Children's Books Turned into Feature Films

It's been over a week since I last posted to this blog, but for good reason. Over the past week, I have read three children's books and watched the featured films based on them. And when I say "based on them", I should say instead "loosely inspired by them." Though the books and movies share the same title and some rudimentary basics, that is where the similarities end.

In all three movies that I watched, the screenwriters added to the plot and characterization of the book. Obviously, since children's books are typically only 32 pages in length, there's not a lot of material to fill a 90-minute movie. So, the screenwriters fleshed out the characters, giving them families, backgrounds, and more details created by their imaginations. Other characters were added to create tension in the plot and further other actions that were added for the movie. And, all three contained a lot of background to provide viewers with context and to drive the plot.

The first movie I watched was The Polar Express. Based on the bestselling children's book by Chris Van Allsburg, this was my favorite among the three watched. This animated movie was the one that stuck the closest to the book. Though it did provide background information and new action in the plot, such as the dancing hot chocolate scene on the train, it did not take away from the original plot and characterization of the book. And, subtle references showed the attention that the screenwriters and director paid to the book and author. For example, Chris Van Allsburg is from Grand Rapids, MI, and at one point, the main character sees "Grand Rapids" on a package at the North Pole and cries out that he lives there. Those subtle references make the movie richer for viewers who love the book and know Van Allsburg's background. The animation of the movie also stuck with the illustrations of the book. In both, the illustrations set the mood for the reader and viewer and helped develop the plot. Overall, this movie stuck as close as possible to the book and made it an enjoyable view for faithful fans.

The second movie I watched this week was Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, based on the bestselling book by Judi Barrett. Though some parts of the movie and book were the same, such as food falling from the sky, the remainder of the story was not. In the book, the grandfather is telling the story of Chewandswallow to his grandchildren as a funny bedtime story. However, the screenwriters brought the town to life, even though the name of the town is Swallow Falls until Flint brings fame to the town for his food-producing machine. In the movie, the grandfather and children are not present. Instead, the screenwriters have written a story about a young inventor, always down on his luck, until he strikes it big with his food-producing machine, rescuing his fellow townspeople from eating sardines. The movie also contains a love story between Flint, the inventor, and Sam, a weathergirl sent to Chewandswallow on assignment. And, would the movie be complete without father-son angst? Apparently not, for the entire movie has a subplot of the differences between Flint and his father. Other than food falling from the sky, there were not many similarities between the book and movie. I liked the movie on its own, feeling that it is cute for children and contains graphics and humor that are appealing to the young age group. However, when comparing it to the book, it would not rate well.

The third movie I watched this week was Where the Wild Things Are, based on the book by Maurice Sendak. I feel that this movie was not really made for children, but rather for the adults who loved this book as a child. The movie is artistic, completed in dark colors and haunting music. The screenwriters have given Max many problems, such as a mom who has a boyfriend, an older sister who ignores him, and no playmates, as a background for his characterization. Later, when Max sails to the land where the wild things are, he meets monsters who show these same character traits. The monsters and their interactions are symbolic of Max and what he must conquer in his own life. While this is a clever point in the movie, I think that it is too deep and subtle for children. Instead, the sometimes slow points of the movie may cause them to lose attention and focus. The creators did do a good job of creating the monsters and costumes to look exactly like the illustrations in the book, but other than that, there were few similarities. Again, the screenwriters took a loose interpretation of the book, adding their own background and spin to the characters and action.

It's always been tough for me to watch movies based on books. For instance, since Anne of Green Gables is one of my favorite series, I refuse to watch the movies, though some tell me that they are quite good. I just don't want to chance it. Why ruin something or get other images stuck in my imagination when the writing was already good enough? So, it was hard for me to view these movies. I think that on their own, all the movies were good. But, they should not be compared directly to the books that inspired them, because they all deviate from the plot and characters, some more than others.