Just one question :?:

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 6:55 am

In Anne 1, there's something unusual for me.
Marilla and Anne went to the picnic and there Anne met Diana (and Gil of course). And after this picnic, Anne dyed her hair green Razz

and then Marilla told her, that she can stay at GG.
Well why didn't Marilla just told her this sooner. Well it's not very usual that you introduce little orphan to people around, be4 you even told her/him that you'll adopt her/him?
In this case, Anne could notice, that she will stay at GG, since Marilla allowed her to go to the picnic and meet others, including her bosom friend Diana.
What do you think? Confused

:

Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:18 pm

Hmmm, it could be that Marilla wanted to see how other people would react to an unwanted orphan, and if Anne could fit in with other people her age. If not, then maybe they wouldn't keep her Shocked

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:14 am

Perhaps, but still it's rather unusual! Confused

And not very ''christian'' Laughing

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 2:28 pm

I think that was weird too. In the book it didn't happen that way.

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 3:10 pm

Do you think it's possible that they messed up the order in the film? But it doesn't seem likely that they would make a mistake like that Sad

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:24 pm

Yeah, I think they messed up the order. By the way, when I watched it, that was the last thing I saw before I left for somewhere . Confused

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2007 11:35 pm

No wonder the order seemed weird. I remembered it differently.

Maybe Marilla wanted to see if anyone else was interested in taking in Anne, but since nobody was, she decided to adopt her!?

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:21 am

Yeah, but I don't like this kind of people who always give a **** about other people's opinion. After all this is your decision, not Rachel's or Mrs. Barry's.

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 11:47 pm

Hmm...I'm lost. Maybe she wanted to show off who she found?!

Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2008 9:17 am

I think in the film they Marilla gave Anne a trial or a probationary before deciding whether they would be able to bring her up, which wasn't in the book. I don't think it was anything to do with Mrs Rachel or anyone, just whether they were up to it. And it probably wasn't a mistake from the filmmakers, but "artistic license."

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 10:58 pm

That could be it. They've taken artistic licenses with other scenes/plots so it would make sense. I have to say I'm glad the film wasn't at the point where I felt they'd missed a lot of stuff, like in some film adaptations of books.

Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:15 am

Yeah, I think it was a good movie compared to some other movies of other books.

Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 10:37 pm

I want to find the BBC versions. I've seen the clips on Youtube but I want to see both films. They are definitely a different take compared to the Sullivan films.