By Jael Wong
Read the book. If you want to be compelled, if you want to be captivated, if you want something to think about, skip the cinema; go to your library and sign out a copy of The Human Stain.
Based on the novel by Philip Roth, the film version features fine performances from a strong and reliable cast but in the end, it does not succeed in provoking its audience.
It is the story of Coleman Silk (Anthony Hopkins), a prominent classics professor who is accused of making a racist remark in one of his lectures. He resigns from his post and his wife dies shortly thereafter. He blames his accusers for causing his wife’s death and befriends Nathan Zuckerman (Gary Sinise), a writer whom he hopes will write his story. He also starts a relationship with Faunia Farley (Nicole Kidman), a woman half his age. This, along with the allegations of racism, is enough to drag his reputation through the mud, not to mention the trouble with Faunia’s very angry ex-husband (Ed Harris).
But it is what people do not know, what Coleman has been hiding for 50 years, that ought to shock them most of all. This story is interestingly set against the backdrop of Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1998, a similarly scandalous affair.
Coleman’s secret, which I will not divulge here, is what the producers hope you will go to see the movie to find out. Advertisements for the film use the tagline, “How far would you go to escape the past?” Very intriguing, you might say. And it is. Who doesn’t like digging up secrets?
The press had a field day with Monica Lewinsky back in 1998 and I must admit, Coleman’s is a very impressive secret, an extremely heavy one to keep for as long as he does.
It will shock and surprise you, but I am not recommending this film.
The reason is simple: when Coleman’s secret is finally revealed, the tragedy of Coleman’s life is not compelling. It ought to be, but it is not. I say this because, as I already mentioned, Coleman’s hidden story is one that ought to move you. But the film does not handle it in a way that draws the viewer in, in a way that allows for the viewer to respond emotionally.
One reason for this is the film does not sufficiently flesh out the characters. For whatever reason, whether allowances had to be made in turning the book into a screenplay (and here it might be helpful to note that the author himself did not write the screenplay), or scenes ended up on the cutting-room floor, the viewer just sees glimpses of who these people are. As a result, we do not know how to respond when Coleman lies about himself or when Faunia breaks down into tears.
Are we supposed to feel sympathy? Anger? Resentment?
I suppose this is what happens when you take a book as complex as Roth’s and try to achieve the same effect in a 106-minute film.
Granted, books and film are two different media and when turning a book into a film, you have to make certain allowances. But one must carefully choose which parts of a book to include in a film, and in the case of The Human Stain, you do not need to read the book to see things are lacking. I read the novel after the film, feeling there had to be more than what the movie offered.
There was.
Roth’s novel is a thoughtful, well-conceived work that delves into the lives of not only Coleman and Faunia, but also Lester Farley and Nathan Zuckerman, the writer who narrates much of the story. The characters are real and vivid and their miseries and motivations are explored. In the novel, we do not get mere glimpses, but the whole picture.