From: Monica R. Edinger <edinger>
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2003 12:04:55 -0400

I admit my first response upon seeing the trailer for "Holes" was outrage.
 I was particularly irritated because book Stanley is such an appealing character and his largeness at the start of the book seemed very important. Remember the way teacher uses Stanley to illustrate ratios, for example?

However, I was completely won over by the movie. The young actor who played Stanley was delightful as was the movie as a whole. I felt it captured the sense of the book beautifully. In some ways, the book seemed perfect for the movies as it crosses back and forth across time and space.
 I loved the opening, the desert vistas, the child and adult actors. Certainly parts were as I imagined them (the camp more or less) and others were new and delightful (notably Henry Winkler and the family apartment
--- I could just smell that place!) All and all a very successful transposition of book into film. All the children I know who liked the book and saw the movie were happy with it. I think there were one or two small things missing for them (as child readers tend to notice EVERYTHING that is missing from their favorite books), but can't recall what they were now.

While Sachar clearly was successful at overseeing the way his book was made into a movie, I don't think it necessarily holds true that authors are always the best people to write screenplays of their own books. I assume there are specific talents and skills necessary to write a good screenplay not to mention adapting a book for the screen (anyone seen Adaptation, by the way?). I wonder if all authors can do it. For some I would imagine they are too close to their own books to do the cutting and pruning necessary for a screenplay. For example, right now Tom Stoppard is adapting Philip Pullman's trilogy, His Dark Materials, for the screen.

I can think of a (sorry if I'm offending anyone here) a very mediocre film that came out much more quietly not long before Holes and that is the television production of Maniac Magee. I thought it was a complete travesty of a remarkable novel. I think of Maniac Magee in conjunction with Holes because both have strong folkloric narrative voices (oh, and they were both Newbery winners too and still taught and read a lot by kids). That wonderful voice was sustained in the movie Holes and reduced to cartoonishness in the movie Maniac Magee. I hated, hated, hated the movie Maniac Magee. Whole sections of the novel were cut (Grayson for one) and it was reduced to a simplistic "let's all get along" messagy film. I wouldn't mind the film for what it was if it didn't worry about what it will do to kids who see the movie and the read the book. I do know kids who loved the movie, Harriet the Spy and then were disappointed in the very different book.

And a little amusing story to end. A few weeks ago I saw an item in New York Magazine that Tim Burton was considering remaking Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The anonymous (fortunately!) author of the article wrote that this was because the novel's author had been dissatisfied with the earlier version of the movie and liked Burton's other work. Now the author having been dead for quite a while I wondered just how he was involved in these negotiations! I think (correct me if I'm wrong) Dahl died before Tim Burton began making movies. At any rate, he can't possibly be involved in the current negotiations as suggested by this article.

Monica


Monica Edinger The Dalton School New York NY edinger at dalton.org monicaedinger at yahoo.com
Received on Fri 04 Jul 2003 11:04:55 AM CDT