Chocolat Question #29 - Roux & Roux

by Joanne Harris

Moderator: Liz

User avatar
Liz
ONBC Moderator
Posts: 12929
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Status: Offline

Chocolat Question #29 - Roux & Roux

Unread postby Liz » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:45 am

I’m glad to be back here on the Zone again, but not glad to be back to the real world. :tear: I had too much fun in Anaheim. :bounce: For those of you who are interested, I just posted my encounter on the Porch.

So on with the discussion.......


Compare the book Roux to the movie Roux. Try to forget for a moment that Roux was played by Johnny (This will be tough for me after having just met the man. And this pic probably doesn’t help either.) Now which Roux did you prefer?

Image
You can't judge a book by its cover.

The only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story.

User avatar
lumineuse
Posts: 5991
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 10:50 am
Location: Erie, PA, USA

Status: Offline

Unread postby lumineuse » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:00 am

The movie, most definitely. He was much kinder and gentler, and more understanding of the feelings of others. The Roux in the book had such a huge chip on his shoulder, he was difficult to like. I'm sure that was to show the damage that was done to him by society, but still, as a character, I liked the movie Roux better.

It is difficult to separate out that he was played by Johnny, because when I think of the movie Roux in my mind, that's who I see - and he's so drop dead gorgeous, how can you NOT prefer him????
"Oh, good!........ No worries, then."

User avatar
Liz
ONBC Moderator
Posts: 12929
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Status: Offline

Unread postby Liz » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:07 am

I agree about the chip on his shoulder, Lumi. And It is very difficult to separate the character from Johnny. And if he had been played by another actor, first of all, we wouldn't be having this discussion :lol: , but also he could have been less likable. I think his character was more easy going in the movie. There was no anger there.
You can't judge a book by its cover.

The only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story.

User avatar
es
Posts: 9964
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2004 2:56 pm
Location: den helder,aan zee

Status: Offline

Unread postby es » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:30 am

welcome back Liz,glad to hear you have met Johnny,I will read your story later.

About the differnce between the book Roux and movie Roux,I think even played by a other actor the caracter was written nicer in the screenplay than in the book.
movies are simpler in good or bad because Vianne liked the gypsies the gypsies had to be likebale for the audience....and likebale he was :cloud9:

greets,
es
who laughs the last didnt got the joke,
freek&sjaak

User avatar
cait
Posts: 7521
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: NB, Canada

Status: Offline

Unread postby cait » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:21 am

Welcome back, Liz! :welcome:

I liked Roux from the movie better. I expected to like him in the book because I had seen the movie first and it was Johnny who played him! I found myself making excuses for the Roux in the book because I wanted to like him, but he wasn't the same.

I found him to be more understanding, romantic and down to earth in the movie. I never really understood his character in the book and I found it hard to relate to him.
Dirt...this is a jar of dirt.

User avatar
Gilbert's Girl
Posts: 158497
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2004 3:14 am
Location: UK

Status: Offline

Unread postby Gilbert's Girl » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:40 am

Liz wrote:I agree about the chip on his shoulder, Lumi. And It is very difficult to separate the character from Johnny. And if he had been played by another actor, first of all, we wouldn't be having this discussion :lol: , but also he could have been less likable. I think his character was more easy going in the movie. There was no anger there.


I agree, not sure if he was written like that but Roux in the film was so laid back, nothing really bothered him that much whereas the book Roux was just so prickly. I know he seemed different again in Blackberry Wine much more at ease .

User avatar
Betty Sue
Posts: 1428
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 7:37 pm

Status: Offline

Unread postby Betty Sue » Tue Jun 27, 2006 10:41 am

Loved your encounter story, Liz! How lovely to have the movie Roux standing right in front of you and be able to just drink him in... Like cait, I tried to like the rather surly book Roux, but finally coudn't see Johnny in him anymore and couldn't relate to him.
"I never wanted to be remembered for being a star."

User avatar
Raven
Posts: 1504
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 11:47 am
Location: This is Bat Country!
Contact:

Status: Offline

Unread postby Raven » Tue Jun 27, 2006 11:46 am

Of course I loved the movie Roux better, and even when I read the book, I was thrilled that in the movie, which I feel is like part two of the book, she fleashed out the character and made him more likeable, well you could say loveable!

I felt so bad for Roux of the book, he was sad and so stained by his experiences.

Glad you got to meet Johnny Liz! And cannot wait for DITHOT's story, very cool for you both!!
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid
and the envious."
John Wilmot, the 2nd Earl of Rochester in The Libertine by Stephen Jeffreys

User avatar
Liz
ONBC Moderator
Posts: 12929
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Status: Offline

Unread postby Liz » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:11 pm

cait wrote:Welcome back, Liz! :welcome:

I liked Roux from the movie better. I expected to like him in the book because I had seen the movie first and it was Johnny who played him! I found myself making excuses for the Roux in the book because I wanted to like him, but he wasn't the same.

I found him to be more understanding, romantic and down to earth in the movie. I never really understood his character in the book and I found it hard to relate to him.


Glad to see you all here! :wave: I expected to like him in the book, also. I, too, tried to make excuses for him and kept hoping we would see major changes in him before the book ended. His character was the only thing I did not like about the book.
You can't judge a book by its cover.

The only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story.

User avatar
DeppInTheHeartOfTexas
Posts: 10378
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: Austin

Status: Offline

Unread postby DeppInTheHeartOfTexas » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:31 pm

Hey, everyone!!! :wave: I am back from my big adventure and have posted my encounter story on the Porch along with the pic of him signing Liz's book. I am still on :cloud9: and will be for a long time!!! :bounce:

For me, the book Roux and movie Roux were almost two different characters. As you all have said you see the damaged Roux much more clearly in the book than in the film. Movie Roux is much more laid back and certain of himself. You do see the chip on his shoulder but it is a much smaller one than the one on Book Roux's shoulder. I preferred movie Roux, but it is hard to separate the character and the actor. I did enjoy book Roux because his character was seen with more depth but he was definitely less likeable.
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -
Wow! What a ride!

User avatar
QueenofKings
Posts: 7732
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: Edge City On the Road

Status: Offline

Unread postby QueenofKings » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:33 pm

Welcome back, Liz! Loved reading your encounter story :bounce: and I am so glad that you NoodleMantras got to meet the man. I'm looking forward to hearing DITHOT's story too.

Edit: Welcome back, DITHOT! I just read your story and looked at the pictures up there. All I can say is, "Wow!" I imagine you both will be thinking about that day for a long time.

Roux in the book was such an angry person. Whatever had happened to him in the past cast such a large shadow over the rest of his person. It's hard to dig beneath that to get at who he really is underneath.

Roux in the movie is a kinder person, not so aloof and concealed. And he's more romantic, but that could just be my subjectivity creeping in there. :blush:
There is more treasure in books than in all the pirates' loot on Treasure Island and at the bottom of the Spanish Main... and best of all, you can enjoy these riches every day of your life.
~~Walt Disney~~
*** my avatar courtesy of the talented mamabear

User avatar
Liz
ONBC Moderator
Posts: 12929
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Status: Offline

Unread postby Liz » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:00 pm

QueenofKings wrote: And he's more romantic, but that could just be my subjectivity creeping in there. :blush:


Not only was he more romantic in the movie, but his romantic focus was on Vianne, not Josephine.
You can't judge a book by its cover.

The only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story.

User avatar
fansmom
Posts: 2059
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 4:50 pm
Location: Olney, Maryland

Status: Offline

Unread postby fansmom » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:26 pm

Liz wrote:
QueenofKings wrote: And he's more romantic, but that could just be my subjectivity creeping in there. :blush:


Not only was he more romantic in the movie, but his romantic focus was on Vianne, not Josephine.
Yes, and just when I had reconciled myself to the book Roux being focused Josephine, he sleeps with Vianne! How unromantic is that!

User avatar
Liz
ONBC Moderator
Posts: 12929
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:13 pm
Location: The Left Coast

Status: Offline

Unread postby Liz » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:01 pm

fansmom wrote:
Liz wrote:
QueenofKings wrote: And he's more romantic, but that could just be my subjectivity creeping in there. :blush:


Not only was he more romantic in the movie, but his romantic focus was on Vianne, not Josephine.
Yes, and just when I had reconciled myself to the book Roux being focused Josephine, he sleeps with Vianne! How unromantic is that!


You got that right, Fansmom.
You can't judge a book by its cover.

The only thing that matters is the ending. It's the most important part of the story.

lizbet
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 8:27 pm
Location: London, Canada

Status: Offline

Unread postby lizbet » Tue Jun 27, 2006 5:28 pm

welcome back our travelling Noodlemantras! don't come down from cloud nine too soon!

I don't usually go with the flow but I too prefer Roux of the movie to Roux of the book - the only redeemable quality of the book Roux is that he 'was there' for Armande so that she could die at home on her own terms - also - I prefer Roux of the movie 'coming back' to start a family with Vianne to the Roux of the book 'leaving' Vianne with an expanding family (I appreciate he doesn't know about it but ...) -

having been away from most of the Chocolat discussion - I'm not sure if this sould have been said earlier but someone said that the Roux of the book the only thing they DIDN'T like about the book - I also didn't like Reynaud of the book - too absolutely full of himself and I couldn't find a single grain of faithfulness in him (come to think of it I didn't like him in the movie - too simple, too innocent, too able to be manipulated, too silly) -


Return to “Chocolat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest