Vanity Fair | WORLD
Logo
Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Vanity Fair

The movie misses novelist William Makespeace Thackeray's insights into vanity


You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get started for as low as $3.99 per month.

Current WORLD subscribers can log in to access content. Just go to "SIGN IN" at the top right.

LET'S GO

Already a member? Sign in.

Devotees of novelist William Makespeace Thackeray generally don't like the film of Vanity Fair that opened on Sept. 1, despite its gorgeous cinematography, costuming, and sets.

Their irritation comes not because the film jumps around a lot and brings in the Indian sensibility of director Mira Nair: The 1848 book is 900 pages long so the movie needs to move quickly, and Thackeray was born in Calcutta.

Their irritation is not because the film is rated PG-13 for some sensuality/partial nudity and a brief violent image. Thackeray made it clear that protagonist Becky Sharp was sleeping her way to the top.

The essential problem, they say, is that this film makes her more hit upon than hitting. The novel's Becky Sharp is essentially a villainess, preying on the seriously ill and sending men to their deaths. The movie's Becky Sharp is a heroine, a poor but ambitious orphan who does what she has to do. Played by the excellent Reese Witherspoon, she is of course a sympathetic character.

It's not terrible that the movie and the novel have different spins. Thackeray doesn't have all that many readers these days, so it's not as if the film is profiting by false advertising. But the change does reflect our general movement from emphasizing individual character to seeing individuals as stuck within a system and thus not responsible for their actions.

That perspective is helpful in one sense. Class-ridden England and its colonies should not be our model for society. Our modern ideal of romantic love has its problems, but marriages arranged by status-enthralled parents had theirs. And yet, the movie misses Thackeray's insights into vanity by suggesting that we are all dependent on the fairground. Bottom line on the film: Entertaining but shallow


Marvin Olasky

Marvin is the former editor in chief of WORLD, having retired in January 2022, and former dean of World Journalism Institute. He joined WORLD in 1992 and has been a university professor and provost. He has written more than 20 books, including Reforming Journalism.

@MarvinOlasky

COMMENT BELOW

Please wait while we load the latest comments...

Comments