Jane Rule, the acclaimed Canadian author, held complex and nuanced views on the 1985 film adaptation of her novel Desert of the Heart, titled Desert Hearts. While publicly acknowledging the film’s positive contributions to lesbian visibility and its generally respectful handling of the central relationship, she privately harbored reservations about its departures from the novel’s subtle characterizations and more ambiguous ending.
Rule’s Initial Reactions and Public Statements
Rule’s initial reactions were generally positive, especially given the rarity of seeing lesbian relationships depicted on screen with such sensitivity during that era. She recognized the film’s significance in mainstreaming lesbian stories and breaking down some of the prevailing stereotypes. In public interviews and essays, she consistently praised Donna Deitch, the director, for her commitment to portraying a believable and emotionally resonant romance between Vivian and Cay. She appreciated that the film avoided the sensationalism and negativity that often plagued portrayals of lesbianism in mainstream media. This was a significant victory in her eyes.
However, behind the scenes, Rule expressed some dissatisfaction.
The Author’s Private Reservations
Rule’s private reservations centered on several key aspects of the adaptation. She felt the film simplified the characters, particularly Vivian, making her less intellectually complex and more overtly emotional than her literary counterpart. The novel’s ending, which offered a degree of uncertainty about Vivian and Cay’s future together, was replaced with a definitively happy and romantic conclusion. This, Rule believed, diminished the novel’s exploration of the complexities of commitment and identity. She felt the film leaned too heavily on romantic tropes and sacrificed some of the nuanced psychological depth present in the book. The film’s focus on the external conflict of Vivian breaking free from societal expectations overshadowed the internal struggles of self-discovery that were central to the novel.
Rule never outright condemned the film; she understood the constraints of adapting a novel for the screen and appreciated the overall positive impact Desert Hearts had. However, it’s crucial to understand that her approval was tempered by her artistic vision and fidelity to her original work.
Addressing Common Questions: FAQs
FAQ 1: Did Jane Rule profit from the film Desert Hearts?
While the exact financial details remain private, it is safe to assume that Jane Rule received royalties from the film adaptation rights of her novel. The standard practice in the film industry is to compensate authors for adaptations of their works. Therefore, it is likely that Rule benefited financially from Desert Hearts, although the extent of her profit is undisclosed.
FAQ 2: What specific changes in the film bothered Rule the most?
Besides the simplification of Vivian and the definitive happy ending, Rule also took issue with the film’s emphasis on the visual spectacle of the Nevada landscape. While visually appealing, she believed it detracted from the intimate character studies that were core to her novel. She also felt that some of the supporting characters were reduced to caricatures, losing the complexity she had painstakingly crafted in the book.
FAQ 3: How did Rule’s lesbian identity influence her perspective on the film’s portrayal of lesbianism?
As a prominent lesbian author, Rule was deeply invested in authentic representations of lesbian lives. She was particularly sensitive to the potential for misrepresentation or exploitation. While she appreciated Desert Hearts‘ positive portrayal, she also held it to a higher standard, demanding a degree of nuance and complexity that she felt was somewhat compromised in the film adaptation. Her own experiences informed her desire for accurate and dignified portrayals of lesbian characters and relationships.
FAQ 4: Did Rule ever meet with Donna Deitch during the film’s production?
Yes, Jane Rule did meet with Donna Deitch and other members of the production team during the development of Desert Hearts. These meetings allowed for discussions about the characters, themes, and overall vision for the film. While Rule offered her insights and suggestions, the ultimate creative control rested with Deitch, the director.
FAQ 5: How did Desert Hearts impact Rule’s literary career?
Desert Hearts, both the novel and the film, undoubtedly elevated Jane Rule’s profile as a writer. The film introduced her work to a wider audience and solidified her reputation as a leading voice in lesbian literature. It generated increased interest in her other novels and essays, contributing to her overall literary legacy.
FAQ 6: What did Rule think of the actors, Helen Shaver and Patricia Charbonneau?
Rule generally approved of the casting choices and acknowledged the actors’ commitment to their roles. While she might have envisioned the characters slightly differently, she recognized that Shaver and Charbonneau brought their own unique interpretations to Vivian and Cay, contributing to the film’s overall success. She appreciated their ability to convey the emotional intensity of the relationship.
FAQ 7: Was Rule involved in the screenplay adaptation process?
While Rule consulted with the filmmakers, she was not directly involved in writing the screenplay. The adaptation was primarily handled by Donna Deitch and Natalie Cooper. This separation allowed Deitch to bring her own vision to the story, but it also contributed to some of the departures from the novel that Rule later critiqued.
FAQ 8: How did Desert Hearts compare to other lesbian-themed films of the 1980s in Rule’s opinion?
Compared to the often exploitative and stereotypical portrayals of lesbians in other films of the era, Desert Hearts stood out as a groundbreaking and relatively sensitive depiction. Rule recognized its significance in challenging negative stereotypes and offering a more realistic and nuanced portrayal of a lesbian relationship. She considered it a significant step forward in terms of representation.
FAQ 9: Did Rule ever publicly criticize Desert Hearts directly?
No, Jane Rule generally refrained from publicly criticizing Desert Hearts in a harsh or condemnatory manner. While she acknowledged her reservations in interviews and essays, she consistently emphasized the film’s positive contributions and its overall importance to lesbian visibility. She understood the potential damage that public criticism could inflict on the film’s reception and its impact on the representation of lesbian relationships in media.
FAQ 10: How did Rule’s other novels explore similar themes to Desert of the Heart?
Many of Rule’s other novels, such as This Is Not for You and Memory Board, delve into themes of identity, societal expectations, and the complexities of human relationships, particularly within the context of lesbian experiences. Her works often explore the challenges of living authentically in a heteronormative society and the search for self-acceptance and connection.
FAQ 11: What is the enduring legacy of both Desert of the Heart and Desert Hearts?
Both the novel and the film continue to resonate with audiences today, serving as important milestones in lesbian literature and cinema. They have contributed to a greater understanding and acceptance of lesbian relationships and have paved the way for more diverse and nuanced portrayals of LGBTQ+ lives in media. They remain significant cultural artifacts that challenge societal norms and celebrate the power of love and self-discovery.
FAQ 12: Where can I learn more about Jane Rule and her views on Desert Hearts?
Readers can explore Jane Rule’s own writings, including her novels, essays, and short stories. Biographies and critical analyses of her work offer further insights into her perspectives. Searching archives for interviews with Rule from the period following the film’s release can provide valuable primary source material. Academic journals focusing on LGBTQ+ literature and film studies may also contain relevant articles and research.
In conclusion, Jane Rule’s opinion of Desert Hearts was multi-layered. She acknowledged its importance and positive impact on lesbian representation while simultaneously harboring reservations about its artistic liberties and simplifications of her novel. Understanding this duality offers a deeper appreciation for both the film’s significance and the author’s nuanced perspective.