Why I Don't Actually Hate The Movie: A Year of the Tesseract Post
Series Intro: to celebrate the 50th anniversary of my FAVORITE BOOK EVER, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L'Engle, I am filling 2012 with BLOG POSTS EXPLORING EVERY POSSIBLE ASPECT OF THIS BOOK IN GREAT DEPTH. I call it the Year of the Tesseract, and you can see what I've written already by clicking the year of the tesseract tag. There WILL be spoilers for Wrinkle and possibly other books throughout. So just go read it, already. Moving on:
I'm supposed to hate the made-for-TV Disney movie of A Wrinkle In Time. It's my favorite book, and it's NOT a great movie. And what happened to Meg's glasses?! All true fans of the book are supposed to speak of the movie with derision. But I don't. Sure, it's no Lord of the Rings-- I don't think it's amazing cinema, nor is it a wonderfully faithful recreation of the story. But I enjoyed watching it on TV, and even got it out of the library later to watch again with bonus features. I have no hard feelings for it. So here I'd like to spell out why.
I've been trying to work out, in anticipation of this post, just why I'm more willing to accept some adaptations of favorite books than others. I think there are two factors at work. The first is RESPECT for the source material-- not strict adherence to the book, but not using the book as just a jumping off point for the movie-makers' completely separate visions, either. (This is why, while the rest of the world may gush over the lush wonderfulness of Studio Ghibli's Howl's Moving Castle, I will continue to GLARE AT IT SAVAGELY FOR DESTROYING EVERYTHING THAT MADE HOWL A UNIQUE AND INCREDIBLE CHARACTER. Thank you). The second, and possibly this includes the first as part of it, is EXPECTATION. I'm more likely to be let down by an adaptation if I expect it to be as good as the original.* But if I go in with the attitude of, Hey, let's just roll with this and see what they do, I'm more likely to have a positive experience.
And this was MADE FOR TV. By DISNEY, a studio hardly known for faithful adaptations. I did not expect much AT ALL. But I knew this much: it had to be better than the terrible filmstrip we had to watch in 6th grade, which sent my not-as-well-read classmates into cries of "That was boring!" amid my feeble protestations of "but the book was GREAT! REALLY!" So I watched more with curiosity than excitement, and discovered, perversely, quite a lot to be pleased about.
Casting, well... nearly nobody was exactly The Character in My Head-- or even close-- looks-wise, but they weren't terribly WRONG, either. Sure, I identified more with gawky bespectacled Meg, but Movie-Meg managed to capture the frustration and barely repressed rage and self-loathing that are truly and utterly Meg's as well. The movie wasn't afraid to acknowledge that Meg is actually a bit of a delinquent. And going in, I knew the casting of Charles Wallace would make or break any adaptation, because overly-intelligent young children can be really annoying and unbelievable in film (Charles Wallace in that filmstrip in 6th grade? I cringed whenever he opened his mouth)-- but this one worked. Movie-Charles Wallace came across as a supergenius who really was still five years old. Adorable, not creepy. Or annoying.
But the single greatest bit of casting was for a part so small that he wasn't even referred to by name in the movie, and technically had a different job description than he had in the book, AND YET-- wow-- I think he did his homework for the part: MR. JENKINS. If they ever decide to make A Wind in the Door they can just keep the same cast, because Mr. Jenkins was THERE in his whole self: the complex man with his own issues and insecurities underneath the image of archnemesis Meg projects on him. I completely believed that was the very same Mr. Jenkins there, trying to give Meg counseling, in just that small scene.
The other moment that made me sure SOMEBODY'D done their homework was when Calvin first meets Mrs. Murry and finds out she's a biologist. What's the first thing he says (paraphrased, it's been a few years)? "Really? I've been getting interested in starfish regeneration...." I LOVE YOU, SCRIPTWRITER. Of COURSE Calvin would have said that! One doesn't grow up to become the World's Leading Authority on starfish regeneration without having developed SOME interest in the subject in ones youth! And when meeting someone working in the same general field, one IS bound to mention such an interest (because of course he's thrilled to meet someone who will understand in the first place!). It always bugged me that Calvin grew up to be a great scientist, when he only married INTO a family of great scientists, without having shown any PARTICULAR interest in science in his youth. But there, this lovely screenwriter tied it all together with just one line.
There were a lot of little details that made me feel the scriptwriter DID, INDEED have respect for the source material. The inclusion of the starwatching rock. Mrs. Murry's home lab. For the most part I could take or leave the rest of the movie's idiosyncrasies. I kind of dug the androgynous Happy Medium, but was taken aback by Mrs Which's bright yellow dress. But I will say I did have two major problems with the movie-- two things, rather than being a simple matter of artistic leeway, I thought were handled Dead Wrong.
#1: That permanent storm in the skies of Camazotz. It's not just that it's a cheesy way to show that "This is an Evil setting." It also robs Camazotz of some of its true creepiness. In the book Camazotz is spoken of with shudders: the horror of a planet that has fallen to the Black Thing, a dangerous, deadly place where angels literally fear to tread, and you start imagining all sorts of hellish monster-laden scenarios. And then you arrive and... it looks just like Earth. More than anywhere else you've been yet on this adventure. You wander into what looks like an ordinary suburban neighborhood, and it's only gradually you realize that something here is Very Very Wrong. And how creepy could they MAKE that on film today, using digital effects and editing to make every house exactly alike, but for photoshopped-in color differences or whatnot, to make EVERY ball and EVERY jump rope perfectly synced. IT COULD HAVE BEEN SO AWESOME. Instead it was... cheesy.
#2: Why does "happy ending" have to mean "our heroine single-handedly saves the universe"? Okay, it wasn't that extreme, but she still managed to take down a huge world-wide totalitarian system that CONTROLLED PEOPLE'S BRAINS. Sure, everyone loves an underdog. But she didn't need to have that kind of success in order to have done the impossible. Surely, in the history of Camazotz, others have tried to revolt and failed, which makes having an unremarkable teenager with low-self-esteem suddenly able to do it seem a little over the top. TOO perfect. TOO unbelievable. It was enough that she was able to fight IT at all, to not only have helped her father, her soon-to-be boyfriend, and herself to escape without getting sucked in, but to have pulled her brother out of that hive-mind without hurting him or get sucked in again herself. WHAT SHE DID WAS STILL AMAZING AND UNPRECEDENTED, small-scale as it was. That's part of why the message of Wrinkle is so powerful: that in the Grand Cosmic Battle of Good and Evil, even ordinary people can make a difference-- that one girl saving her brother is just as important as a star exploding to burn away the darkness. Even the little things matter. Why cheapen that with a Hollywood ending?
But that's two things, just two real problems in the whole made-for-TV-don't-expect-much film. I ENJOYED MYSELF, watching it, more than I enjoyed Technically Great movies I thought were adapted wrong, like Prisoner of Azkaban and the aforementioned Howl's Moving Castle (although that technically only had ONE major Dead Wrong problem, but we're talking the ENTIRE PERSONALITY OF THE TITLE CHARACTER here! It's WEIGHTED!) I'm not saying it's a Must-See or anything, and I wouldn't dream of implying it comes anywhere near the awesomeness of the book (very few movies do, even the good ones. Holes is a TERRIFIC movie, and seriously, speaking of movie characters who are Exactly The Characters In My Head, THE WARDEN, seriously, WAS SHE NOT PERFECT, but it's just a fun family movie in comparison to the SHEER BRILLIANCE that is the book. Lord of the Rings obviously is one that matches or possibly exceeds in some ways. And I'm sorry, but I will stand by the movie of Mary Poppins being better than the book until my dying day). But I don't think it's WORTH HATING on as much as people do.
As it turns out, there's rumors of a new feature film adaption being worked on as we speak. In fact I just stumbled upon it on a list of Upcoming Movies Based On Books just the other day. Although I think somebody got their facts wrong. Eh... it all remains to be seen. We'll roll with it.
----
*(I am NOT getting overexcited for Hunger Games, I am NOT getting overexcited for Hunger Games, I am NOT getting overexcited for Hunger Games, I am NOT...)
I'm supposed to hate the made-for-TV Disney movie of A Wrinkle In Time. It's my favorite book, and it's NOT a great movie. And what happened to Meg's glasses?! All true fans of the book are supposed to speak of the movie with derision. But I don't. Sure, it's no Lord of the Rings-- I don't think it's amazing cinema, nor is it a wonderfully faithful recreation of the story. But I enjoyed watching it on TV, and even got it out of the library later to watch again with bonus features. I have no hard feelings for it. So here I'd like to spell out why.
I've been trying to work out, in anticipation of this post, just why I'm more willing to accept some adaptations of favorite books than others. I think there are two factors at work. The first is RESPECT for the source material-- not strict adherence to the book, but not using the book as just a jumping off point for the movie-makers' completely separate visions, either. (This is why, while the rest of the world may gush over the lush wonderfulness of Studio Ghibli's Howl's Moving Castle, I will continue to GLARE AT IT SAVAGELY FOR DESTROYING EVERYTHING THAT MADE HOWL A UNIQUE AND INCREDIBLE CHARACTER. Thank you). The second, and possibly this includes the first as part of it, is EXPECTATION. I'm more likely to be let down by an adaptation if I expect it to be as good as the original.* But if I go in with the attitude of, Hey, let's just roll with this and see what they do, I'm more likely to have a positive experience.
And this was MADE FOR TV. By DISNEY, a studio hardly known for faithful adaptations. I did not expect much AT ALL. But I knew this much: it had to be better than the terrible filmstrip we had to watch in 6th grade, which sent my not-as-well-read classmates into cries of "That was boring!" amid my feeble protestations of "but the book was GREAT! REALLY!" So I watched more with curiosity than excitement, and discovered, perversely, quite a lot to be pleased about.
Casting, well... nearly nobody was exactly The Character in My Head-- or even close-- looks-wise, but they weren't terribly WRONG, either. Sure, I identified more with gawky bespectacled Meg, but Movie-Meg managed to capture the frustration and barely repressed rage and self-loathing that are truly and utterly Meg's as well. The movie wasn't afraid to acknowledge that Meg is actually a bit of a delinquent. And going in, I knew the casting of Charles Wallace would make or break any adaptation, because overly-intelligent young children can be really annoying and unbelievable in film (Charles Wallace in that filmstrip in 6th grade? I cringed whenever he opened his mouth)-- but this one worked. Movie-Charles Wallace came across as a supergenius who really was still five years old. Adorable, not creepy. Or annoying.
But the single greatest bit of casting was for a part so small that he wasn't even referred to by name in the movie, and technically had a different job description than he had in the book, AND YET-- wow-- I think he did his homework for the part: MR. JENKINS. If they ever decide to make A Wind in the Door they can just keep the same cast, because Mr. Jenkins was THERE in his whole self: the complex man with his own issues and insecurities underneath the image of archnemesis Meg projects on him. I completely believed that was the very same Mr. Jenkins there, trying to give Meg counseling, in just that small scene.
The other moment that made me sure SOMEBODY'D done their homework was when Calvin first meets Mrs. Murry and finds out she's a biologist. What's the first thing he says (paraphrased, it's been a few years)? "Really? I've been getting interested in starfish regeneration...." I LOVE YOU, SCRIPTWRITER. Of COURSE Calvin would have said that! One doesn't grow up to become the World's Leading Authority on starfish regeneration without having developed SOME interest in the subject in ones youth! And when meeting someone working in the same general field, one IS bound to mention such an interest (because of course he's thrilled to meet someone who will understand in the first place!). It always bugged me that Calvin grew up to be a great scientist, when he only married INTO a family of great scientists, without having shown any PARTICULAR interest in science in his youth. But there, this lovely screenwriter tied it all together with just one line.
There were a lot of little details that made me feel the scriptwriter DID, INDEED have respect for the source material. The inclusion of the starwatching rock. Mrs. Murry's home lab. For the most part I could take or leave the rest of the movie's idiosyncrasies. I kind of dug the androgynous Happy Medium, but was taken aback by Mrs Which's bright yellow dress. But I will say I did have two major problems with the movie-- two things, rather than being a simple matter of artistic leeway, I thought were handled Dead Wrong.
#1: That permanent storm in the skies of Camazotz. It's not just that it's a cheesy way to show that "This is an Evil setting." It also robs Camazotz of some of its true creepiness. In the book Camazotz is spoken of with shudders: the horror of a planet that has fallen to the Black Thing, a dangerous, deadly place where angels literally fear to tread, and you start imagining all sorts of hellish monster-laden scenarios. And then you arrive and... it looks just like Earth. More than anywhere else you've been yet on this adventure. You wander into what looks like an ordinary suburban neighborhood, and it's only gradually you realize that something here is Very Very Wrong. And how creepy could they MAKE that on film today, using digital effects and editing to make every house exactly alike, but for photoshopped-in color differences or whatnot, to make EVERY ball and EVERY jump rope perfectly synced. IT COULD HAVE BEEN SO AWESOME. Instead it was... cheesy.
#2: Why does "happy ending" have to mean "our heroine single-handedly saves the universe"? Okay, it wasn't that extreme, but she still managed to take down a huge world-wide totalitarian system that CONTROLLED PEOPLE'S BRAINS. Sure, everyone loves an underdog. But she didn't need to have that kind of success in order to have done the impossible. Surely, in the history of Camazotz, others have tried to revolt and failed, which makes having an unremarkable teenager with low-self-esteem suddenly able to do it seem a little over the top. TOO perfect. TOO unbelievable. It was enough that she was able to fight IT at all, to not only have helped her father, her soon-to-be boyfriend, and herself to escape without getting sucked in, but to have pulled her brother out of that hive-mind without hurting him or get sucked in again herself. WHAT SHE DID WAS STILL AMAZING AND UNPRECEDENTED, small-scale as it was. That's part of why the message of Wrinkle is so powerful: that in the Grand Cosmic Battle of Good and Evil, even ordinary people can make a difference-- that one girl saving her brother is just as important as a star exploding to burn away the darkness. Even the little things matter. Why cheapen that with a Hollywood ending?
But that's two things, just two real problems in the whole made-for-TV-don't-expect-much film. I ENJOYED MYSELF, watching it, more than I enjoyed Technically Great movies I thought were adapted wrong, like Prisoner of Azkaban and the aforementioned Howl's Moving Castle (although that technically only had ONE major Dead Wrong problem, but we're talking the ENTIRE PERSONALITY OF THE TITLE CHARACTER here! It's WEIGHTED!) I'm not saying it's a Must-See or anything, and I wouldn't dream of implying it comes anywhere near the awesomeness of the book (very few movies do, even the good ones. Holes is a TERRIFIC movie, and seriously, speaking of movie characters who are Exactly The Characters In My Head, THE WARDEN, seriously, WAS SHE NOT PERFECT, but it's just a fun family movie in comparison to the SHEER BRILLIANCE that is the book. Lord of the Rings obviously is one that matches or possibly exceeds in some ways. And I'm sorry, but I will stand by the movie of Mary Poppins being better than the book until my dying day). But I don't think it's WORTH HATING on as much as people do.
As it turns out, there's rumors of a new feature film adaption being worked on as we speak. In fact I just stumbled upon it on a list of Upcoming Movies Based On Books just the other day. Although I think somebody got their facts wrong. Eh... it all remains to be seen. We'll roll with it.
----
*(I am NOT getting overexcited for Hunger Games, I am NOT getting overexcited for Hunger Games, I am NOT getting overexcited for Hunger Games, I am NOT...)