![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
A Wrinkle in Time
Okay, so I watched A Wrinkle in Time last night on ABC. Altogether pretty good.
What I didn't like:
*The pacing. Deadly slow. It easily could've been trimmed down from three to two hours.
*The ending. The book's ending is deliberately anti-climactic because they time-tesser back and end up returning home "only" five minutes later. In the movie, they return, there's a big teary reunion of the parents, a big teary farewell with the witches, a gratuitous (although rather sweet) final scene on the starwatching rock between Meg and Calvin AND a voiceover along the lines of "we lived happily ever after."
*The scene where they're naming the various Earth fighters against the dark thing: they name Marie Curie, Einstein, Shakespeare et al. but they leave out the name of Jesus. Come on, guys. That moment is highlighted in the book.
*Mrs. Which (the one with the quotations). Just didn't do me. Way too cutesy.
*The overall feeling of "we're making this for children"--I guess what I mean is excessive sentimentality. The book is fairly unsentimental--maybe her one lapse in that direction is the "dark cloud" that's basically physicalized evil, but I'm not sure I can think of a better way to depict that for children. There's a lot of cutesiness in the movie, mainly in the tone and the actors. Alfre Woodard would've impressed me more if she'd been weirder and thrown away her part more.
*The actors playing the twins. Sandy and Dennys are ostentatiously "normal" kids, as a deliberate contrast to Meg and Charles Wallace, and furthermore they're athletes. These kids looked too quirky, and were dressed up.
Now, what I did like:
*Really, most of it. They did a pretty decent job.
*The three main children (Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin) are EXCELLENT. Especially the actor playing CW--that is a difficult role to cast, because he has to look 4-5, has to actually BE intelligent, and has to be able really to ACT, because of his takeover by IT. This kid (David Dorfman) rocked. Completely believable in the role.
*Camazotz was fuckin' spooky as hell. They approach the town where all the houses look alike and it's dark and stormy outside--there's a constant greyness. Oh man, it was cool.
*They handled Charles's takeover by IT interestingly--the Man with the Red Eyes almost has to "woo" CW. He plays games with him where he appeals to CW's intelligence and curiosity and it makes sense. They also dramatized the scene where Meg rescues CW which is completely understandable because that scene is almost entirely interior in the book. It would be hard to have a scene in a movie that consists of a kid staring at a brain and his sister thinking about him for several minutes, and finally saying "I love you." In the movie, CW and the man with the red eyes are in a room taunting Meg, and she's taken into several alternative realities, and finally says she loves him, and notices this has a deleterious effect on the Man with the Red Eyes. She repeats it, and busts up the House of IT. IT is revealed beneath the floor as a giant brain with almost-tentacles--creepy as hell.
Other thoughts:
They simplified the message: the book has many messages, which include the power of love (most important, IMO) and especially that love trumps intellect (very interesting in light of how rationalist L'Engle clearly is), the beauty of individuality and the false comfort of conformity, Good vs. Evil. It seemed to me they downplayed the other themes in favor of the beauty of individualty--after Meg rescues CW, she makes a speech to the residents of Camazotz reiterating that "like and equal are not the same." (I wonder if L'Engle was specifically addressing communism with that theme, BTW.)
What I didn't like:
*The pacing. Deadly slow. It easily could've been trimmed down from three to two hours.
*The ending. The book's ending is deliberately anti-climactic because they time-tesser back and end up returning home "only" five minutes later. In the movie, they return, there's a big teary reunion of the parents, a big teary farewell with the witches, a gratuitous (although rather sweet) final scene on the starwatching rock between Meg and Calvin AND a voiceover along the lines of "we lived happily ever after."
*The scene where they're naming the various Earth fighters against the dark thing: they name Marie Curie, Einstein, Shakespeare et al. but they leave out the name of Jesus. Come on, guys. That moment is highlighted in the book.
*Mrs. Which (the one with the quotations). Just didn't do me. Way too cutesy.
*The overall feeling of "we're making this for children"--I guess what I mean is excessive sentimentality. The book is fairly unsentimental--maybe her one lapse in that direction is the "dark cloud" that's basically physicalized evil, but I'm not sure I can think of a better way to depict that for children. There's a lot of cutesiness in the movie, mainly in the tone and the actors. Alfre Woodard would've impressed me more if she'd been weirder and thrown away her part more.
*The actors playing the twins. Sandy and Dennys are ostentatiously "normal" kids, as a deliberate contrast to Meg and Charles Wallace, and furthermore they're athletes. These kids looked too quirky, and were dressed up.
Now, what I did like:
*Really, most of it. They did a pretty decent job.
*The three main children (Meg, Charles Wallace and Calvin) are EXCELLENT. Especially the actor playing CW--that is a difficult role to cast, because he has to look 4-5, has to actually BE intelligent, and has to be able really to ACT, because of his takeover by IT. This kid (David Dorfman) rocked. Completely believable in the role.
*Camazotz was fuckin' spooky as hell. They approach the town where all the houses look alike and it's dark and stormy outside--there's a constant greyness. Oh man, it was cool.
*They handled Charles's takeover by IT interestingly--the Man with the Red Eyes almost has to "woo" CW. He plays games with him where he appeals to CW's intelligence and curiosity and it makes sense. They also dramatized the scene where Meg rescues CW which is completely understandable because that scene is almost entirely interior in the book. It would be hard to have a scene in a movie that consists of a kid staring at a brain and his sister thinking about him for several minutes, and finally saying "I love you." In the movie, CW and the man with the red eyes are in a room taunting Meg, and she's taken into several alternative realities, and finally says she loves him, and notices this has a deleterious effect on the Man with the Red Eyes. She repeats it, and busts up the House of IT. IT is revealed beneath the floor as a giant brain with almost-tentacles--creepy as hell.
Other thoughts:
They simplified the message: the book has many messages, which include the power of love (most important, IMO) and especially that love trumps intellect (very interesting in light of how rationalist L'Engle clearly is), the beauty of individuality and the false comfort of conformity, Good vs. Evil. It seemed to me they downplayed the other themes in favor of the beauty of individualty--after Meg rescues CW, she makes a speech to the residents of Camazotz reiterating that "like and equal are not the same." (I wonder if L'Engle was specifically addressing communism with that theme, BTW.)
no subject
no subject