Jojo Moyes' "The Last Letter from Your Lover" presents readers with a powerful dual-timeline narrative that explores love, memory, and second chances. The 2021 film adaptation starring Shailene Woodley and Felicity Jones attempts to capture this complex story, but how successfully does it translate to screen?
The novel begins in 1960s London, where Jennifer Sterling awakens in a hospital with no memory of her life, including her wealthy husband Lawrence. As she attempts to reconstruct her identity, she discovers passionate love letters hidden throughout her home, signed only by "B." These letters reveal a secret affair and plans to leave her husband—plans that were apparently derailed by the car accident that caused her amnesia. This amnesia plot device serves as a brilliant narrative tool, allowing readers to piece together Jennifer's past alongside her, creating an intimate connection with her character's journey of rediscovery.
The parallel modern timeline follows journalist Ellie Haworth who, while researching in newspaper archives, stumbles upon these decades-old love letters. The book portrays Ellie as involved in an affair with a married man, creating a thought-provoking juxtaposition with Jennifer's story. This moral complexity adds significant depth to the narrative, forcing readers to examine their own perspectives on fidelity, love, and the circumstances that might lead someone to seek connection outside marriage. The novel doesn't shy away from exploring the societal constraints of the 1960s that trapped Jennifer in her loveless marriage, particularly after having a child.
Where the film adaptation diverges most significantly is in its structural approach and character development. While the book unfolds chronologically, allowing readers to fully immerse in Jennifer's 1960s story before introducing Ellie, the film inter cuts between timelines from the beginning. This creates a different viewing experience that sacrifices some of the novel's emotional depth but maintains better pacing for screen. Additionally, the film transforms Ellie from a woman involved with a married man to someone struggling with commitment issues—a significant character alteration that shifts the thematic parallels between the two women's stories.
The book excels in its detailed exploration of post-amnesia recovery, Jennifer's detective work to uncover her own past, and the sociopolitical context of being a woman in 1960s upper-class British society. Readers witness Jennifer's gradual awakening to her true desires and the courage it takes to challenge societal expectations. The novel also includes a fascinating subplot involving asbestos mines and corporate cover-ups that Jennifer uses as leverage to negotiate her independence—elements completely absent from the film adaptation.
Both versions culminate in reuniting the long-separated lovers in their twilight years, offering a poignant reminder that true connection transcends time. However, the book provides a more nuanced exploration of the obstacles that kept them apart, including deliberate deception by those who believed they were acting in Boot's best interest. This added layer of complexity makes their eventual reunion all the more satisfying in the novel.
Whether you prefer the more detailed, chronological storytelling of the novel or the visually evocative, parallel storytelling of the film, "The Last Letter from Your Lover" remains a compelling exploration of how the written word can preserve love across decades. It reminds us that sometimes the most profound connections in our lives deserve a second chance, no matter how much time has passed. In an age of digital communication, this story celebrates the enduring power of handwritten letters and the courage required to follow one's heart despite societal expectations.
Saturday, September 20, 2025
Books vs. Movies: The Last Letter from Your Lover
Wednesday, September 3, 2025
The Long Walk (2025)
Based on a 1979 novel of Stephen King, the participants are all young men chosen to participate via a lottery system. They all have different reasons for joining the walk, though the prize money helps. McVries (David Jonsson) dreams of using the money to make the world a better place. Garraty (Cooper Hoffman) seeks revenge on the Major (Mark Hamill).
The premise is an interesting one, but there are moments where it gets old as the walk goes on. There is only so much that can happen when the most likely outcome is death.
That being said, the film is in the hands of a very capable director. Francis Lawrence has directed five of the Hunger Games films. He knows how to show the deaths of young people who are forced to participate in events that are for the supposed good of the country.
Although I can't tell you what good the long walk does for the country. There are mentions of a war and the honor it is to be picked to participate in the event, but otherwise the film doesn't really explain how this event came to be and why it is necessary for it to exist.
We are given flashbacks from Garraty's point of view that explain why he seeks revenge. In these flashbacks it is revealed that there are certain thinkers that are illegal to review, but beyond that I'm not sure why it is so dangerous to study Nietzsche or Kierkegaard. The main focus of the story is the brutality of the walk and King insisted that it be graphic.
The best part of the film comes from the bond formed by four of the boys. It gives you something to root for and against in the form of the bullies that are inevitably found.
This bond is also a welcome distraction from all the blood and gore found in this film. King himself has stated he didn't want the film to shy away from the violence despite there being teenage boys amongst the ranks of the participants. The graphic nature of the film proved to be too much for me at one point and I wished we didn't need to see every single gruesome aspect.
The film is two hours long and while I did enjoy it, I feel like the film could have been slightly shorter. The action all takes place on the road and knowing that everyone except one person must die, it gets repetitive.
Mark Hamill is unsurprisingly a perfect major. He's cold and intimidating. The biggest issue with his casting is that there is simply not enough of him in the film.
A standout performance for me was David Jonsson as McVries. McVries has lived through a lot and despite the things he has gone through, he still chooses to see the beauty in life and believes he has the ability to change the laws if he wins. Cooper Hoffman is also fantastic as Garraty. Garraty is the character we get ti know the most and Hoffman is able to fill Garraty with enough hope underneath his anger, that you can see him grow from beginning to end.
The Long Walk is brutal and while the graphic nature made it difficult for me to watch at times, it truly found a way to make you legitimately care about every single one of the characters. You experience the pain and embarrassments they do. The blood, the crap, the sickness... it's all there.
I truly wish it was fleshed out more why a war caused the long walk to be created. I wish we had gotten to know the details of the USA of the film came to be and why things came to be banned. While some may say that we may be headed that way now, we still need something in the film to anchor the walk's existence.
That paired with the graphic nature of the film are my biggest complaints. I reached a point where I couldn't enjoy the film anymore because I couldn't stand to see one more gruesome thing happen. Orlando reached a point where he was completely desensitized and while the characters in the film make a point to say they never hope to be desensitized by the deaths of those around them, he did and I don't think the filmmakers would want the audience to reach that point either.
The film premieres on September 12, but I won tickets to an advanced screening courtesy of Scribner Books!