Some of you may remember my “Times the Movie was ActuallyBetter than the Book” post. I’ve decided to have a “Book Versus Movie” post on
occasion. That doesn’t mean that the movie will be better. I can see some of
you in my mind’s eye going, “Duh, the book is always better.” If that’s you, go
read the aforementioned post.
To start off this series of posts, let’s talk about Disney’s
A Wrinkle in Time. You may recall
that I reread the first few books of the series in anticipation of the movie’s
release. I had decent hopes for it, but ended up not seeing it in theaters
because of all the bad things I was hearing about it. I finally watched it a
few weeks ago (Thank you, Netflix), and while I don’t feel the need to be quite
as critical as some comments I’ve read, this is definitely a case where the
book was better than the movie.
I had a few hopes/expectations for this film:
- If nothing else, it would be pretty. The trailers seemed to promise that.
- It would be better than the made for TV version that Disney made in the early 2000’s. If you haven’t seen it, I would suggest that you don’t bother.
- It would be a decent representation of the book despite whatever changes the creators of the film chose to make.
A little side note: I’m not one of those people who will
hate a movie just because it’s not a copy and paste format of the book. Some
things that work better on the page don’t work in quite the same way on the
screen. I also sometimes value the different choices made in telling the story
because you can actually end up taking more out of a story by having the two
forms of media working together.
That being said, the film just didn’t quite live up to its
full potential. It’s evident that a lot of time, thought, and effort went into
the film. It truly was beautiful to watch as far as settings and good use of
CGI. There were some changes that I was totally fine with them making (the
absence of Meg’s twin brothers, for example, as that would have taken extra
time and potentially distracted the audience with two new faces that would
really only be a part of the story for about a minute). There were some other
changes that I wasn’t quite sure why they did it (Mrs. Whatsit turning into a
giant lettuce lady comes to mind).
Whether you’re for or against the various changes from book
to film (I won’t get into all of them), there was one thing that stuck out in
my mind as I watched it. I felt like I didn’t truly know who these characters
were, at least not from my movie watching experience. I knew who they were
because I had read the book. There just seemed to be something lacking.
One example in particular involves Charles Wallace. As we
head towards the climax of the story as told in the book, it is very clear that
we each have strengths and flaws and that both of those things can either aid
or inhibit us in certain situations. In the book, Charles Wallace is
specifically warned upon their arrival at Camazotz, and it becomes blatantly
clear why he was given that warning. Although he believes he’s doing what’s
best, he ultimately is nearly lost to the darkness and has to be rescued. This
sequence in the movie didn’t have quite the same effect, and I believe that’s
because some of the dialogue and setup was either omitted or slightly changed.
While one of the overarching messages of the book is still
present—Meg’s struggle with self-esteem while learning about her own strengths
and flaws as well as the power of love—it still felt like we were missing some
of the essence of the original story. There are some scenes they could have
done differently, or even possibly cut, to make way for a deeper sense of
connection with the characters.
The movie did some things well, but in the end, the book was
the clear winner for me.
What are your thoughts? Is there anyone out there who liked
the movie better? I promise I’ll still be your friend if that’s the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment