I have to admit that I went in not expecting to like it, as I'd read an interview with the screen writer discussing his "adaptation."
I didn't just "not like it." I was
appalled. This was absolutely the WORST book-to-film adaptation I have ever seen. I thought the "Earthsea" movie made from LeGuin's novels was bad. This was worse. There is no character development, no coherence, and way too many changes in characters and events.
*****SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT; DON'T READ BELOW IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW******
He "americanizes" it by making the Stantons american immigrants to england. He makes Will 14 instead of 11, full of puberty-driven confusion. He makes one brother an instrument of the dark. He makes the son who died, making Will the "7th son," Will's twin who was kidnapped, and then produces him at the end for a happy ending. Merriman Lyon is terribly done; you don't get the sense of who he is at all, and he spends his time roaring at Will to "do the job he was born for." Perhaps changing the number and ages of siblings is not a big deal, but he gives Will a teen-age crush on Maggie and allows her to "tempt" him. There is no explanation of the signs, or logic to how they are found. The sixth sign is not a sign at all, but turns out to be Will, so that he can give a brave, dramatic speech in the final confrontation with the dark. There is no reference to Arthurian legend, and Will is portrayed like some sort of superman-like superhero with special "powers." Ms. Greythorne is younger and livelier than she should be, and she and merriman spend time arguing with each other, alternately criticizing and defending Will.
I saw it with family members who had not read the book. They were silent throughout the film, but on the way home, one said it was "terrible," one compared it to "the attack of the killer tomatoes," and one spoke at length about the inept storm sequence, in which "the bouncy balls of doom" fall over and bounce over the snow.
In googling info on the screenwriter, I found this interesting article:
The Dark Is Sinking: Book-to-Film Adaptation of Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising Angers Fans<snip>
During filming in Bucharest, Romania there was a joke on The Dark is Rising set that only three things have been changed from the original 1973 novel: the nationality of lead character Will Stanton, changed from English to American; his age changed from 11 to 13; and everything else that happens in the story. A solo quest by an 11-year-old is no longer solo; family values have been deemed out of date — the happy, loving Stanton family rewritten dysfunctional; a series of five books bereft of a single love interest has been re-imagined with the lead character chasing the fairer sex, pleading in the trailer “I can't save the world! I don't even know how to talk to a girl!” Angered, disgusted fans are reporting little interest in their hero’s new, most ordinary of plights.<snip>
More contentious than Will Stanton’s womanising ways, the film has changed the very source of the magic in a most magical of series — all traces of Cooper’s beguiling, haunting blend of English, Arthurian, and Celtic mythology removed, recast as hip hop and Humvees. Bemoaned one reader, aggrieved at the trailer’s depiction of a modern day Merlin wielding a mace, this most fascist of adaptations is tantamount to Peter Jackson taking the hobbits out of Middle Earth and getting rid of the elves. A series that the author said almost wrote itself, arose mist-like out of the English landscape of her birth without conscious imagination or invention, appears to have been rewritten completely without imagination, rewritten as just another action and love story. This tale of coming of age could now only be from a more present, soulless Age.<snip>
The Dark is Rising screenwriter has never met Susan Cooper. He freely admits as much, saying that as far as he was concerned he had her blessing to do whatever was needed. To give Hodge some credit the screenwriter is reportedly the only member of the production team aside from English born Amelia Warner (contrived love interest Maggie Barnes) who has actually read the book. But judging from the scale of the rewrite, that would have been the last time he strayed between its pages.<snip>
And what of Golden Globe-winning, Royal Academy-trained lead Ian McShane, sole, flickering hope of quality to fans very much fearing the worst, an actor whom would only need a fraction of the Shakespearean presence displayed in the acclaimed Deadwood series to succeed as character Merriman, a modern-day Merlin? Surely he has read Cooper’s books? Sadly the answer is no — in fact he had never even heard of them.
“I don't think they've been very faithful to the book.” McShane admitted when interviewed, lack of enthusiasm obvious. “I don't know how many of you've read the book. I know they sold a few copies, but I couldn't read it very well. It's really dense. It’s from the '70s, you know?” Signs hardly encouraging from the man playing the greatest wizard of all time.
So why are all involved making this film, if not to honour the author’s original art, furthermore give shape, breathe life into the imaginings of millions? Are cast and crew the slightest bit interested in recreating just a small amount of magic in the most magical of mediums — film? If the man playing Merriman is typical, the aim in The Dark is Rising was slightly lower than magical. Asked what about the project specifically interested him, Ian McShane replied with refreshing, although hardly endearing honesty: “The cheque. As it always is.”more:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/07/26/172619.php
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
