I'm not sure I have ever heard anyone say that he or she preferred a movie more than the novel, short story, or play on which that particular film is based or from which it is adapted. I am certain there are some people out there who have said such a thing outside of my presence, so I will not insist that such a declaration is impossible to make. I will, however, say that such a statement, namely that a film is better than its literary inspiration, is usually unlikely. Movies are mere copies of an original, and if Michael Keaton taught us anything about making copies (whoa, did I just heard Rob Schneider's Copy Machine Guy?), it is that a copy is never " well, as sharp as the original." "Hey Steve, did ya bring me any pizza, Steve?" (from film Multiplicity).
I have recently read two books which have reinforced my opinion that a book is generally (I won't say always; too paranoid of being disproved, you see) better than the cinematic adaptation. One is The Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson Burnett and the other is Sarah, Plain and Tall by Patricia MacLachlan.
The Secret Garden
Thinking back, I remember watching a particular 1987 Hallmark film adaptation of this novel, starring Colin Firth, Derek Jacobi, and Michael Hordern, to name a few of the better known actors who graced that film with their presence. I believe there was a remake done by Warner Brothers in 1993 starring a fairly non-prolific cast of actors, but I have not seen it, nor do I intend to. Consequently, I will only dedicate those few words to it. The movie with which I will compare the novel will be the Hallmark film I mentioned previously.
Now, before I begin to compare anything or explain the reasoning for my preference, I should like to state that I enjoyed the movie for many years, having nothing to compare it to because I only recently read the book. Therefore, judging the movie on its own merits, I think it was quite well done. It is only now that I have read the book that I see the film as a somewhat inferior, though admirable, attempt at recreating Burnett's original story.
The film begins with Mary Lennox, who has just returned to Misslethwaite Manor after WWII. She leans back against a tree and begins to contemplate the many memories she has of the garden and the house and the people who lived there. These memories, of course, make up the rest of movie, or at least most of it. The very end of the film takes place when the old caretaker, Ben Witherstaff, wakes her out of her retrospective state and lets her into the garden. The book on the other hand makes no mention of this older Mary Lennox, nor of a romance between her and Colin Craven, the little crippled boy whom Mary helped to walk early on in their childhood. The book begins with the spoiled Mary in India, watching as the the people around her, as well as her negligent parents, are killed in an outbreak of plague, and ends with the reconciliation of Colin Craven to his father. No romance is mentioned, nor is it necessary. In that respect, the book manages to keep our attention on the innocence and blossoming potential of youth, rather than distracting us with romantic notions between the characters.
The book also contains a better, more mystical treatment of the maid Martha Sowerby's brother Dickon and her mother, Susan. Their role in the journey of Mary and Colin toward self-actualization is much more pronounced in the novel, while in the film, the good qualities of Dickon and Susan Sowerby, as well as their influence on Mary and Colin is, in many ways, almost non-existent.
Realistically, I think both productions have their place, and while I, as you already know, find the book to be superior in the ways I have previously mentioned, I also think that both the book and the movie are both worthy of attention.
Sarah, Plain and Tall
The film production of this book, starring Glenn Close and Christopher Walken, was made by Hallmark back in 1991. The story follows the story of a woman named Sarah who, in response to matrimonial advertisement, leaves her beloved Maine with all of its wonders for the prairies of the Midwest to live with a widower and his two children. Sarah learns to love all of them, but eventually she must decide if she would rather be with them or back in Maine.
Because the book is extremely short (under 70 pages of large print), the makers of the film were obviously forced to elaborate or exaggerate or invent certain details. Also, the focus of the film centers on the two adults, Sarah and Jacob (the widower), instead of the children, whom Patricia MacLachlan obvious intended to have as the center of the story. Such an obvious change, though characteristic of Hallmark movies it seems, does two things for the film, which I believe makes it inferior to the book: 1) Once again, the story becomes a romance between two adults, instead of the story of one child who is still grieving over the loss of her mother and her little brother (who was a baby when his mother passed away) as he deals with the fear of losing the closest thing to a mother he has ever known. MacLachlan highlights these intricacies of sentiment in the story, while the movie, though not completely skipping over them, brushes them away somewhat indifferently at times.
Once again, both are worth the time it takes to view and read. However, I must once again announce that the book wins out, as it usually does.
No comments:
Post a Comment