"What do you think of the movie Ella Enchanted?" my friend, Nikki, asked me. We'd only been friends for a few weeks. This was a test that I needed to pass in order to cement our friendship.
I didn't pass, but it's okay, we're still friends.
"Okay," I said, sighing a long, low sigh. "The thing is: I love the movie Ella Enchanted. I love Anne Hathaway and Hugh Dancy and goofy musical numbers and untalented fairies and the modern-medieval clash. But, I watched the movie before I ever read the book! And I loved it so much. I watched it 1000 times. And then, by the time I read the book, I honestly didn't enjoy the book that much because I was like: 'wait, what the heck, where's dancing Hugh Dancy?' You know?"
"Nooooo," Nikki objected, "I used to like the movie too but then I read the book and I love it so much and the movie is just not the book."
"No, I know! It's like: have you ever seen Howl's Moving Castle?"
"Oh my gosh yes I love that movie!"
"Yeah, but have you ever read the book? Because..."
I don't always think "the book is better." I mean, don't get me wrong, I love books, but, sometimes...
- I loved the show Pretty Little Liars but when I read the books all I could think was, "How did this garbage ever become a show in the first place?"
- I really enjoyed the movie This is Where I Leave You but the book was written in first person and I did not particularly enjoy hanging out in the main character's thoughts.
- I enjoyed Me and Earl and the Dying Girl pretty equally as both a book and a movie.
- I was disappointed that Howl's Moving Castle deviated from the book (in 1000 large and tireless ways) but I enjoyed it pretty well (I just really wish that they didn't call it Howl's Moving Castle. Call it something else.)
- I love the movie Pride and Prejudice just as well as I love the book.
There are a lot of instances where I think, "if you judge the book and movie as separate things, you could be able to enjoy them both."
I think, though, that it's a little bit more challenging when the books that you're converting into movies are children's books. For one thing, some children's books are simply too short to make into a full length movie. That's why they had to add a bunch of junk into Where the Wild Things Are, The Cat in the Hat, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, and Polar Express. (When I told my mom the premise of this blogpost, she kept harping on Polar Express. I think it has her royally ticked off. I'm guessing she had to watch it one too many times as an elementary school teacher. Personally? I really enjoy Polar Express. Tom Hanks could make a full length movie of my most embarrassing moment from middle school and I'd probably still like it.)
Additionally, people are so emotionally attached to the stories that they loved in childhood. It makes it difficult for continuations or remakes to meet their expectations. It makes it difficult for continuations or remakes to do anything other than disappoint them, honestly. (Like, I'm sorry, but, did you hear that they're going to make a Nancy Drew TV show where Nancy Drew is an adult? Like a fifteen years later sort of thing? Because I'm not even giving that nonsense a chance, honestly. How dare they.)
I got started thinking about the whole turning children's books into movies issue recently because Paddington 2 just came out.
I didn't grow up reading Paddington. My knowledge of him was perfunctory. I'm not sure how you would feel about the Paddington films if you grew up loving Paddington bear. But, I started by reading A Bear Called Paddington and watching the first film.
I didn't grow up reading Paddington. My knowledge of him was perfunctory. I'm not sure how you would feel about the Paddington films if you grew up loving Paddington bear. But, I started by reading A Bear Called Paddington and watching the first film.
Michael Bond's A Bear Called Paddington is fantastic. It's pleasant and charming and full of lovely watercolor illustrations. It's written episodically rather than in a long narration. Like, if you were trying to describe the plot, you would just say, "This polite, but clumsy, bear moves in with a family and strange things happen." It's just a bunch of short stories about a lovely little bear. Paddington makes a mess of himself eating a sticky bun. Paddington floods the bathroom. Paddington gets lost. Paddington makes a mess of a storefront window. And so on and so forth. Michael Bond's second installment of Paddington, More About Paddington, has a similar setup. It's a catalog of incidents.
While some movies can be formed by pulling pretty directly from the book, Paddington, probably, could not. It would feel strange and aimless without some sort of overarching conflict pushing the narration forward. So, some changes were necessary in order to translate the story into film.
In the books, Paddington finds his home with the Browns right away. While, in the movie, Paddington meets the Browns early on, Mr. Brown and Judy were both, initially, reluctant to have Paddington stay with them whereas Mrs. Brown and Jon are both in favor of it. In the first movie, staying with the Browns is supposed to be a temporary solution. Paddington is supposed to find somewhere else to go. This gives the film a direction--a goal, a plot--but it also necessitates a change in the characters. Mr. Brown becomes distant and overly cautious. Judy's delight is replaced with disinterest and annoyance. Mrs. Brown becomes flightier and more passionate.
Some of the mishaps that strung the book together--Paddington making a mess of hismelf when he was trying to eat a sticky bun and Paddington flooding the bathroom--make their way into the film. For the most part, though, the storyline is new. The first film features Nicole Kidman as a taxidermist intent on catching and stuffing our quirky little bear friend. (This premise is extra disturbing because Paddington, ou know, talks. And thinks. And wears a litle red hat.)
In the second film, Paddington is an estblished member of the Brown household. He is intent on buying a pop-up book of London to send his aunt for her birthday, but while working towards this goal, he is framed for stealing the book. He and the Browns set out to prove his innocence.
The overarching plots in both films are things that I cannot imagine Michael Bond ever writing. A woman intent on killing and stuffing Paddington? Paddington being sent to prison and befriending criminals?
I'm not sure how someone who grew up loving the Paddington stories would feel about the Paddington films. The films deviate from the books a lot. These deviations, though, make the story translate onto film a little bit better. The characters are given an opportunity for development, flaws to overcome. New villianous characters are introduced to create plots that might appeal to multiple generations.
As someone who only read the Paddington books recently, though, I definitely enjoyed the movies. While a lot of the anecdotes and incidents that happen in the books don't happen in the films, the characters are carried over. Paddington still has an affinity for marmalade. He still gives people hard stares. He's still amicable and well-mannered. The neighborhood is still filled with colorful characters--the grumpy next door neighbor, the friendly antique store owner.
The best thing, though, is that the imagination carries over. There's a scene in the second film, when Paddington is looking through the pop-up book, where the character walks through the pop-up book. As we were leaving the theater, my mom said that this was her favorite part of the movie. I definitely agree with her. This was my favorite part of both films: the imagination that was depicted.
No comments:
Post a Comment