Roald Dahl Books And Movies
Rubi Strycker
It's been 20 years since Disney released James and the Giant Peach, and even though I'm all grown up now, I am still excited for the new adaptation of The BFG that comes out this summer. What is it about Roald Dahl adaptations that make such great children's movies? These movies have spanned decades, and there's something magical about his writing that always clicks on screen.
Roald Dahl books and movies challenge kids to be mature without necessarily growing up. So much so, that sometimes thinking about his characters as an adult is baffling. I mean honestly, whether you prefer Johnny Depp or Gene Wilder, you have to admit that Willy Wonka is pretty creepy and dangerous for a beloved children's character.
They're also just incredibly visual, cinematic, and timeless. Whether it's a chocolate factory whose rooms are all stranger than the next, or a giant peach soaring through the sky, Roald Dahl's stories lend themselves very easily to the screen. They also attract vastly different filmmakers. Tim Burton and Wes Anderson are practically on opposite sides of the spectrum, and yet they have both directed a Roald Dahl adaptation (2005's Charlie and The Chocolate Factory and The Fantastic Mr. Fox, respectfully).
Not to mention Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, for which Dahl wrote the screenplay. Now, Steven Spielberg is tackling The BFG with his own directorial style. Like James and the Giant Peach and other adaptations before it, there's a pretty good chance that Roald Dahl's words will enchant and intrigue audiences yet again.
Renee--I saw the movie "The Notebook" before I read the book (since it's the type of book I probably wouldn't read, I later realized), and since the tension was all focused on "Will they get back together?" and since the movie answered the question, the book was not quite as compelling.
I loved the Harry Potter books, but I only saw part of the first movie. One of my favorite characters was Hagrid, and the movie version didn't look the same as my vision of the giant, so I shunned the rest of the films.
I've heard that "The Last of the Mohicans" is one movie that's better than the book, due to James Fenimore Cooper's fondness for long, draggy passages. Plus the scenery is gorgeous in film, if you know what I mean. (The geographical area where the movie was shot was breathtaking, too.)
Dahl's "George's Marvelous Medicine" is one of my favorites, along with "Fantastic Mr. Fox." Your daughter has great taste in books. I wonder where she got that from? ;) I have not seen either movie, to preserve my love of the books.
I thought David Fincher did an excellent job with Gillian Flynn's Gone Girl. I've never seen a better adaptation. The mood, cinematography, and actors were just like the book. They had to make one character into two to save time and still have that character serve its purpose, but since Flynn actually wrote the screenplay as well, it totally made sense. I suggest reading the book before the movie because you'll feel like you're in on the inside joke.
On the other hand, one of my favorite memoirs, Wild, was a horrible adaptation. Sad, depressing, and totally missing the uplifting point of the story; Cheryl Strayed's character comes across as a victim, which didn't play out that way in the book. Cheryl didn't write the screenplay, so maybe that's why it sucked. Nick Hornby did, so I don't know what happened, since he's done successful adaptations before.
Thanks for the review of The BFG, Renee! I just saw the trailer the other day and had no idea what it was or that it came from a book. It's obvious I don't read children's books!
This year for our summer reading program for 3rd-5th graders, we are reading The BFG. I'll be very interested in hearing what the kids think when we compare the movie to the book. Many of them planned to see the movie this weekend. I've read the book and loved it. I'll be seeing the movie soon, but your review saddens me that it might not turn into one of those movies kids love to see over and over.
Sioux, I also heard that about "Last of the Mohicans," which I've never read. Lucky for me, I guess! The ending of "The Notebook" in the film was completely different from the book, which probably annoyed a whole lot of people who had read the novel first. I haven't read the Roald Dahl books you mentioned, but know both of my kids have. They seemed to like the film adaptation of Matilda, too, so I guess it's all subjective!
Angela, I agree about "Gone Girl!" I took my husband to see the movie (he had never read the book) and he was completely fooled. It was awesome watching his face as he figured it all out. I never saw "Wild," because I had heard the adaptation was off. I also think the screenplay for "The Help," came out pretty well. There were a few differences here and there but the film still moved me as much as the book did.
Deb, I am curious to hear from other kids who see the movie, too, after they've read the book. I feel like for younger kids, there probably isn't enough action in the beginning to keep them entertained. Older kids will probably be fine. The humor of the novel really came out at the end of the film during the scenes with the Queen, but I wish more of it had been present earlier. There are so many quirky little exchanges between the BFG and Sophie all throughout the book that could have been played out a little more, in my opinion. Luckily, the strong bond between the two characters shines through.
Then again, the movie is more self-aware than casual viewers might realize, often satirizing the values of the era. One of the stars, Rock Hudson, was a closeted gay man in real life, pretending to be a straight Hollywood actor, and in one scene, he plays a straight character who pretends to be gay. And the filmmakers knew all this!
Even less accomplished, less self-aware works can provide that very same window into the past. Frankly, my novel, Double Feature, gives a pretty great idea of how people were thinking about autism twenty years ago.
When I was younger, I always bristled at the negative or stereotypical portrayals of LGBTQ folks in film. But I confess, now I love how I can tell a fascinating gay history of the last seventy years in America simply by showing someone the movies Rope, Cruising, Basic Instinct, Brokeback Mountain, and Red White and Royal Blue.
Last year my husband and I visited the John Waters exhibit in LA, and found ourselves amused/annoyed at the "trigger warnings" posted throughout the exhibit. I actually took photos of them as they were so absurd: warnings that if you enter this room you will see/hear vomiting, nudity, homophobic language.... among other things. I burst out laughing, probably not the desired reaction, but how can you not crack up reading something like that? All we could think was "hold on - this is an exhibit about JOHN WATERS, and the exhibit is called POPE OF TRASH - and they felt the need to put warning labels all over the place as though people wouldn't know what they were getting in to?!"
I half expect to start seeing warning signs put up outside metal shows saying "You may encounter loud music and naughty words. Please reach out to our Customer Sensitivities Manager for any concerns."
I remember the first time I became aware that Nancy Drew books had been regularly rewritten over the years; I read an older edition of one book and discovered the newer edition was fairly different. The updating of the Nancy Drew books works, as each new generation discovers them and as they exist "beyond time." But, as you note, with other books the historical context is an integral part of the whole setting.
One thing we have to hope readers understand, and that teachers and librarians can be good at pointing out, is how to approach those "cringe-y" moments that arise in a book that's assigned reading or found at school. Because required and recommended reading has that tinge of authority to it, it's important to remind kids that they can think critically; they can critique and question texts; they need not accept everything at face value. (A "teachable moment," if we can stomach that phrase!) And I encourage readers to engage that way with my own work.
This is actually all the set-up to a joke, and the punchline comes at the end of the book when Gunnar turns out to be the only character who has known all along what\u2019s really going on in the story. Ironically, he\u2019s way more in touch with reality than everyone else.
Reading these parts of the novel now makes me cringe a little. What's so bad about having Asperger\u2019s Disease? I also now know a lot more about the condition \u2014 and I know it isn\u2019t called a \u201Cdisease\u201D anymore: it's considered part of the autism spectrum.
But I have no plans to rewrite the book to reflect what I now think, and I truly hate this recent trend where older books are being rewritten \u2014 and movies and TV shows are being re-edited and censored \u2014 to conform to modern sensibilities.
And, yes, this is an increasingly popular thing to do. The James Bond books by Ian Fleming have been rewritten, and certain Dr. Seuss titles have been re-illustrated, or taken out of print entirely. The estate of Roald Dahl made big headlines by releasing \u201Crevised\u201D editions of that author\u2019s works, eliminating certain \u201Coffensive\u201D phrases and content.
Movies and TV shows are less likely to be edited or revised, with channels and streaming services currently more likely to add increasingly dire \u201Cwarning labels\u201D to content. Still, with anything \u201Cblackface\u201D-related, even when it was clearly done ironically, the trend has been to censor the content completely.
Much of this is flat-out cynicism dressed up as virtue. The fact is, James Bond and Dr. Seuss are lucrative media franchises, and the rights-holders obviously wanted to maximize their earning potential. It\u2019s surely not a coincidence that the estate of Roald Dahl \u201Cupdated\u201D his old written works at the same time Netflix was rolling out a series of new adaptations.
93ddb68554