Film Adapations of Books

I saw The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader for the second time today.  I hadn't seen it since the day it came out in theaters.  I only saw it today because they were showing it for free at the local theater as part of their free "Summer Kid's Movie Series" program, which is an ingenious way the local movie theater can make a lot of money by selling overpriced popcorn and soda.  I felt silly coming to a "kids' movie" without any kids, and since kidnapping is still illegal, I tagged along with the family I nanny for...on my day off.

Now, I've already written a blog about my thoughts on the third Narnia movie, and I really don't want to go into it again.  But the movie made me think about how some film adaptations of books are really well done, and how some of them really stink. 

Some people confuse me for one of those people who expect film adaptations to be almost identical to the book.  This just isn't the case.  I took a class called Lit and Film in college, which was one of the most interesting classes I've ever had.  And I agree with what the professor said--that a good film adaptation is one that properly captures the essence of a book.  That doesn't mean a good film adaptation has to cover every intricate detail of a book in exactly the same way the book handled it.  Sometimes things have to be changed for time (a 500 page book doesn't always fit well into a 90 minute movie) or because what works in print might not work well on screen.  I know some people who like to nitpick over minor details that don't change the basic themes of the story.  I'm not one of those people.

I am, however, one of those people who will get upset if I think a film did a bad job of translating a book on screen--particularly if I LOVED the book.  The Voyage of the Dawn Treader wasn't horrible, but I do have some major problems with it because I think the filmmakers missed the point of the book (FYI, I LOVED the book).

There are a lot of film adaptations that I really don't like because I feel that the filmmakers didn't really grasp the main themes of the books they were trying to adapt.  At the top of this list is Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (the third one).  Not only did the filmmakers try to cram the theme of "time" into the movie, when the book really didn't have that overarching theme, but they left out all sorts of important themes and details that made the story understandable.  If I hadn't read the book and were just relying on the film, I'd have no idea what was going on.  And this was a common complaint I heard from people who hadn't read the book.  They didn't understand the movie.

A Wrinkle in Time is another film adaptation that leaves a lot to be desired.  It was a made for tv movie, but that doesn't give it the right to suck as much as it did.  The movie got several small details wrong--which might have been redeemable if they had been done well.  But almost nothing about this movie was done well.  The vast majority of the actors were miscast (so even the good actors like Alfre Woodard gave dreadful performances).  The writing was choppy and incoherent.  It makes me a little angry because A Wrinkle in Time is my favorite book, but the film version made it look dreadful.  So all of those people who like to see the movie first to see if they might like the book are now under the impression that it's a dreadful book.  If you're one of these people, I urge you to go read the book.  I promise it is SO much better than the movie.  I'm hoping that eventually someone picks up the whole Time Quartet series and does some major motion pictures that don't stink.  I do have to say, the music wasn't bad.  And the kid they got to play Charles Wallace was cute.  And Mrs Who was actually pretty likable.  Other than that...meh.  I've also heard that the Disney made-for-tv version of A Ring of Endless Light (another Madeleine L'Engle book) was also dreadful.  Maybe I'll see it for myself one day.

I don't want to spend much more time griping about film adaptations I don't like, but here is a list of others that really bother me (I still might watch these movies from time to time, as I often still watch A Wrinkle in Time, if only because I like to relive parts of the story when I don't have time to read the book):

Tuck Everlasting
The Black Cauldron
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the 2005 movie version--which was not redeemable even with Zooey Deschanel as Trillian AND Alan Rickman as Marvin.  The cheesy 1980 BBC version, however, is epic!)
Twilight
First Knight
The Little Mermaid (Okay, I like the songs.  And Sebastian.  But Disney turned the self-sacrificing (and unnamed) Hans Christian Anderson protagonist into a selfish spoiled brat named Ariel)
Eragon
The Flight of Dragons (based off the book The Dragon and the George)

There are a lot of film adaptations of books that I really don't like, but there are probably a lot more that I do like.  The Princess Bride is my favorite film, and it's one of my favorite books.  I think one of the reasons I'm such a big fan of both the film and the book is that William Goldman wrote both of them (the book and the screenplay).  Not every detail was the same.  There were lots of omissions and changes in the film version, but the film was a hilarious and touching story that paid true homage to the book.

Some of the film adaptations I like are very different from the books, but they're still enjoyable AND they retain the basic thematic essences of the books.  Pollyanna is one of these.  Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in case you're confused, I mean the Gene Wilder one) is another.  I do like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (the Johnny Depp version), and it IS closer to the book than the Gene Wilder version "Willy Wonka," but I don't like it as much.  The Neverending Story is another film I love that doesn't follow the book very well, and it makes me sad that they tried to make it more like the book by making an absolutely horrendous sequel.  And another sequel--which thankfully, I have not seen.

Here's a list of film adaptations I really like:

Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park: The Lost World
October Sky (based on a memior originally published as Rocket Boys--it's an anagram)
All of the Harry Potter films except for Prisoner of Azkaban (I just can't forgive it)
Ramona and Beezus  (I would love to see more Ramona movies!)
The Hobbit (the Rankin Bass cartoon version, since the live action one hasn't come out yet)
The Return of the King (again, the Rankin Bass version)
The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (the Peter Jackson ones)
The Bridge to Terebithia (both the 80s version and the more recent version of this)
Winnie the Pooh (even after Disney mutilated A. A. Milne, I still like it)
The Phantom Tollbooth
2001: A Space Odyssey (the book was written at the same time as the film, but I think it still counts)
The BBC versions of The Chronicles of Narnia (they only did up to the Silver Chair...which makes me sad)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
A Christmas Carol (while almost any version--including Mickey's Christmas Carol and Scrooged--is likable, my favorite version is the Patrick Stewart one)
10 Things I Hate About You (based on Taming of the Shrew.  True story.)
Alice in Wonderland (again, pretty much any version of this would do--including the Johnny Depp version which was very unlike the original Lewis Caroll story.  I like what they did with it)
Anne of Green Gables/Anne of Avonlea
Hook (which was based off Peter Pan, which was a book)
Matilda
Holes
The Little Prince
The Secret of NIMH (Based on the book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of NIMH--they changed a lot, but the movie was still amazing!)
The Face on the Milk Carton (made for tv and really cheesy, but it's not too bad)
The Jungle Book


I'm sure I could name more, but...that would take longer than I want to spend on typing a blog. 

There are rare occurrences when I actually prefer the film version of a story to the book.  The Wizard of Oz is one of these.  Perhaps if I had read the book before seeing the Judy Garland/Ray Bolger rainbow-riffic classic movie from 1939 (the same year my daddy was born--which makes me extra sentimental about it), I might feel differently.  But I tried to read the book as a grown up.  I found it dreadful and unimaginative.  I get that it was a political commentary and all that, but that didn't increase my enjoyment of it.  I much preferred the musical film version. 

Another musical movie I preferred to the book was Phantom of the Opera.  The book wasn't the worst thing I've ever read, but it couldn't compete with the haunting genius of Andrew Lloyd Weber. 

I also preferred the happy ending Disney version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame to Victor Hugo's classic where everybody dies (hopefully didn't ruin that for you).  The incredible songs, again, didn't hurt either. 

I have to admit I also liked the 90's version of The Three Musketeers way better than the book.  Rebecca De Mornay.  Keifer Sutherland.  Chris O'Donnell.  Tim Curry.  Oliver Platt.  Oh, and Charlie Sheen LONG BEFORE he went crazy.  Ah, what a great flick!  I had a cassette tape of the song "All For Love." Yep.  I was awesome.

Right now I'm anxiously awaiting a couple of film adaptations.  I've read that they're probably going to do "Magician's Nephew" (Chronicles of Narnia) before "Silver Chair" (and that "MN" isn't coming out until 2014).  So I'm not holding my breath for those.  I wouldn't be surprised if they got dumped.  Which is sad.  But after seeing what they did with "Dawn Treader," I'm not sure I want them messing with Puddleglum.

But I'm getting a little excited (along with a lot of people) about The Hunger Games, which is set to come out in March of next year.  I'm thinking that The Hunger Games is the new Harry Potter, at least in terms of waiting for the next movie to come out.  Oh...and I'm waiting for the final HP movie, too...but it will be here VERY soon! 

Other books I'd love to see made into good major motion pictures are:

A Wrinkle in Time and the other books in the Time Quartet (as I said before)
A Ring of Endless Light and the other Austin Family books by Madeleine L'Engle (actually starting with Meet the Austins)
The Chronicles of Prydain (The Black Cauldron was based on the first two books, but it fell sadly, sadly short.  I would love to see the whole series done in epic live action LOTR style.)
The Bunnicula Series
The Space Trilogy by C. S. Lewis

Again, there are probably others, but this blog is long enough. 

How about you?  Are there film adaptations you LOVE?  Are there film adaptations you HATE?  Are there movies you like better than the books?  Are there any books/series you would LOVE to see made into movies?

Fiction Friday: My THIRD Favorite Character of All Time Ever

I love me some Narnia.  Seriously, every single time I go into my closet, I look behind the shirts to see if there's a doorway to a secret world.  Every.  Single.  Time.

And I'm too old to be doing that, but I can't help it.

My third favorite fictional character of all time ever is from the Narnia series, but this character is NOT my favorite character from the Narnia series.  My favorite character from the Narnia series is Aslan, and I don't consider Him to be fictional.  Do I expect to go to heaven one day and bury my face into Aslan's mane?  Not exactly, but it gives me a nice image to keep in mind.  I like the image of Aslan a lot better than some of the other images I've seen/imagined of Jesus/God.  I wish I were beyond needing such images, but I'm not.  I'm pretty sure most people aren't beyond the need for images.

And C. S. Lewis was pretty much amazing with imagery. 

So since I don't think of Aslan as a fictional character, I can't say He's my favorite fictional character of all time ever...or my second or third favorite fictional character of all time ever.  And I have to admit that it's really hard for me to choose a second favorite fictional character from the series, but I can't help but love Lucy.

I love Edmund, too.  As a helpless sinner, I can relate to him better than any other character in the books, although all of the characters besides Aslan were imperfect--even Lucy.  It's just that Edmund was the one depicted as the traitor for which Aslan died.  That hits home.  I perfectly understand Edmund's willingness to betray his own family for just another taste of Turkish delight.  There have been times when I have turned my back on God just because I wanted to do my own thing--and once I had what I thought I wanted, I realized how worthless it was, especially compared to Him, His calling, and His unfailing Love.

But there's just something about Lucy that wins me over.  She's just so wonderfully childlike.  I can just sense that wonderment when she first enters the wintry land of Narnia.  I appreciate her insistence that she really did see Narnia, even when her own family thinks she's just playing make believe.  Even more than that, I admire the amazing childlike love she has for Aslan. 

My favorite book out of the Narnia series is The Voyage of the Dawn Treader.  There are so many amazing things about this book (the movie was all right, but I really think they missed the adventure aspect of the book by trying to write a new plot for it) that I can't begin to even list them (Dragons AND Dufflepuds???!!!  What's not to love?).  My favorite part of the book, however, is near the end, when Lucy and Edmund learn that they must go back to their own world and that they're too old to return to Narnia (so that confirms it, then...I really am too old to keep checking my closet).  And Lucy says something wonderful.  Aslan's reply is even more wonderful.

"It isn't Narnia, you know," sobbed Lucy.  "It's you.  We shan't meet you there.  And how can we live, never meeting you."
"But you shall meet me, dear one," said Aslan.
"Are--are you there too, Sir?" said Edmund.
"I am," said Aslan.  "But there I have another name.  You must learn to know me by that name.  This was the very reason why you were brought to Narnia, that by knowing me here for a little, you may know me better there."

I want that kind of childlike devotion.  I want to be more like Lucy.  She's not perfect; I realize that very well.  She has doubts.  She has insecurities.  She is very human.  But the fact that she is imperfect makes me hopeful that someone human and imperfect like me can be more like her.  I want that childlike faith.  I want that childlike devotion and love for God.

No.  You know what?  What I really want is to have the relationship with God like Lucy had with Aslan.  Maybe I do want to bury my head in His mane and hear His voice tell me that even if I'm not perfect, I'm still dearly, dearly loved.

Characters Welcome

I really like those USA television promos with the little "Characters Welcome" slogan. USA gets it. Good television shows don't do well because every single script is perfect. Even the best shows have bad episodes (except maybe Psych. Never saw a bad episode of Psych--but even that is because Shawn and Gus make me snortle). While good plots are very important, what really keeps people watching is the characters.

Plots are important, but I think characters are even more important. If you have a wonderful plot with amazing twists and turns, I'm probably not going to care too much about it unless you also have some amazing characters to experience that plot. I'm not going to relate to anything in the story unless I can relate to the characters. That relating can mean I understand where they're coming from and what they're dealing with because I've been there, or it can mean I want to know WHY they're acting the way they do in a certain situation, or it can mean I want to be more like them. However I relate to a character, I'm going to keep reading to figure out what's going to happen because I've made an emotional investment in the characters.

I'm looking back on some of my favorite fictional characters. At the top of the list is Meg Murray from "A Wrinkle in Time" and the other books in that series. I get her. In a lot of ways, I am her. I'm that awkward kid who gets frustrated with herself and others way too easily. I'm constantly struggling with the idea that I am not good enough, trying to balance it with the idea that I've been made in the image of God. Madeleine L'Engle struck gold when she found Meg. I know a lot of people who have said that they're just like her. If she can overcome the odds she had to face, then so can we. That's good writing.

Then there's my second favorite fictional character, Samwise Gamgee from LOTR. To me, this little hobbit is the embodiment of loyalty. He wouldn't leave Frodo. When he couldn't carry Frodo's burden, he carried him. I relate to Sam because I think I am a lot like him, but I want to be even more like him. I want to be that fiercely loyal friend. My emotional investment to him caused me to weep like a baby when I got to the end of the books and realized he would have to be separated from Frodo. It makes me a little teary eyed to think of it even now.

My third favorite fictional character is also someone I wish I could be more like. Lucy Pevensie from "The Chronicles of Narnia." I wish I could be as childlike as she is. Every time she has to leave Aslan, especially at the end of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader," I also get weepy.

Another of my favorite characters is Taran from "The Chronicles of Prydain." He's a boy and he's a little harder to understand than some of the other characters I love. I do understand him some. I do want to be like him in some ways (good characterization is usually pretty multifaceted). I also wonder what he's going to do next because I don't always understand why he acts the way he does. I want to see if he attains his dreams. I want to see if he gets the girl. I want to see what he learns through his journies.

It's the same sort of feeling I get when I read Harry Potter. I don't get why Harry acts the way he does. I don't know why he gets himself into certain predicaments, but it's interesting to see how he gets out of them. I want to see what happens to him. J. K. Rowling is very good at weaving elements through stories. Something that seems insignificant somewhere might be the very thing that ties everything else together. I like her writing, but it wouldn't be very good if she didn't also have all these amazing and interesting characters.

I've been thinking about my own characters. There's a few that are very much like me, and these have been the easiest for me to write. But right now I'm starting a new story and I think the main character is a lot like me, only I'm having a lot of trouble with her. I think the reason is because she's a lot like who I was when I was a teenager, only perhaps a little more down to earth (she has had more disappointment in life than I had ever had at that point in my life). She's closed. She doesn't let people in easily. I'm trying to write her, but she doesn't want to let me in enough to let me see how to write her. She has the potential to be someone amazing, and I want to show her that. Right now, though, she's uncomfortably awkward (I've finally become very comfortable with my awkwardness--read my socially awkward blog). She has one friend. She doesn't trust people. She's angry and bitter and extremely moody. She has a lot of good qualities, too, of course, but it's harder to see them because she doesn't like to show them.

I adore her, but she doesn't want to let me write her.

I know that sounds weird. I can't help the way I relate to my characters. Ever since a character named "Rain" entered my life and demanded that I write her the way she IS instead of the way I wanted her to be, I've been treating my characters with a lot more respect. If I expect them to live, then they're more likely to live.

But Rain didn't take over (and quite literally possess me for two weeks) immediately. I dreamt her up and thought she was someone quite weak and unimportant until one day she just spoke up and proclaimed her strength and vitality. Maybe it's the same thing with this other character. Maybe I need to give her some time.

I hope it doesn't take too long. I've got a plot (weak as it is at the moment), but without her and another character (who I am also having just a little bit of trouble with), the plot is pretty much useless. I want people to invest in her and my other characters. I want to make people care about what happens to her. At the moment, I don't think she WANTS other people to care. So that's where the conflict is. Sigh.

I think it's time to write letters to my characters again.

What I Liked and Didn't Like About "Voyage of the Dawn Treader" (the film)

I had been waiting for Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader to come out, oh, since Prince Caspian was in theaters. This was my MUST SEE movie of 2010, and it didn't even come until the end of the year. I saw it on opening night (not the midnight showing--I'm too old for that nonsense) after rereading the book. It's my favorite book from the Narnia series.

I knew when I reread the book that I was setting myself up for some disappointment. I mean, I knew they were going to change stuff. They ALWAYS change stuff. I just happen to find it interesting to see how people translate books onto the big screen. Sometimes they do an excellent job (think Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets) and sometimes they really screw it up and I get angry and want to start petitioning filmmakers for a do-over (think Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban).

Don't read any more if you haven't seen VotDT, because there will be some spoilers.

I was very impressed with the special effects (even in 3-D, which was, as I suspected, completely unnecessary). The Dragon and the sea serpent were UH-MAY-ZING. The music was also excellent, as was the majority of the acting. I'm a big fan of Skandar (is that NOT the coolest name ever?) and Georgie--and the guy who played Eustace was hilarious (I'm sure I'll learn that kid's name by the time Silver Chair comes to theaters). Now that the technical stuff is out of the way, on to the story...

I'm really glad they got in all the major plot points. They were ordered differently than they were in the book and some were handled differently, but they were all there. I'm also glad they included the most important line from the book--Aslan telling Lucy and Edmund that he had brought them to Narnia so that they would know who he was in their world and learn to know him by his name there (coughJESUScough). Most important part. I got really nervous when I thought the filmmakers had left that out, but they came through. Liam Neeson is pretty much the most amazing Aslan voice ever, btw.

Speaking of, there wasn't enough Aslan to suit me, but IMO there can NEVER be enough Aslan.

I was also disappointed that the Dufflepuds scene was so short, but then one can never have too many Dufflepuds. Well, okay, I suppose "DUFFLEPUDS: THE MOTION PICTURE" would be a little bit ridiculous.

Now, some people confuse me for one of those people who gets angry over every minor detail that was changed in movies that were adapted from books. Not so. What I think is important is that the movie version adequately captures the spirit and essence of the book in a way that is clearly communicated. The problem I had with Prisoner of Azkaban is that there were themes that were heavily emphasized in the movie that were not really in the book (time), and I was left with the impression that if someone had not read the book, they wouldn't know what was happening. That's crappy filmmaking, IMO.

The biggest problem I have with the film version of VotDT is that the filmmakers seemed to completely miss the point of the story. They added in a new element that basically drove the plot because apparently they seemed to think the story needed something that C. S. Lewis didn't provide. FAIL. If you haven't read the book, you might be surprised to learn that the seven swords were not in the book at all, nor was there this underlying evil that Lucy and Edmund had been summoned to go concur. They had been called to Narnia to have an adventure. That was the plot of the book. That was the story line. That was all that was needed.

And personally, I think that the story would have worked quite well on screen without their additions. The filmmakers seemed to think that they needed to add some kind of element that would make things more exciting or give purpose to the story. No. The purpose of the story was that there was something worth seeking beyond the known seas around Narnia. Yes, there were the seven lords that Caspian wanted to find, but he was not seeking them for any reason other to be seeking them. Caspian and Reepicheep and several of the others were ultimately seeking adventure, the End of the World, perhaps even Aslan's country--that was the point of the story--not some "green mist of evil" that had to be destroyed. I think the filmmakers really missed the point, and that makes me sad.

It makes me sad to think that filmmakers assume people don't want to see movies that are just about adventure and excitement and the mystery of the unknown. It makes me sad to think that they might actually be right.

But quite honestly, the whole "green mist of evil" thing was just stupid. It took me awhile to realize what it reminded me of, but once I realized it, I was amused. The "green mist of evil" was ripped off from another movie. Do you want to know which movie it was? Anastasia. Yep, the kid's cartoon from the late 1990s. I half expected Rasputin to come out with Bartok and burst out into an evil song and dance number.

No, instead you have the "green mist of evil" which (at least to Edmund) took the form of the "White Witch." Personally, I was really put off by this. For one thing, I was never really happy with Tilda Swinton's portrayal of the White Witch (I can't get past the fact that the lady has NO FREAKIN' EYELASHES), and I really hate seeing her have a cameo in all the movies she's not a part of. She died--let her stay dead. On a more serious note, I also want her to stay dead. Aslan killed her. It was finished. All that she represented was defeated. I didn't like that the filmmakers keep bringing her back as if Aslan isn't strong enough to have defeated her once and for all.

But I was fortunate enough to be watching this film with a friend who had not read the book. She saw this part differently and gave me her perspective, which I had already been thinking about myself, and kinda sorta agree with to an extent. Edmund--at least in the films--keeps meeting the White Witch again. In the film of VotDT, he was still struggling with temptation regarding her. Okay, I can get that. I can relate to that. Even if sin has been conquered once and for all, I still struggle with temptation and sin. I'm going to struggle with temptation and sin until I die or this world ends. So I can kinda understand where they might have been going with that.

Now, Lucy's little temptation scenes bothered me a little more. It was good theology, but it was simple theology. I can totally get that we are all valuable--we aren't meant to be like anyone else (except Christ), and God didn't create us to be like anyone else. He made one me. He made one you. So yeah, there was nothing untruthful about what Aslan said to Lucy in the mirror (aside from the fact that this scene was NOT in the book). He wanted her to value herself. Okay. Sure. It's just that right now there's this theme I see in Christian circles about feeling good about yourself and feeling beautiful, blah blah blah. Johnny Diaz theology is awesome for awkward teenage girls. It's just a little milky for me. And Lucy in the book wanted to be beautiful and get attention like Susan (she didn't want to BE Susan, fyi), but she didn't sit and dwell on it for very long. Aslan drove that vanity from her head with one roar and she was tempted by something else. Anyway, I would have preferred Aslan's lines to be closer to what was in the book, but as I already said, they got the most important line.

I'm just really annoyed they left out another important group of lines:

Aslan: "Do not look so sad. We shall meet soon again."
Lucy: "Please, Aslan, what do you call soon?"
Aslan: "I call all times soon."

Mmm.

Now, I was pleased with the way they made Eustace the Dragon look/act/etc. That was awesome. I was a little confused with what they did with him because it was VERY different from the book. With that being said, given all the rest of the changes they made to the story, I actually LIKE what they did with the Dragon. I liked that they kept him in the film longer as a Dragon and I liked that they had Eustace be the one to put the sword on the table and save everyone (though the glowing blue swords seemed to be a ripoff from the Hobbit...oh well, Tolkien and Lewis will probably have a good laugh about that if there are Inklings meetings in heaven--and I'm kinda hoping there will be and that I'll get to sit in on them). I liked that the epic battle with the sea serpent took place on the dark island (even though it took place much earlier in the book). Given all the other changes they had made to the story, the rest of it just made sense. I would have preferred they had left the story alone as much as possible, but given the changes they'd made, they actually managed to create a decent storyline with Eustace as a Dragon who gained redemption by placing the final sword. Also, I'm VERY happy they worked hard to foster an onscreen friendship between Eustace and Reepicheep. Reepicheep is awesome.

What does kind of bother me is how they handled Eustace's transformation from Dragon back into a human. Now, I do like that Aslan just scratched the sand and those scratches were what cut into Eustace. BUT, here's what bothered me. How he just burst into light and fire during his transformation reminded me of another film...another kid's movie...another cartoon from the 90's. Beauty and the Beast. Tale as old as time, baby.

SIGH.

All in all, I'm displeased that the filmmakers seemed to miss the point of the story, but they did some interesting things with the changes that I did like. I will want to see this movie again, mainly because I'm not sure how much I liked it--but I think I did. I shed some tears (oh, Reepicheep). It left me wanting a sequel (I WANT PUDDLEGLUM!!!). I am a little afraid with what they'll do with "Silver Chair," but we'll see.