being swept off your feet and romanticizing is part of the experience in the beginning, but then that should break down, which it seems it doesn't for some

I loved this video essay. You were able to capture my attention despite listening at work and multi-tasking (I rewinded several times to keep up!) and liked that you provided sources to back up your story sections. You brought up compelling arguments with relation to how this story would unfold thirty years post-publication and especially with the wide range of interpretation of the source material. Finally, your conclusion was a great reiteration of your previous points. Well done! I liked it because I want to share this kind of video essay with my kids when they inevitably need to prepare their own video essays on subjects or school applications for higher learning. Excellent job!

It might be because I have no imagination and also had an obsession with dead poets society, but at the time of reading the secret history I just imagined the characters looking like the actors in DPS lol

I completely agree... this is one of those books that could never be translated into film, specially today.

This is such a good & nuanced video , I do think if this had been made a film pre-tumblr era we would have been polluted with so much romanticisation of it, feels like it missed its prime and could only be harmful & disappointing now if it’s not done perfectly

love this video so much! i noticed you used clips from "the dreamers" which is so crazy because i watched that film just a few days ago and it reminded me SO much of the secret history's themes

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

thank you so much!!

To convey the unreliable narrator of TSH maybe it could work as a limited series with each episode (6?) being from one of the characters POVs. This could convey Richard as an unreliable narrator, could keep up the tension and movement as each episode shows a different view of what happened, giving the viewer opportunity to piece the puzzle together. I think it's incredibly important to not forsake the problematic parts of the characters to make it more palatable. Creating episodes from the other characters POVs also opens up for good creative freedom for the director making the adaptation. For example it would be very interesting to see the romanticization of the characters, especially Camilla, while watching Richards episode. And then later seeing what Camilla thought of him, Henry and Charles. What happened between them? That's a question that could be answered in a Camilla episode. What happened during the interviews with the police? How did Henry manipulate Charles? That's something that could be seen in a Charles episode. And then later to conclude it all a Henry episode showing his POV. Every episode could start being narrated by the main character of the episode. How you deal with Bunny in a series like this could be interesting too. Do you use him as an omniscient narrator post mortem? Do you begin with an episode of his POV ending abruptly with his death? I think there's a lot of interesting things a good director could do, but ultimately I think a lot of the nuance will be lost. What really made the book great in my opinion was the journey of going from being swept off my feet, romanticizing the characters and their lives to seeing them sink into depravity and evil, and sadly I think that is too difficult to convey in an adaptation and ultimately is the reason why I think it should not be adapted for film.

loved this video! completely agree with your points, and also i love your voice, its very soothing :D

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

Aw thank you so much!

Excellent video, editing, and compilation of opinions surrounding the topic!

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

thanks!

i just bought the 30th anniversary edition (i already own 2 copies) and it’s beautiful!! i completely agree with this video :)

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

The marbled pages make it for me! Thank you so much for watching 🤍🤍

@princessnena1573

Жыл бұрын

Where did you get it? I really want a copy😭

@ellagreen-lynch8383

Жыл бұрын

@@princessnena1573 i got mine from Waterstones as i live in the UK!

@princessnena1573

Жыл бұрын

@@ellagreen-lynch8383 thank you very much! Happy holidays!!!

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

@@princessnena1573 I'm not sure where you're based but I think it's only available in the UK

george mackay can play all the white male characters lmao

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

i would pay to watch the secret history as a one man show

@raisinbranturtle5364

Жыл бұрын

that would make the bret easton ellis dedication even more pointed lol.

another reason to finally read this book: i can then watch this video.

It's very true that there is always or most of the time, a lack of emotional connection when it comes to movie adaptations of great books. After relishing the whole book, the movies usually appears incomplete and undone. The philosophy gets lost somewhere.

Emma Corrin would be perfect as Camilla.

Heaven forbid we make a movie about rich white kids (and an interloper) with too much money and time on their heads in this time and age.

@debra1363

Жыл бұрын

You mean like we see on social media 24/7 ?

I really like this video! Your reflection on whether or not a diverse cast is possible was really interesting. It got me thinking, what if the main 5 characters were still white but the "background characters" (Judy, police officers, some professors etc.) weren't? would the adaptation face the same issues you have brought up?

I really loved your take on things! Could you please do more videos on books? Your voice and content is such a refreshing take amidst all the repetitive stuff out there on booktube ❤

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! I will have a think but I’d love to!

@yuenath

Жыл бұрын

i second this; i loved how the video was produced!!

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

@@yuenath thank you so much! 🤍

fantastic video!! I completely agree!

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

thank you!

3:09 PLEASE😂😂😂

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

I glitched!!

3:14 🤣 thanks for keeping that in!

I think it would be better as a limited series. There needs to be a longer breakdown of the romanticized facade Richard believes in as well as the events leading up to Bunny's death. That can't be done in 1.5-3 hours.

Donna Tartt is beyond iconic; she’s out here existing in the world like she DIDN’T write a book that defined a genre and that everyone who has ever written a dark academic novel ISN’T trying to emulate it ?????? I adore her ❤ 🙏

Wonderful exploration of this situation! I think this is a book written by one person, about one person and for one person. Its popularity is its singularity. You brought up many points Id never have considered and shit yeah the language is a hurdle...

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for watching! Honestly yeah I could go on about its hurdles for daysssss

this is an awesome video. instant sub!

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much!

This could easily be a TED talk. So interesting

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

thank you for watching!! 🤍

i thought this was gonna be something i've never heard of because i'm old, but apparently it's old too lol

You made a very important point about today's film industry and the expected media literacy of the average consumer. Leaving things like homophobia some of the other revolting things uttered by the characters in the book uncommented by anything except the context of the work itself is apparently too risky nowadays, it's rather sad, really.

I came here from your tiktok and DAMN. Gwyneth and her brother reminded me of Charles and Camilla

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

Gwyneth gets fancast a lot as Camilla!

You convinced me, which I wasn't prepared for. There are too many ways for the project to go sideways. The biggest challenge is the sheer number of characters that have to be developed in such a short amount of time. Regarding casting, when I read it every time Henry comes on the page I see Philip Seymour Hoffman, but he's too old and dead to play the part now.

@halisroom

8 ай бұрын

thanks for watching!

Eddie redmayne as Francis!!!!

if every youtube video was liek this one i wouldn’t neglect this app so much - amazing video!!!!!!!!! wow wow wow

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

Thank you so much! This is so unbelievably nice 🤍🤍🤍

I’d love to see it as a movie but I agre I can’t imagine to see it rn. Eitger way I think I am satisfied with having book ❤ happy 30th anniversary TSH

if tsh did ever get made into a book, it simply wouldnt work. one of the reasons is because the ONLY way the scene with richard getting money and going on a shopping spree could be adapted is a cheesy romcomesque montage 😂

Some stories are only "acceptable" [used lightly if you can understand what I mean] in book form

God. Your work is impressive!!😱 I completely agree so thanks for doing it!! I feel like I will go to the cinema really excited, but I know I would left frustrated & sad because I love it!!! I understand that it would be difficult to accept the disturbing ideas and horrible words used in the story, but there was a time when fiction was distinguished from reality. I know, people tend to identify or be influenced by the tv shows they see or phrases they listen and that would be the problem. Omg The cast would be chaotic, it's hilarious to see the suggestions they usually make. I can't believe. Even If like Chalamet or Dehaan for the aesthetic weird movies... NO. Wrong character. Oh wait, Zane Holtz, even if I don't know him, I've seen It a lot on Pinterest, It's not that Henry for sure but I got why people see him similar. The first complication I thought of was(more or less as you said) which narrator they would use to tell the story, the moment to show details and the moment to cut out Richard's voice and I see it as very impossible for them to know how to adapt that to a movie or a show. Finally, Twilight director? No! Thanks God It didn't happen!!

me nodding agreeably at every point

i agree, i think it would be a disappointment if it were to be adapted into a film/series. i prefer to just read and imagine it for myself.

What other Donna Tartt book do you recommend?

What is the movie or movies used that seem to take place in a museum?

Anya Taylor-Joy would be THE Camilla

@hwlsgrl

Жыл бұрын

omg yes she’s too beautiful tho

you know what i would accept this film if george mckay plays all the characters, including camila.

@halisroom

8 ай бұрын

it’s what the people want

TSH is so compelling to me yet so dated at the same time. It appears ill fitting to all the narratives of immigrants, queer POC, first generation college students, etc., due to its range being limited towards a very white elite. It makes me think of how films like American Psycho, if made today, might not resonate as well because the zeitgeist has shifted more towards liberation from privileged institutions. I think as lengthy as the novel was, I wish it was actually longer. The characters had sad backstories which motivated their truly disturbing behavior, but many of their interactions with each other were limited. Richard doesn't ask others for help, yet still is there for his friends even when they insult him. He is genuinely fearful when he receives a suicide note from his old friend and drops everything to run after him. There's a lot of nuances to the characterizations of them. Richard's lower middle class family was neglectful and possibly physically abusive towards him (or at least towards his mother). It makes sense why he wouldn't feel class solidarity despite being poor when for him, books are an escape from not just poverty, but the meanness that he associates with it. Francis is condescending, but is also quite vulnerable and is still oppressed despite his wealth due to being queer. It's obvious from how Richard writes that he saw college not just as an escape from poverty, but also an escape from heteronormativity and abusive families, despite how often he insists he's "disinclined". But it's a false illusion because even in their small friend group, he's not immune from discrimination. This is why I don't think TSH falls solely into satire or romanticization. I actually do think it fits more with tragedy. People do forget that even works given the rubber stamp of "Tragedy" such as Hamlet, still had a lot of humor and irony, and more recent films such as Parasite also feature this ambiguity. Beneath all of the scholastic privileges and absurdities are very vulnerable, scared individuals. Their motives are concealed under serious emotional suppression and arrogance, and a lack of self awareness. And in a society moving towards being more open to talking about mental health, suicidal ideation, drug abuse, and queerness, having a narrative where people with these traits are elitist villains doomed to an unhappy ending, is morally complicated.

@chekhov-and-chill

Жыл бұрын

Great points! I agree with you in the interpretation of TSH as a tragedy at its core, and despite the fact I, too, would have liked to read more about each of the classics group's backgrounds outside of Richard's fragmented (and obviously biased) view, it's also this very fragmentation that is essential to the book's status as a tragedy. None of the most important events (like Richard eventually taking the group's side vs Bunny, or the murder of Bunny) would have occurred if any one of the characters had been able to escape their individual fragmentary and 'damaged' perspective, whether it be an excess of ego with Henry, a "longing for the picturesque at all costs" with Richard, or more generally, each of the characters' privilege (whether it be white or socioeconomic or both) and, of course, their setting itself: the island within the island that is Julian's small class within the already insular Hampden college. As you said, despite the fact the main characters have no other 'friends' besides each other, they still know next to nothing about one another, and are willing (and happy!) to live in assumptions and illusions instead. They have taken this so far that they've made their entire discipline of study the classics, a subject they can only examine voyeuristically, "in fragments, through centuries" as opposed to head-on. I really think that if any of them had been able to connect with one another in a meaningful way none of the later events would have passed. But tragedy practically functions in that space of the unforeseeable, the unique blindspot that is particular to each person. It's one that can only be realized in retrospect. A (future) Richard also realizes this, and pinpoints the moment to after he first learns of the bacchanal from Henry: "It's funny, but thinking back on it now, I realize that this particular point in time, as I stood there blinking in the deserted hall, was the one point at which I might have chosen to do something very different from what I actually did. But of course I didn't see this crucial moment then for what it was; I suppose we never do." That being said, it's hard to see how any of this could be translated onto the screen while leaving enough space for nuance and avoiding either extreme of romanticizing or villainizing the leads for all that they end up doing (or failing to do.)

personally i think that the secret history was nothing else then a slightly romanticized (by the author or the reader, not by the story itself) critique. it sorts of reflects the reader, who can choose which route to take in their interpretation. for me, it was a fascinating story about a group of people that are absolutely horrible, and I can’t see myself like them in the same categories I like actual people. it’s like I despise them, but love the way they were written, love the way someone could write something so devastating that the fact that characters were horrid somehow made the book more interesting. I see no point in romanticizing their way of living, and I only found out it was one of the favorite books of dark academia aesthetic after I read it. while there’s nothing wrong in enjoying an aesthetic, I think it’s important to read a book critically, to see all the depth of the story. that’s why I absolutely agree it shouldn’t become a movie.

i desperately want to adapt this book into a mini-series. i honestly think that if tartt’s work is to be adapted, we need to wait until even the mainstream viewer can look back on dark academia with a critical lens. also imo the adaptation should really lean into the weird shit.

i think paul hollywood should play richard

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

Stop omg

Isn’t Camillas brothers name Charles (and not George)? Xx

I don't think it would work as an adaptation anymore solely because it's now a cult classic, and that means people are going to bitch and complain about inaccuracies regardless of how well done the movie/series is. Look at the recent Percy Jackson show. It's a pretty good series and adaptation, but because it's such well beloved book for nearly two decades, the fanbase reacted rather negatively to it and it's changes. The story will always be more enigmatic in people imaginations, especially ones that have been allowed to run wild for so long. TSH is already a story which requires great care to adapt, and the fact that so much of the draw of the book is in it's atmospheric writing, means that it's nearly impossible to do a medium to medium adaptation in a way that retains it's original magic. Richard as a character is rather subdued and quiet, more analytic and observational that participatory. It makes him a great narrator, but in a movie, with no access to his internal monologue he just becomes this quiet mysterious attractive kid, rather than the deceptively simple man we're presented with in the book. The Hunger Games prequel movie/book(Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes) runs into a similar issue due the erasure of it's mc's internal monologue. Snow starts to come off as sympathetic and genuine in his efforts because we don't see his internal thoughts that clearly show how manipulative he is about his actions and how they come off. It's one thing in BOSAS and PJO, with their more blatant and simplistic/digestible themes and action thriller premise, but with a story like Secret History, which is much more character driven, and one which requires you as a reader to actively critically engage with it, a mistaken understanding can lead to wildly inaccurate interpretation of the central themes of the book. It's going to Lolita itself and honestly, I'd rather not.

I feel that Ms. Tarrt gradually draws us into disliking, then hating Bunny. As in the novel, Bunny becomes "rehabilitated" after his murder, and all references to him reveal a smarter young man, actually loved. The ugliness of his family elevates Bunny as a Greek student, as a presence.

Thank you for making this video. I really enjoyed it. Great to see a new generation discovering Donna Tartt. How The Secret History could be adapted is a fascinating topic that had never occurred to me. I think you're right, at 12:21, that John Boyega as Richard would not be a good fit. Richard's character walks the fine line of feeling inferior to those with a more sophisticated and priveleged upbringing, yet being able to slip in amongst them, and generally walk around college and Hampden unnoticed. Cast any non-white actor, and this balance is thrown off. Wild suggestion: could you cast non-white actors as the twins? They're orphans, after all. Scholarly and charismatic, but not especially rich. Interesting enough that Julian might want to add them to his collection, a la Prof Slughorn in Harry Potter. So those two, in my opinion, could look disimilar to the establishment figures of Julian, Henry, Bunny and Francis. I know they have this kind of angelic vibe with their beautiful faces and white clothes but, even so, I think that would be worth considering and help make an adaptation less jarringly homogenous to a modern audience.

@shanl6504

8 ай бұрын

While I entirely agree with your interpretation of Richard as a character, I disagree with you about casting non-white actors for twins. Camilla being blonde and having grey eyes are details that are crucial in both Richard's association of Camilla with Pallas Athena (he quotes the line from Iliad Book 1, where Athena "with her terrible ashen eyes" grabs the hair of Achilles) and his infatuation with Camilla. To be honest, as a non-white person, I don't really understand why must we have diverse representation in every single film or show or whatever. I'd be more annoyed with the 'woke', shallow modification of the original text - I don't need to see someone who physically looks like me to appreciate an art.

@TheSecretHistoryFanChannel

8 ай бұрын

@@shanl6504 Fair points. But if a studio absolutely insisted that they not all be white, it might be the least incongruous point to start from. Bet, hey, I've never hankered for it to be made into a film. It's great that the book still captures the imagination of so many readers and is still prompting discussion 30 years on.

@angelamunoz2889

8 ай бұрын

As a person of color l don’t get offended at all (maybe cause I’m a New Yorker ) leave it the way it is…..and stop changing it….Better yet….just don’t touch this book / ruin it….especially during this ugly time /administration that’s in power…..just leave it alone (maybe….down the line )

@shanl6504

8 ай бұрын

​@@angelamunoz2889 You speak my mind! What a strange time we live in. Tbh, I'm somewhat relieved that The Goldfinch movie was a flop - if it were a success, those folks in Hollywood would've been on mad chase to pop out a horrid 'adaptation' of The Secret History. Now THAT would've been a sacrilege.

dula peep

@halisroom

Жыл бұрын

exactly

To me the most compelling point here is that so many movies and TV series have already explored the lives of rich, white, incredibly privileged, fucked up American college students. Remember that DT based the novel on her experiences at Bennington in the early-mid 80s. Even by the time it was published in the *early 90s*, there was a certain amount of cultural cringe around the excess and self-obsession of the demographic being portrayed. Even back then, the story felt like a bit of a throwback And as others have noted, it’s hard to see how a movie basing its appeal primarily in nostalgia/ romanticism/ aesthetic would be able to convey the nuance within the story. I enjoyed the novel, but it’s become anachronistic - and that’s mostly a good thing. BEE, DT & their peers seem to have loved Bennington, but they went there as impressionable *18/19year olds* with no developed perspective. That “electric” and “magical” creative atmosphere also encouraged the flourishing of destructive and borderline (if not actual) abusive behaviours. Let’s move on.

i don’t think people have the critical thinking skills to be allowed access to the secret history 😭😭😭

Man i would my give my life to see this film with with Johnny depp and leonardo decaprio haha

I agree - some works of literature should never go to film. I think the LOTR trilogy and The Hobbit going to film was a mistake because it deprived many people of the wonderful experience of reading those books

unfortunately I think the beginning of a movie would have to be romanticized because that's part of the way the story itself functions. As the story leads you towards the night of the murder, so much of Richards view of his friends is portrayed in this idealized drifty gaussian blur. he's looking at their moneyed privilege lives spent pursuing this 'noble' ideal of knowledge and hes so desperate to be part of that life. he has so much self loathing for his middle class identity. its only with the cold water of Bunny's death that he starts to see just how rotten and twisted their disconnection from regular life has made them. You have to romanticize those hazy days at the country house and dinners with the twins because the point of the story is how much Richard is viewing them through his own desire to be them, and then you need to take that and poison it, make it horrific. But inevitably, as you're saying, what we'd actually end up with is a bunch of fancams of new tumblr sexyman Henry or people in shipping wars over Francis/Charles/Richard. it would be a disaster.

I wouldn't mind a film but I agree it might not be the best idea. I would hate if they dumbed it down to fit 2020s morals, though. Real life isn't pretty, shitty people exist who make awful comments and have horrible ideologies. Trying to make things fit queer ideology because we would be the main public would ruin the entire plot and purpose of the book.

@lilacheaven222

7 ай бұрын

Also I bet they'd yassify Camilla and cast someone like idk Sydney Sweeney (who's a real treat to the eyes, but doesn't fit Camilla's description)

Honestly I would probably prefer if it was a movie instead of a book because I found her writing predictable but atm it's just collects dust on my book now

Richard is a very unreliable narrator, though. Which is something that's kind of hard to get across to the audience, while still trying to have the audience be invested (at least nowadays) (at least in my opinion) How do you make it clear that all of them suck but have the audience emotionally involved without the benefit of the immersive writing and insights?

She is due a book is she not been a few years

@halisroom

8 ай бұрын

If we go by the fact each of her books have come out a decade apart then we should be due a book sometime in 2024

Luv ur video. I think TSH would make a terrific series on cable (NOT Disney). A talented Brit director or Roman Polanski would make it work. (Sorry, Polanski haters)

@martafidura

2 ай бұрын

I don't think you can call people who hold Polański accountable for SAing a teenage girl haters 😒

If TSH ever became a movie, it would've been a short one. Richard keeps describing every little thing, and that would be near impossible to transcribe into a movie. And honestly, most of the charm from the TSH comes from its writing, because the plotline, in on itself, is not anything revolutionary

As someone who works in the film industry, I believe strongly that diversity, inclusivity and colour casting is utterly destroying the art of film making. This book is a modern classic and as such any aspirations of a film would be best left a hundred years before being re-visited.

I HATE SECRET HIOSTORY

The worst book

@noobmaster-eu5ct

Жыл бұрын

why?

@Blueblackngold

Жыл бұрын

@@noobmaster-eu5ct it’s like being waterboarded with empty words

@catajungles

Жыл бұрын

definitely an unpopular opinion if i've ever heard one

@Blueblackngold

Жыл бұрын

@@catajungles it’s so popular. She built a career on the back of it

Just finished the book and saw this 🫶