The Bridge of San Luis Rey is American author Thornton Wilder's second novel, first published in 1927 to worldwide acclaim. It tells the story of several interrelated people who die in the collapse of an Inca rope-fiber suspension bridge in Peru, and the events that lead up to their being on the bridge. A friar who has witnessed the tragic accident then goes about inquiring into the lives of the victims, seeking some sort of cosmic answer to the question of why each had to die.
Similar titles
Reviews
Sometimes a novel made into a movie really disappoints (for instance, director Roland Joffe's 1987 misfire THE SCARLET LETTER starring Demi Moore). Sometimes tweaking the story actually heightens the suspense (Richard Brooks' 1965 rendering of LORD JIM starring Peter O'Toole). Sometimes it's justified to carry a book's foreshadowing over into the movie adaptation (as in director Francesco Rosi's 1987 film CHRONICLE OF A DEATH FORETOLD). But, unfortunately, Thornton Wilder's novel THE BRIDGE OF SAN LUIS REY is somewhat off-putting in book form. It is a story which needs to have a cinematic presentation of a more linear format with much less doom-and-gloom to get empathy for the characters from the audience (held captive for two hours, unlike readers who can put down the novel for a while whenever the pall it casts grows too thick). In other words, LORD JIM's Brooks made a 10-of-10 movie from a novel rating an "8" at best. Director Victor Fleming made a "10" movie out of a "7" book in 1939 of (take your pick) THE WIZARD OF OZ or GONE WITH THE WIND. So it's too bad BRIDGE director Mary McGuckian wound up with an "8" film from the "9" book by not being daring enough in her translation of the novel to the screen.
Have you ever spoken with a person who relates a long drawn out event but seems more intent on throwing in reams of peripheral details and window dressing rather than coming to the point? Well this production does exactly that. Artistically and dramatically this film is sound and in some respects exemplary, however I constantly found my mind wandering as the scenes dragged on. In addition, the setting was flawed. The filth, squalor and disease that permeated Spanish colonies was largely hidden in favor of a squeaky clean environment of immaculate costumes, elaborate furnishings and polite and orderly peasantry.Part of me was tempted to re-view the production to gain a heightened appreciation of the characters and their interaction but I quickly dismissed the thought, lest I fall asleep and miss something more gratifying.
This is a great story, a beautiful movie, with great stars, a good direction, good photography, but a BAD edition. There are two reasons why I think the movie don't work as well as I wish. First: Language. I don't understand why a movie which is fully related to a Spanish/South American history wasn't recorded in Spanish!!! It is terrible to walk by lost regions of Peru without listening to any single word in Spanish. And second: Edition. The story is a philosophical discussion of faith. It has lots of different characters, with its specific stories told in parallel, with enough material for STRONG and UNFORGETTABLE 3 hours of artistic and contemplative (reflexive) art movie. But the director made an option for fast cutting and edition of the story to a "compact" and commercial format. The result is poor. And most important of all: The soundtrack is one of the most beautiful I've seen in a movie for the last 10 years (at minimum). Lalo Schifrin is a great composer, an this is probably one of his best works. Does anyone knows if this soundtrack is available on CDs?
A book has been sitting on my Mothers bookshelf since 1929, written by a classic American playwright, Thorton Wilder, creator of "Our Town." I have always wanted to take the time to read it, instead I ordered the 2004 movie from Netflix. What a mistake! Robert De Niro is not Spanish and it shows, he is awful. Can't make sense out this mishmash of colorful scenes supposedly set in Peru but shot in Spain. It is laughably bad. If you like to watch for the little things watch for three scenes in a row where an Indian leads two llamas through the scene. Both are so different as to draw attention to themselves, one is whiter than the other. That's the only enjoyable thing I can take away from the movie. No plot, poor sound, scenes cut in and out randomly, and did I mention De Niro's non performance? Reading the other reviews it appears it isn't even true to the novel. I'm guessing that when a playwright writes a novel and then Hollywood turns it back into a screenplay, it has been translated once too may times. Forgettta bout it.
