Change is a good thing...maybe?

Greetings, all.

Lately I've been feeling the great conviction as both a book and movie lover, to shed some light on film adaptations, which I think we can all agree are tricky. This is probably due to the fact that I keep running into more and more buzz, news, and speculation on upcoming movies (i.e.- The Great Gatsby), and have also been reading up on some articles on that infamous discussion which will undoubtedly never be resolved--BBC Pride & Prejudice vs Joe Wright's Pride & Prejudice (Matthew Macfadyen is my leading man, in case you were wondering).

When discussing something like this which tends to be so controversial and which holds the great potential of the looming threat of people breaking out in passionate argument, there is something you should know about me and my personal opinions: I love books, I love movies, and I don't usually get too ruffled about details that have been skewed, providing that they don't change the entire outcome of the story. I'm the person you were sitting next to in the theater at the midnight premier of the Harry Potter movies who just shrugged and said, "That's not so bad," much to the chagrin of people around me. Although even I, like everyone in this world, have my limits.

Now, that also leads me to point out one of the number one things which I encourage people to keep in mind when it comes to film adaptations of books:

It is never going to be perfect.

Never. There is always going to be something that isn't quite the same, and to that same effect--you can't make everybody happy. Even if a film adaptation is outstanding and nearly perfectly done, there is always going to be somebody who is bent out of shape because that one line wasn't said right, or that one scene was cut off, or because what's-his-name doesn't look the way they imagined. 

Having said all that, in my personal opinion, I feel that good and sometimes even excellent film adaptations are entirely achievable on a general level if these most basic of guidelines are adhered to:

1) Do your best to cast actors and actresses who actually look like the characters they are expected to portray.

    I made this #1 because it generally seems like it doesn't matter what else happens in the rest of the movie--if the leading man or lady makes their grand entrance and they don't look the part, then people are automatically going to be moaning their distress. I stick by what I said earlier when I mentioned that you cannot make everyone happy when you bring a character to life on the big screen. Minor changes are acceptable. However, that doesn't give you license to get "creative" and pick someone who looks nothing like the person they are expected to portray. Daniel Radcliffe has dark brown hair and blue eyes, but he still made a great Harry Potter. On the other hand, I can't even begin to list the cringe-worthy differences between the novel version of Little Women's Professor Bhaer and Gabriel Byrne, no matter how good of an actor he is. And, for the love of all that is holy, please choose someone who is at least somewhere within a 5-yr range of their character (cough*Greer Garson*Pride & Prejudice*cough). On the totally opposite side of the coin, I'd have to say the best on-screen character representation I've seen would have to be Gemma Arterton in Tess of the D'Urbervilles, hands-down.

Such a basic thing to make your target audience happy. So just remember:

TRAVESTY:

BAD:

BETTER:

BEST:

2) Do not change the story.
    You can be forgiven for the occasional line fub, and we won't entirely hold it against you if you mesh some scenes together for times sake. We will probably even overlook a small number of location details, but if these things or anything else are part of an overall equation that leads to a totally and completely different story, then you're condemned.

3) Don't make a character into a person that they are not.
    So, the movie has started and most of the theater is grumbling about the imperfect presence that is the main character but that's all they're doing for now--grumbling, huffing, sighing, etc. I guarantee that will instantly become much more vocal and violent if this impostor opens their mouth and says things in a manner, tone of voice, or with such facial expressions that it gives them a different personality than what was originally insinuated or intended in the book. I just hate to add fuel to the fire here, but my case in point would be Colin Firth's Darcy vs Matthew Macfadyen's Darcy. Entirely setting aside the fact that I think MM is McDreamy, the main reason I approve of him over CF is because he actually portrays some emotion towards the end of the movie, which is what happens in the book the last time I checked. Honestly, CF is too stiff and you can never discern any of the discomfort or emotion or love for Elizabeth that should be there--not even by the final scene.

FITZWILLIAM DARCY:

FAKEWILLIAM FARCEY:

4) Don't eliminate the entire ending of the story.
    I'm not talking about changing the outcome, as mentioned above. I'm talking about completely and totally cutting it out, like it never happened. When the 2011 version of Jane Eyre came out, I was excited to see it because I really enjoy the book. I went to see it, and the imagery was beautiful! The characters were okay. Overall, I was thinking, "You know, this is a pretty okay film adaptation. I might even watch it again." And then what happens?Nothing. It just ends....and not where it is supposed to. It doesn't show the proper ending of the story which is the whole point of the story. Never watching that one again.

Cute but not good enough. Shame on you, Cary Joji Fukunaga.

Those are the main and most basic rules I have on the list, however even I must admit there are some adaptations that will probably fail even if they do follow the rules (which are not more like guidelines). Unfortunately my main example of this would be the 2013 adaptation of The Great Gatsby. Naturally, as I'm sure you would probably guess, I love the book. I think it is an interesting and sad story that is told through amazing verbal images of life as the elite in the 1920s. Unfortunately, most people don't realize that film adaptations of that story have already been done and they were not at all successful. Every once in a while you just run across a story that is wonderful in book form, but it just does not translate on the big screen. Besides The Great Gatsby, another example would be The Portrait of a Lady.

So, to be honest, I guess the main point of this was just a rant that led up to the fact that I will probably just watch The Great Gatsby from Redbox in the comfort of my home if I choose to invest in viewing it at all. And to say that Matthew Macfadyen wins.Always.

"Good books,like friends,are few and chosen; the more select,the more enjoyable."-Louisa May Alcott

Little Women

1868-69 novel

by Louisa May Alcott

Little Women is essentially a story about family.  The story follows the lives of the March sisters--Margaret "Meg," Josephine "Jo," Elizabeth "Beth," and Amy.  Each of them have their own distinct personalities, and occasionally those personalities clash, but time and again, with the help of their loving Father and Marmee, they learn important life lessons: the importance of love and family, forgiveness, having faith in their creator, accepting loss, etc. The story begins when Meg, the oldest of the sisters, is only sixteen, and it follows them, their adventures and life lessons over several years time. It doesn't just look at hard, trying or profound times, either. There are passages that make the reader laugh, and smile.

Louisa May Alcott

The story is written by Louisa May Alcott, and it has strong ties to her real life. The characters of the March family are all based on her real parents, her sisters and herself (as portrayed by Jo), and although the names were changed for most of them, nothing was changed about the character of her beloved sister, Beth--not even her name.  Many of the scenarios that are presented to the reader are actual memories belonging to Alcott of her family.  The story is even set in and around Alcott's childhood home, which is also where she wrote it.  Perhaps because of the deeply personal ties to the story, it is written in a way that makes the reader feel like they know the characters, and take a personal interest in what happens to them as the story goes on.

Alcott originally only wrote the first half of the novel (which is split into two parts) and had it published in 1868. She did not believe that it would be well received, or that people would be interested in it. Therefore, she only published to first part to begin with. To test the waters, if you will.  She was surprised at the warm reception, and agreed to finish the story, with the second half being published in 1869.

I honestly cannot even begin to express how much I love this story. The plot sounds so simple, almost like there is nothing to it, and maybe that's true, but it is so fascinating and fun. It's merely a coming of age story--a story about a family that will make you laugh, smile, cry, and keep turning the pages to figure out what happens to the girls and their loved ones.  I know so many people who have read this story, and I've found that even though the reader always loves the entire March family, they always have that one March sister which is their favorite. I know people whose favorite is Amy, or maybe Meg, or of course, free-spirited Jo. My own personal favorite is Beth. But no matter which sister wins your heart, everybody I know who has read the book loves it, and learns and grows along with the March family as they read.

Beth March

Of course, when there is a book beloved by so many, film adaptations are bound to follow.

There are several classic versions that have been brought to the public over the years:

A 1933 version starring Katharine Hepburn as Jo, Frances Dee as Meg, Jean Parker as Beth, and Joan Bennett as Amy.

A 1949 version starring June Allyson as Jo, Janet Leigh as Meg, Margaret O'Brien as Beth, and Elizabeth Taylor as Amy.

A 1978 version starring Susan Dey as Jo, Meredith Baxter Birney as Meg, Eve Plumb as Beth, and Ann Dusenberry as Amy.

If I were to choose which of the above mentioned classic versions of the movie as my favorite, I would have to say, after seeing all of them, the 1949 version, which I was raised on. We had it as a VHS tape when I was a kid and I watched it so many times I'm surprised it still works.

However, if I had to choose my absolute favorite version of the movie from all time, even though it might not qualify as a classic, it would have to be....

Little Women

1994

Starring Winona Ryder, Trini Alvarado, Claire Danes, Kirsten Dunst, Samantha Mathis, Christian Bale, and Susan Sarandon

This version is by far the best I have ever seen. There is just something about it that really encompasses the true feeling of family and love that you get when you read the book.

It's phenomenal, with Winona Ryder as spirited Jo, Trini Alvarado as pretty Meg, Claire Danes in her first film role as timid Beth, and artistic Amy portrayed both by Kirsten Dunst and Samantha Mathis as she ages.

Susan Sarandon really steps into the role of Marmee, in all her wisdom, and Christian Bale is Theodore "Teddy"/"Laurie" Laurence, the boy from next door.

The book presents such a beautiful story, written from the heart of Louisa May Alcott, and this movie is the only one that truly captures that on the screen, in my opinion.

Here is the trailer for the movie:

"There are many Beths in the world, shy and quiet, sitting in corners till needed, and living for others so cheerfully that no one sees the sacrifices till the little cricket on the hearth stops chirping, and the sweet, sunshiny presence vanishes, leaving silence and shadow behind."

"I may be strong-minded, but no one can say I'm out of my sphere now, for woman's special mission is supposed to be drying tears and bearing burdens."

-Jo March

"Give them all my dear love and a kiss.  Tell them I think of them by day, pray for them by night, and find my best comfort in their affection at all times.  A year seems very long to wait before I see them, but remind them that while we wait we may all work, so that these hard days need not be wasted.  I know they will remember all I said to them, that they will be loving children to you, will do their duty faithfully, fight their bosom enemies bravely, and conquer themselves so beautifully that when I come back to them I may be fonder and prouder than ever of my little women."

-A letter from Mr. March to Marmee