So, I would like to preface everything I'm about to say with the fact that I really liked this movie. The beginning was insanely rushed from an adaptation standpoint and just a regular movie standpoint. But as soon as they got together their chemistry (as well as the story that they did keep from the books) carried the movie.
I was tearing up when the crowds gathered to support Henry and Alex. And I was grinning through the end. The sex scenes were great and they kept a bit of the humor from the book, if only sometimes a little more cringy...
All of that is great, but I have to agree with a few other comments I've seen that say that it's a great movie, but a bad adaptation...
The character changes are extreme and honestly unnecessary.
The fact that they fused June and Nora together is stupid and the only reason I can see that they would do that was so that they didn't have to pay two actresses...
June was an important part of the story and this merge not only deletes her character but changes Nora's entire personality...so really we didn't get either of them.
I can understand deleting Rafael Luna. It makes me sad and does take away from the story, but I can understand there not being enough time to give his story the respect that it deserves.
But to sudo replace him with a young reporter named Miguel who previously hooked up with Alex and ultimately leaks the emails....NO. What is the point of that...? What is the point of turning an important mentor in his life that had deeply emotional reasons to betray their family into an ex-fling that presumably only betrayed Alex for his career....? EW
The fact that Leo was deleted is sad, but it's so much worse that Ellen and Oscar are happily married in the movie!!! Not only that but used as an example that relationships that seem like a longshot can work...NOOOO.
The issues with his parents were a HUGE part of Alex's character and a bonding point between him and Henry!
And I CANNOT BELIEVE that they included the key in a version where his parents are still happily married...
And on a lighter note, the fact that they joked about Ellen making a PowerPoint for Alex's coming out, but didn't do it is disappointing.
Also, the fact that "History, huh?" was spoken verbally in the movie, thus not part of the emails, thus not being shared with the public and the absence of the mural is just sad.
I think they should have stuck more strictly to the book and made it a limited series instead of a movie to give them more time to tell the story properly.
Ultimately I'd still give the movie an 8/10 because I liked it, but as an adaptation, it gets a 5/10 and that's being generous.
HEY! I’m sure all of the shakespeople have heard about this fucking movie:
Directed by Joel “allergic to emotional depth” Coen, who managed to take objectively pretty cool visual design and irrevocably fuck it up. There was an astounding lack of understanding (of both the text itself and how to direct shakespeare for film) demonstrated on the part of the writer/director.
I saw it in theaters and wanted my money back. Don’t bother with this adaptation, lads.
Hey~ new people who followed for my dress theory post! Happy to have you here!
In the next few weeks I'm going to start a series of posts where i watch Snow White adaptations and discuss how they've interacted with the fairy tale, as well as just my thoughts on them as movies. This will include straight up Snow White films, comedy versions, twisted fairy tale versions, and inspired-by films.
I don't know exactly when I'm starting this, or how regular it'll be so just keep an eye out for long posts
Adaptation Review: 1984 at the American Repertory Theater
Adaptation Review: 1984 at the American Repertory Theater #1984play @americanrep
It’s impossible to talk about a theatrical adaptation of a book without discussing spoilers, so if you haven’t ever read 1984, you might want to go pick up a copy and read it and come back to this review later. (And by might want to I mean my god, reader, how have you not? Get thee to it!) The American Repertory Theater (ART) is a really cool theater in Cambridge, MA (right in Harvard Square)…
The movie adaptation of Lois Lowry’s “The Giver” succeeded in becoming an extensively dumbed-down version of the classic novel. Of course, when dumbing-down a classic, it is important to remember the finished product will be an atrocious skeleton of untapped potential.
The movie failed to fully embody its novel counterpart because Lowry’s world was not properly defined at the onset and three main elements of the novel were over-looked. One: the Giver and Receiver are the only characters who experience true emotions. Two: the Giver and Receiver are not monitored by any other character. Three: death or loss of the Receiver-of-Memory is not in the best interest of the community.
I understand the book and movie mediums must take different approaches to story-telling. However, every story must start by clearly explaining the setting to the audience. Lowry spent one third of “The Giver” guiding her readers through Jonas’ world before Jonas was named Receiver-of-Memory. By comparison, the movie spends half as much time on the details of community life, and left the viewer without a strong sense of the community’s culture. This hurried introduction makes it difficult to recognize when changes, such as character development, take place.
The break-neck movie opening then sets up a lack-luster coming-of-age ceremony for Jonas. The novels entire message revolves around the fallout of this one ceremony but, somehow, the Chief Elder fails to adequately explain the position’s significance in a way which is actually memorable. The scene’s poor writing does not communicate something special has just taken place. And, because I know their are critis who will argue the ceremony was in keeping with the community's culture to gloss over anything which makes somebody "different" or "more special," I feel I must clarify that THIS difference was revered by the community. THIS difference made Jonas instantaneously "separate." THIS difference was supposed to be highlighted.
So, why did the movie producers decide to rush through these important moments of the movie? The only reason I can think of is that they did not trust their audience's attention span. They were more concerned with avoiding negative reviews which said 'I fell asleep at the beginning' than they were with telling the actual story. They simplified other elements of the book as well. For instance, they did not trust a modern audience's ability to suspend their belief if no scientific explanation for memory-extraction was provided. So, they turned the book's pill which suppresses "stirrings" into a daily injection which is taken by every citizen including pre-pubescent children. What is the harm in such a small change? The harm is that all these small changes add up to a simflification of the "real" story-line, and all these changes are rooted in the movie-maker's fear that the general public is unable to grasp more complex concepts. The result: a dumbed-down mess of ideas. The even scarier notion is that the true danger of "dumbing-down" is it makes potent ideas less radical and less dangerous. Thus, the lack of more complex ideas in this movie is particularly sad because the novel is based upon a culture where the citizens are not trusted to think for themselves. So, hey, movie makers! Trust you audience!
Besides the unclear community culture and inadequate job description, I was greatly disturbed when I realized Jonas and the Giver were not the only two characters who seemed to understand true emotions. While the Chief Elder recollects several memories, Jonas’ friends, Asher and Fiona, demonstrate an emotional attachment to Jonas. While I am sure the ultimate goal was to make Asher and Fiona more likable to movie-goers, the unprecedented character development undermines the core of Lowry’s work. Jonas needs to be the only character in the story that develops, because the contrast between him and the static characters is what ultimately becomes thought-provoking. I know producers may have feared Asher and Fiona would come across as bad friends, or worse, bad people if they remained stagnant. But, in my opinion, the producers should have had more faith in their audience’s intelligence. Viewers can recognize the difference between characters who are intentionally cruel and those who are too naïve to realize what their own actions mean.
I will, however, credit the producers with showing enough restraint to prevent the trio from becoming a love triangle. (Thank you for small miracles!)
The Chief Elder's knowledge of memories not only caused her on-screen time to become quite inflated compared to her in-book time, but it created a character who monitored and tried to control the Giver. She is a character who defies most details of who the Giver is supposed to be. He is the only member of the community who has a lock on his door. He is the only person who can break the rules and not be punished. He answers to nobody, yet his movie-self seems to be playing a game of cat-and-mouse with the Chief Elder. The notion seems ridiculous to me. Thus, of course, long before Jonas starts running for his life I have solidly decided the movie is a far cry from the novel it is supposed to represent.
I will admit, despite my overall disappointment, the movie does have its charming moments. The scenes where Jonas is playing with the baby his “family” is looking after are heartwarming, and the memory montages are breathtaking. Regardless, the book was better. (No surprise there!)
For more reviews of movies that are based on books, go here.
Or A Script Can Still Be Considered A Book Right? Right!
Background: The Fantasticks opened in 1960 with music by Harvey Schmidt and lyrics by Tom Jones. The story is loosely based on Les Romanesques by Edmund Rostand. Today it is one of the longest running musicals, with the revival reopening in 2006 (notably with Santino Fontano, who played Hans in Frozen, as Matt). It is also one of my favorite shows and Louisa is a dream role for me.
About the Movie: Matt and Louisa are lovers who's fathers' feud forbids them from being together. However the feuds a fake, developed by their fathers so that they would get together. With the help of El Gallo they plan to end the feud and get the lovers together. But remember, life doesn't end on a moonlit night.
Why it works: I love El Gallo owning a traveling carnival. It allows them to create a fantasy world without deviating too far from the laws of reality. El Gallo himself is great, having the same kind of older allure as David Bowie in Labyrinth (now I really want David Bowie to play El Gallo). The Dads are also great with their very distinctive walls. I especially love Bellamy. When he and Huckabee get found out by their kids, his face to Louisa killed me. Henry and Mortimer are fine, and it was nice to add some elements of the Mute with casting Teller of Penn and Teller as Mortimer. Plus, I love how they do "Round and Round", although not a big fan of the word changes and Matt's annoying screams.
Why it doesn’t: I can't stand Louisa and Matt in this. I think they're voices are the weakest. In fact, the singing is the weakest thing about this, which is terrible for a musical movie! Cutting stuff so that Huckabee doesn't really have to sing, changing songs to fit actors, cutting "Try to Remember" at the beginning (?!). In the end, it just doesn't work. It just leaves me missing "It Depends On What You Pay" and "Plant a Radish".
Quick reviews
On it’s own: My heart is breaking | Shit shit shit! | Use on your enemies | That was painful | Could have been better | Eh | Waiting to see if it gets better | Surprisingly good | Really liked it | Passionately loved it | THIS IS PERFECTION!
As an adaptation: My heart is breaking | You didn’t even try | Did you read the source material? | Hilarious fuck-up | Missed some important shit | Eh | Missed some minor shit | Covered everything | Pays tribute | Brought something new | THIS IS PERFECTION!
Conclusion: While I think the singing is bad, it does technically cover almost everything so it still gets a not -so-bad score as an adaptation. It's fun to laugh at more than anything else so grab some theatre buddies and some alcohol and have fun!
Or Shock Value, Radical Choices, and a Pair of Shoes
Background: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz was written in 1900 by L. Frank Baum. It was made into a musical in 1902 and then more famously made into a movie in 1939. It eventually led Baum to write a full series related to the world. Over the years, The Wizard of Oz (as it was shorted to), has remained a staple in the American cannon, inspiring creativity today. It also is said to be an allegory arguing against the gold standard.
About the Book: Amy Gumm is just trying to survive day to day with a pregnant popular girl giving her shit and her alcoholic mom not caring. So when a tornado comes and whisks her trailer to Oz, she doesn't think it can get any worse. But Oz is different now with Dorothy in control. Now Amy must join with witches and monkeys and even the Wizard himself to finally end Dorothy's reign.
Why it works: Well, I mean, it's creative. It also knows about elements of the original series, not just adapting from the movie.
Why it doesn't: It may be creative but goodness does it depend heavily on shock value. It depends heavily on taking what you know from the original story and ramming you with a twisted version. It becomes a point where the characters don't feel remotely familiar, especially with ho "evil" they have all become. The love plot feels forced and the whole "chosen one" vibe that the witches treat Amy as seems not only unnecessary but overused. In addition the ending is rushed and I am ashamed I could not guess the twist.
Quick reviews
On it’s own: My heart is breaking | Shit shit shit! | Use on your enemies | That was painful | Could have been better | Eh | Waiting to see if it gets better | Surprisingly good | Really liked it | Passionately loved it | THIS IS PERFECTION!
As an adaptation: My heart is breaking | You didn’t even try | Did you read the source material? | Hilarious fuck-up | Missed some important shit | Eh | Missed some minor shit | Covered everything | Pays tribute | Brought something new | THIS IS PERFECTION!
Conclusion: I feel invested so I'll probably buy the next book, but I'm not happy about it. The series would really need to step it up and stop relying on shock value alone.
Background: The Princess Diaries was published in 2000 by Meg Cabot. The book did very well, becoming a New York Times best-seller and winning the Evergreen Young Adult Book Award as well as the TASL Tennessee Volunteer State Book Award. In less than a year it was made into a movie staring Anne Hathaway in her film debut as Mia and our Queen, Julie Andrews, as her Grandmother.
About the Movie: Mia Thermopolis just wants to date the cute guy in school, pass math, and basically just survive high school. Then she learns that she's the heir to the Genovian throne (Shut-UP!). Now she has to deal with Princess Lesson from her grandmother while dealing with her new unwanted popularity.
Why it works: It's fun, it's cheesy, it's girly, I'm biased! I still remember seeing this movie in theaters. Hell, it was the first cd I ever bought with my own money! My college roommates and I would sing quite loudly (sorry neighbors) the Genovian National Anthem at two in the morning. While I have heard the argument that it's the same old romantic comedy cliché's, which I won't deny, The Princess Diaries is important to my generation because it was probably the first romantic comedy that my generation saw. Plus, Mia is a likeable character, all of them are, and their performances make them believable as people, even these unlikely circumstances. Plus, our Queen, Julie Andrews!
Why it doesn't: Oh God, where to begin. For being a fun movie, it is a terrible adaptation! The location's changed, names are altered, a character's cut completely (but most of you don't even know who Tina is). This is fine, even understandable in some cases, and the books ended up giving a reason as to why Tina wasn't there. But two main things ended up happening. One, they killed off the dad. Rereading the first book for this, I realized the dad is kind of an important character. He becomes the link between Mia and her grandmother. He is torn between duty to his daughter and duty to his country which makes it more impactful when he does choose Mia. The second issue is that they changed all of the personalities radically. Mia becomes less of a free-spirited activist and more of the manic pixie dream girl. Lily becomes more about her show than about her causes. Lars/Joe does kind of gain more of a personality, which is good, but the Queen. Queen Clarisse Renaldi is made fucking nice! BULLSHIT! Queen Clarisse Renaldi is not nice, Queen Clarisse Renaldi is a fucking viper who only speaks French, criticizes everything you do, and has her eyeliner permanently tattooed from when she went through a phase in the 80's. God, imagine Julie Andrews as that Queen! That would have been awesome!
Quick reviews
On it’s own: My heart is breaking | Shit shit shit! | Use on your enemies | That was painful | Could have been better | Eh | Waiting to see if it gets better | Surprisingly good | Really liked it | Passionately loved it | THIS IS PERFECTION!
As an adaptation: My heart is breaking | You didn’t even try | Did you read the source material? | Hilarious fuck-up | Missed some important shit | Eh | Missed some minor shit | Covered everything | Pays tribute | Brought something new | THIS IS PERFECTION!
Conclusion: It's fun and girly and I'll be the first to admit I have some nostalgic bias. But had I not seen the movie first and had instead went in knowing the book, I'm sure I would've not like the movie as much as I do.
