Hi Lizbet. Welcome back to the discussion. I was the one who said that. I didn't like Reynaud but can accept that there will be characters that I don't like. The problem with Roux was that I was more invested in his character and had seen him in a different light in the movie. If I had never seen the movie I might feel differently.

it would be interesting to know how many saw the movie first and then read the book - I suppose all of us - so you're right Liz we have so much more invested in the Roux character - so much so that the only thing I really like about the book is that I can see where the movie has come from - oops but maybe I'm getting too far ahead -

again - welcome back yourself and thanks for sharing your 'depp experience'

Hi, lizbet! I saw the movie first and then read the book a few months afterward. I enjoyed them both equally but I see them almost as two different stories. It isn't often I like a movie after reading a book but in this case I think they can stand alone and both be enjoyable.

I think I would have liked the book (and the book Roux) better if I hadn't come to it with the movie (and the beautiful movie Roux) in my mind. After all, I've watched that movie dozens of times...as hard as I tried not to, I kept comparing the two.
It was hard to separate the two.

I agree with Fansmom...I wasn't impressed with book Roux sleeping with Vianne when he was supposed to be in love with Josephine....and Vianne didn't get any points from me for sleeping with him either...after all, she was supposed to be Josephine's friend...that whole thing just felt out of place in the book........

Ok, getting off topic here.

bluebird

bluebird, I agree that Book Roux had a much harder edge to him. As far as Vianne goes, I'm not sure she wanted him to stay around. I got the feeling that she was happy with the thought that she was pregnant and didn't necessarily want a man in her life.

The movie showed every character in the book as described. The people they chose, matched perfectly with the book, everyone that is except Roux. Roux did not seem remotely like the character in the movie. I wonder why "they" chose not to portray him as in the book (I did enjoy the movie version of Roux more!),

But it wasn't right for Vianne to betray Joesphine. I didn't even think about Vianne's transgression (blaming it all on Roux) until Bluebird brought it up.

Hi Linda. Could be "they" didn't like the book character either. Or maybe Johnny had a hand in it.

I am one of the masses who read the book after I saw the movie. I wish I had done it the other way around. There were many aspects of the movie that I preferred over the book, and Roux is right at the top of the list. I'm not sure I'm adding anything new here, but here's my two cents worth...In the movie, Roux was an outsider who marched to his own drummer, but in a good way. He was likable, confident in himself, and was at peace with the negative light that most viewed him. It didn't bother him. I really liked that about him. In the book, Roux was still an outsider, but he had much attitude, and didn't seem as at peace with himself or with the light in which others viewed him. He was moody and pouty. I found it difficult to like him. There's also the whole Roux-Vianne-Josephine triangle aspect of the book that I didn't like, but I figure that's a separate issue.

Welcome back -- so glad to read of Noodlemantra encounters with Johnny!

I read the novel before I saw the movie. I loved the book -- the setting, the story, the language, and the lovely, lyrical discussions of chocolate -- but didn't much like any of the characters.

Reynard kept my interest because I kept thinking his big secret was that "mon Pere" had molested him as a young boy, and because he was so conflicted. But that dreadful scene devouring all of the chocolate

Vianne and Armande had their moments, but had too many hard edges for me.

The movie was a delightful surprise, and made the characters much more sympathetic.

Roux was so believable -- I didn't think he was an actor, but some cameo role by a real river rat.

All I knew about Johnny Depp was Winona and the Viper Room, and never realized that they were the same person.(Didn't realize he was GG or EW either. Duh)

Interesting to get that point of view from a person who read the book first.

I was guessing that Mon Pere was a priest who had an affair with his mother.

I knew Johnny was Roux when I saw it but didn't like his character when the movie came out (crazy, I know). I also didn't realize Gene Watson or Spencer were Johnny.

I FINALLY finished the book last week! A little late for most of the discussion, I am sure, but I did enjoy the book a lot.

Movie Roux, book Roux.....don't think of Johnny in the movie version. Yeah, right, whatever........ Of course I will think of Johnny in the movie version, to me they are inseparable!!!

After having read all the tidbits regarding gypsies, I expected a totally different character in the book than we were given. All the rituals and spiritual things...particularly with their relationship to women....I didn't see any of that in the book Roux -- I was surprised a little confused for a while that he wasn't more true to the real gypsies we learned about in the tidbits.

I liked the book Roux. I thought he had more dimension and realism than the movie Roux. He seemed to have a better grasp of what being an outcast really meant (they burn up your home! and try to starve you out). Book Roux knew that was serious, life-threatening stuff. Movie Roux seemed sort of flippant about any of that danger. Movie Roux was much more smooth and suave....and clean? I think my favorite Johnny scene of all time is his dance with Vianne on the boat..Yummy! ....but kind of a Ken doll to book Roux's realism.

I was SO disappointed when he ended up with Josephine. Maybe that is why it didn't bother me too much when he had that one night of passion with Vianne. I think both of them being the free spirits they were, the sex was simply that, special because it was between friends, but not as big a deal as the religious townspeople might have made it out to be.

Nebraska, you make good points. We may like movie Roux better. But it doesn't mean he is realistic. He just serves to personify our fantasies. And I have to admit that it is almost impossible to separate Johnny from his character. But I thought we could give it a try.