A novel by Donna Tartt, and its film adaptation.
The Goldfinch was one of my favourites novels of my reading challenge last year. It is a Pulitzer-Prize-winning bestseller from 2014. Despite being very long, this masterpiece kept my attention until the end. Recently I watched the film adaptation, which brought back some thoughts about The Goldfinch.
The novel The Goldfinch is worth diving into for anyone, but especially for lovers of art. The eponymous goldfinch is not a real bird but a painting, which really exists. It has a special importance for the protagonist, Theo Decker, a young boy from New York who loves to visit museums with his mom. When his mother is killed in a tragic event, the painting becomes connected to her death and memory. Theo's life changes drastically, and he lives in different places in the years of his adolescence.
The setting of the wealthy New Yorker families and their lavish lifestyle is contrasted with a later Las Vegas setting, and completed with an essential trip to the Netherlands. Donna Tartt masterfully weaves the various settings and characters of Theo's life together, with the painting of the goldfinch always present and influencing many of his choices. His unusual life is fascinating, and the many characters are so well-written that they really come alive on the pages, such as the stiff Mrs. Barbour who looks after Theo for a while with her dysfunctional family, or the loveable Hobie who introduces Theo to the world of antique furniture and becomes a mentor in many ways. Many characters have heartbreaking as well as hilarious storylines, creating a rich and realistic image of contemporary America and some of its population.
This masterpiece kept me fascinated until the end, and has made a lasting impact.
The film version of The Goldfinch was released in 2019, but was not very successful despite a stellar cast with Ansel Ergort and Nicole Kidman, with many great minor roles played by Jeffrey Wright, Luke Wilson, Sarah Paulson, Willa Fitzegerald and Finn Wolfhard, to name but a few.
Personally, I loved the film, but I can imagine that it might not be the same experience if one hasn't read the book (as is often the case).On the other hand, it's always difficult to bring a long novel with a huge list of characters and a timespan of about 10 years to the screen in a convincing way. In my opinion, both the actors in the younger versions as well as the older ones of some of the characters were well cast. The director is Irishman John Crowley, who has already shown his talent for adaptation with Brooklyn (2015, based on the novel by Colm Tóibín). I only noticed the name of the cinematographer after the film but was stunned by the beautiful images while watching: it was the iconic Roger Deakins, which made sense as soon as I read his name. (I'll post some of my favourite shots in the Instagram post as well if you're interested.)
Overall, the film is a beautiful visualisation of the novel, and does a great job of tying the elements of the story together while omitting some of the less essential parts.
Images: myself (book) and IMDB (film)