![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ocelotYesterday night I watched the Disney TV movie of Madeline L'Engle's book A Ring of Endless Light.
It was horrible. This wasn't really a surprise, as it was a Disney TV movie.
But it was just wrong in so many ways.
The plot was changed. This was necessary in order to compress the book into an hour and a half including commercials, but they changed the entire focus. The main conflict was over illegal fishing nets, and Vicky's attempts to figure out life a side plot.
This is somewhat understandable, as it's hard to create a compelling movie based almost entirely around one character's internal conflict. It's still wrong, though. If they can't find a way to handle it without resorting to stupid Save The Whales plots, they shouldn't do it at all.
Worse, the characterization was basically completely wrong.
Vicky was a ditz. The movie implies she's supposed to be a great thinker, but she certainly doesn't give that impression. Part of this is undoubtedly the medium's inability to effectivly portray what is going on in people's minds combined with poor acting ability.
Physically, she was ok for the part, though either she was too tall or the grandfather too short, as I always got the impression from the book that he was quite tall ("as tall and thin as an El Greco").
Part of my dislike may simply be that I always identified strongly with Vicky, and the one in the movie was not someone I could identify with. Too extroverted, for one thing. This may not be mischaracterization so much as a difference in imagination.
But I think I'm being generous there. All the other characters were wrong enough that there's no reason Vicky shouldn't be, as well.
Grandfather was, in many ways, the closest to the book, with one major problem. He wasn't honest with the family about being sick. This was irresponsible - he had three kids staying alone with him all summer, and their parents apparently didn't even know he was sick until he died. It also shows a lack of regard for the other characters' feelings and needs.
Suzy was portrayed as a Scullyesque "Everything must be quantifiable and scientificaly measured" little astrophysics geek with no social skills, empathy, or interest in animals. Physically, she was cute enough, but her looks were nothing extraordinary. In the book, she's scientific smart, but she's planning to become a veterinarian, has feelings, and is more physically attractive than Vicky.
Rob is supposed to be an incredibly sensitive kid - more like Vicky. Not the type who would take great joy in killing bugs for a collection. He has a small part in the movie. Collecting bugs contributed nothing to the plot - it was simply character development. It wouldn't have killed them to leave out the bug part and leave him true to character.
Adam has the least depth of any of the major characters. In the book, there's a reason behind his standoffishness. In the movie, he's not haunted - it's simply social awkwardness.
The relationship between him and Vicky is off, as well. The dynamics are just entirely different.
Zach is a complete doofus. In the book he's a cynical, self-centered, manic-depressive jerk, but he's not portrayed as lacking in intelligence. In the book, he's a coward. In the movie, he ends on a rather self-sacrificing altruistic note, and it's honestly hard to see why Vicky chooses Adam over him. Except that he's a complete doofus, of course.
Vicky's parents, who aren't even onscreen for more than two minutes or so, are even wrong. They're pushing Vicky to get into a special University school, even though she doesn't do well enough, or have any particular interest in, math and science.
There are a lot of minor inaccuracies which were annoying and gratuitous, not really adding anything to the plot (Adam went to Berkeley, not Harvard, and was not admitted early to anywhere - he graduated from high school like everyone else). I can understand changing things when there is a reason, but when they're not...why? It's not like they're making up details that weren't in the book - the details are there, they just chose to ignore them.
Up until the end, I was surprised Madeline L'Engle allowed the movie to be made. The end, while not particularly good, had some of the deeper scenes I would have expected from a decent adaptation.
In any case, I found it really disappointing. The combination of bad acting and bad script really ruined it.
On the good side, it was bad enough that it's easy to disregard and shouldn't interfere with future readings of the book.
It was horrible. This wasn't really a surprise, as it was a Disney TV movie.
But it was just wrong in so many ways.
The plot was changed. This was necessary in order to compress the book into an hour and a half including commercials, but they changed the entire focus. The main conflict was over illegal fishing nets, and Vicky's attempts to figure out life a side plot.
This is somewhat understandable, as it's hard to create a compelling movie based almost entirely around one character's internal conflict. It's still wrong, though. If they can't find a way to handle it without resorting to stupid Save The Whales plots, they shouldn't do it at all.
Worse, the characterization was basically completely wrong.
Vicky was a ditz. The movie implies she's supposed to be a great thinker, but she certainly doesn't give that impression. Part of this is undoubtedly the medium's inability to effectivly portray what is going on in people's minds combined with poor acting ability.
Physically, she was ok for the part, though either she was too tall or the grandfather too short, as I always got the impression from the book that he was quite tall ("as tall and thin as an El Greco").
Part of my dislike may simply be that I always identified strongly with Vicky, and the one in the movie was not someone I could identify with. Too extroverted, for one thing. This may not be mischaracterization so much as a difference in imagination.
But I think I'm being generous there. All the other characters were wrong enough that there's no reason Vicky shouldn't be, as well.
Grandfather was, in many ways, the closest to the book, with one major problem. He wasn't honest with the family about being sick. This was irresponsible - he had three kids staying alone with him all summer, and their parents apparently didn't even know he was sick until he died. It also shows a lack of regard for the other characters' feelings and needs.
Suzy was portrayed as a Scullyesque "Everything must be quantifiable and scientificaly measured" little astrophysics geek with no social skills, empathy, or interest in animals. Physically, she was cute enough, but her looks were nothing extraordinary. In the book, she's scientific smart, but she's planning to become a veterinarian, has feelings, and is more physically attractive than Vicky.
Rob is supposed to be an incredibly sensitive kid - more like Vicky. Not the type who would take great joy in killing bugs for a collection. He has a small part in the movie. Collecting bugs contributed nothing to the plot - it was simply character development. It wouldn't have killed them to leave out the bug part and leave him true to character.
Adam has the least depth of any of the major characters. In the book, there's a reason behind his standoffishness. In the movie, he's not haunted - it's simply social awkwardness.
The relationship between him and Vicky is off, as well. The dynamics are just entirely different.
Zach is a complete doofus. In the book he's a cynical, self-centered, manic-depressive jerk, but he's not portrayed as lacking in intelligence. In the book, he's a coward. In the movie, he ends on a rather self-sacrificing altruistic note, and it's honestly hard to see why Vicky chooses Adam over him. Except that he's a complete doofus, of course.
Vicky's parents, who aren't even onscreen for more than two minutes or so, are even wrong. They're pushing Vicky to get into a special University school, even though she doesn't do well enough, or have any particular interest in, math and science.
There are a lot of minor inaccuracies which were annoying and gratuitous, not really adding anything to the plot (Adam went to Berkeley, not Harvard, and was not admitted early to anywhere - he graduated from high school like everyone else). I can understand changing things when there is a reason, but when they're not...why? It's not like they're making up details that weren't in the book - the details are there, they just chose to ignore them.
Up until the end, I was surprised Madeline L'Engle allowed the movie to be made. The end, while not particularly good, had some of the deeper scenes I would have expected from a decent adaptation.
In any case, I found it really disappointing. The combination of bad acting and bad script really ruined it.
On the good side, it was bad enough that it's easy to disregard and shouldn't interfere with future readings of the book.
