[hardy-l] cognitive comfort continued

[Arthur Efron]

The new BBC film gives the impression that Tess left the next day after 
that night in the Chase, does it not?  Of course it could have been 
weeks later, but that is not the impression. The impression is what 
counts.  It seems that the film is saying here that Tess is a victim of 
Alec and that there is no further dimension to their relationship. (If  
I want to think there is, where in the film thus far  could I have 
derived such a notion?)  This meaning is nailed in when she tells him 
flat-out and good and loud, that she has never loved him and never will 
love him.  Endstop!   Cognitively, this is all straitforward.

Another aspect: in chapter 57, Tess says to Angel: "I never loved him at 
all, Angel, as I loved you." The film, I think, does not have this. 
(Correct me if I am wrong). Now it is possible to say: " I never loved 
him at all" and "I loved only you." But as phrased, the sentence in the 
text leaves an  opening for saying:
 My love for him was not at all the kind of  love I have for you. But 
unimportant  as it  was, it was some kind of love.
That is not so straitforward; it's worrisome.

Still another point of cognitive comfort: the film at the end has Tess 
pronounce her immensely moving words, "I am ready."
It also has her saying something like "Too much happiness." This 
condenses some wording from the text. Nothing wrong with this.

But what if  the film dared to have her say what she says in the novel, 
in her utterance just prior to "I am ready"?
Here it is: "...and now I shall not live for you to despise me!"   
That's what Angel will have to carry around with him for the rest of his 
life. 
It's good to stay away from such complicated stuff when making a film.

--Art Efron