A Rose For Emily: Film Vs. Short Story

A Rose for Emily: Film vs. Short Story
“The knowledge of the past stays with us. To let go is to release the images and emotions, the grudges and fears, the clingings [sic] and disappointments of the past that bind our spirit.” This quote by Jack Kornfield is or would have been one of great significance to Miss Emily Grierson. Her emotions, grudges, fears and past disappointments seem to have played a major role in her inevitable fate. In William Faulkner’s short story, “A Rose for Emily”, Miss Emily Grierson was a member of a community in the South during The Antebellum Period. She grew up in a home with her father, only referred to as Mr. Grierson, who was extremely controlling. Her family had been known to have a history of psychosis and it had been said that they thought too highly of themselves (Faulkner 86). They lived a typical southern lifestyle (owning a black house servant by the name of Tobe). Because this story was first published in 1930 and then the film nearly 50 years later, one can imagine that there were a few differences and similarities in the two versions. The film version of “A Rose for Emily” revealed

Again, the encounter in the short story made her appear to be a rebellious and ornery woman. Because the issue was not addressed in the film, there was no opportunity for her personality to be judged in the same manner. Faulkner writes:
Miss Emily herself (Anjelica Huston) has very little to say, and her few lines are delivered in a dazed, mumbling fashion that leaves one regretting the omission from the film of the visit of the tax delegation, which Faulkner represents as a triumph of Miss Emily’s will and tongue over the town’s futile efforts to control her. The tall dignified mien of Anjelica Huston also contradicts Faulkner’s description of Miss Emily, who confronts the tax delegation as a small, fat woman in black whose skeleton was small and spare. . . (Moore