Book: The Bad Beginning, The Reptile Room, The Wide Window by Lemony Snicket (Daniel Handler)
Gap between first publication and film release: 5 years--1999 (The Bad Beginning) to 2004
Closeness to original characters: Kids-90%; Olaf-10% (Mike)
Kids-90% (except Sunny); Count Olaf-55% (Kate)
Kids-90% (except Sunny); Count Olaf-55% (Kate)
Closeness to original story: 70% ( Mike) 60% (Kate)
Mike says that unlike Kate, I had the unfortunate experience of catching this flick in the theater. And it was, by far, the worst theater experience I EVER had. *sigh* In fact, that's kind of what saved the movie for me. Because I was so physically uncomfortable, the movie didn't seem nearly as bad as it would have in ideal circumstances.
My introduction to the book series was rather unconventional... and unexpected. While serving a mission for my church in the Southwest, I received an ominous box from a friend (I'm not saying who) marked "Warning! Contraband!" Inside I found the The Bad Beginning and thoroughly enjoyed it, despite its exclusion from a missionary's approved library.
I enjoyed the book enough to be excited for the movie, hence the theater trip. Anyway, I love how the children are portrayed in this movie. Each of the actors were well chosen, and I think they embody the traits of the kids very well. Even the baby does a great job (despite being robbed of her hilarious side comments spoken in gibberish from the books!).
If I were to set about planning a movie of this series, I would focus on the children. I would make sure each one had the right look, and could carry the film. In my mind, if you have the kids right, the movie would be a triumph. Sadly, this line of thought is proven false, even fool-hearty, when compared with the end results. Despite wonderful performances from the children, in the end the movie falls flat.
One said reason, in fact, perhaps reasons one through five, are all Jim Carrey. Oddly enough, earlier today, I had the opportunity to watch another children's book adaptation starring Jim Carrey, Mr Poppins Penguins. Despite being a very cute movie, I found my interest waning and my patience nearing its end toward the end of the movie. Despite being hugely talented, Jim Carrey just seems to overwhelm whatever movie he's in. If the director is unable to keep Carrey reigned in, the film becomes nothing but a big budget comedy routine. While this was done for the first 3/4 of Popper's Penguins, toward the end Carrey seemed to have finally overwhelmed the director.
When it comes to Unfortunate Events, it seems the director didn't even try. Carrey completely takes over the film, trading the quiet sinister nature of the Count for, well, Jim Carrey. I'm not even sure what the film makers were thinking, aside from using a big name to draw in families. If I had to cast the role, I think I would have gone with Dustin Hoffman, or Gary Oldman. These are actors that can disappear into a character. For Carrey, the character disappears into him.
The story adaptation is well, so-so. Of the three books, the climax of The Bad Beginning is certainly the strongest, and I can see why it was moved to the end of the film. Breaking the first book into half in order to allow the second and third books to be inserted was certainly an interesting plan, and I can see the reasoning behind it.
The problem, however, is that too much necessary and fun information was cut from each story in order to shoehorn all three into the film. The one saving grace of the film, however, is the added intrigue of the parent's lives and the spyglass. These additions give the film a sense of purpose that the books don't really gain until later.
If the film really soars in any particular category, it has to be in tone and visuals. The world that the children inhabit in the films is always how I imagined it. Dark, twisted, and Victorian! I just wish we could have seen more of it. Overall, it's no surprise this film was unable to start a series of movies. It fails in telling the story and bringing the character to life in a way that is harmonious and faithful to the vision of the book. Much of this can be blamed on the sheer volume of material in one movie. Kate's right: one book per movie might have saved the franchise.
Kate says the movie starts out beautifully. Violet (Emily Browning) is perfectly cast. Liam Aiken doesn't match Brett Helquist's Klaus, but he is an extremely talented young man (he shows up in Law & Order episodes now and again). Jude Law as the narrator has exactly the right tone. Timothy Squall makes an excellent Mr. Poe. The 19th century clothing and landscape are wonderfully evocative.
And then Jim Carrey shows up.
Jim Carrey was actually not an entirely bad choice for Count Olaf. He has the skills; he does a good job adopting different personalities. He has the look (although he really can't hide his comparative youth).
But he MUST be controlled. He is extremely funny when he is on the screen, but he is funny as himself. As Count Olaf, he changes the tone and focus of the story.
It is possible that he was allowed to be so off-kilter to offset the horribleness of the story's underlying theme--society abandoning the children to an abusive and greedy man; frankly, a little off-kilter would have been clever and relieved the tension. Unfortunately, too much off-kilter breaks the story wall.
Here's the thing about comedians like Carrey: you give them an inch, they take twenty miles. Consider this story from Carrey's youth: to control him, one of his Junior High teachers allowed him to do stand-up comedy for the last fifteen minutes of every class (I'm greatly summarizing). That is, comedians like Carrey are constantly telling jokes, improvising, going off the wall-the-story-be-damned. Robin Williams did this in Aladdin, and it was very funny. But it was funny once.
Lemony Snicket breaks the narrative wall, much like the grandfather in Princess Bride, but he never breaks the story wall. The story remains consistent to itself. Saying deadpan, "I'm terrified of realtors" is funny within the story. Sunny thinking, "Is she desperate?" or "Schmuck" breaks the wall.
I'm guessing that once Carrey broke the wall, the director--instead of reining him in--started incorporating his material into Sunny's "dialog."
Consequently, Emily Browning, Liam Aiken, and Timothy Squall become the most consistent and dependable characters/actors in the movie.
In terms of the story, I don't really understand why the plot of the first book wasn't kept (even with the added train scene, burned up marriage certificate, and the final letter from the parents). At first, I thought the scriptwriters got rid of it because Hollywood didn't want to entertain the whole child-marrying-adult possibility. But the movie ends with The Marvelous Marriage.
I did quite enjoy the images from the other books, and Meryl Streep does a great job (as always). However, combining the books destroyed any possibility for a strong narrative arc. Since the single books are quite tightly plotted, not using one seems such a waste. I've never understand why Hollywood buys books, then doesn't take advantage of the already finished work. The arrogance of Hollywood producers never ceases to amaze me. (Granted, the books are quite short and a single book would need to be expanded but adding in scenes--the train sequence is nicely done--is different from cobbling stuff together; besides, the movie didn't need to be 100+ minutes.)
Using more than one book would really work better as a television series than a movie!
Overall, the movie wasn't as horrible as I expected, but then, my expectations were somewhere in the sub-sub-sub-sub basement. Which is not a bad way to approach a film! I'm very, very, very, very glad I didn't see the movie when it came out in theaters.
Overall, the movie wasn't as horrible as I expected, but then, my expectations were somewhere in the sub-sub-sub-sub basement. Which is not a bad way to approach a film! I'm very, very, very, very glad I didn't see the movie when it came out in theaters.
The more I think about it, the more I think the movie was done by two sets of producers. One set got the books, the nuances, the art, the idea, etc. The other set didn't care as long as it was a kid's movie with Jim Carrey and lots of laughs. The first set did all the casting, set design, music, graphics, and children's scenes. The other set did everything else. I'm not even sure they filmed on the same days! So sometimes the movie is 100% accurate to the original idea and sometimes much, much less --hence, 60%.
Mike says that unlike Kate, I had the unfortunate experience of catching this flick in the theater. And it was, by far, the worst theater experience I EVER had. *sigh* In fact, that's kind of what saved the movie for me. Because I was so physically uncomfortable, the movie didn't seem nearly as bad as it would have in ideal circumstances.
My introduction to the book series was rather unconventional... and unexpected. While serving a mission for my church in the Southwest, I received an ominous box from a friend (I'm not saying who) marked "Warning! Contraband!" Inside I found the The Bad Beginning and thoroughly enjoyed it, despite its exclusion from a missionary's approved library.
I enjoyed the book enough to be excited for the movie, hence the theater trip. Anyway, I love how the children are portrayed in this movie. Each of the actors were well chosen, and I think they embody the traits of the kids very well. Even the baby does a great job (despite being robbed of her hilarious side comments spoken in gibberish from the books!).
If I were to set about planning a movie of this series, I would focus on the children. I would make sure each one had the right look, and could carry the film. In my mind, if you have the kids right, the movie would be a triumph. Sadly, this line of thought is proven false, even fool-hearty, when compared with the end results. Despite wonderful performances from the children, in the end the movie falls flat.
One said reason, in fact, perhaps reasons one through five, are all Jim Carrey. Oddly enough, earlier today, I had the opportunity to watch another children's book adaptation starring Jim Carrey, Mr Poppins Penguins. Despite being a very cute movie, I found my interest waning and my patience nearing its end toward the end of the movie. Despite being hugely talented, Jim Carrey just seems to overwhelm whatever movie he's in. If the director is unable to keep Carrey reigned in, the film becomes nothing but a big budget comedy routine. While this was done for the first 3/4 of Popper's Penguins, toward the end Carrey seemed to have finally overwhelmed the director.
When it comes to Unfortunate Events, it seems the director didn't even try. Carrey completely takes over the film, trading the quiet sinister nature of the Count for, well, Jim Carrey. I'm not even sure what the film makers were thinking, aside from using a big name to draw in families. If I had to cast the role, I think I would have gone with Dustin Hoffman, or Gary Oldman. These are actors that can disappear into a character. For Carrey, the character disappears into him.
The story adaptation is well, so-so. Of the three books, the climax of The Bad Beginning is certainly the strongest, and I can see why it was moved to the end of the film. Breaking the first book into half in order to allow the second and third books to be inserted was certainly an interesting plan, and I can see the reasoning behind it.
The problem, however, is that too much necessary and fun information was cut from each story in order to shoehorn all three into the film. The one saving grace of the film, however, is the added intrigue of the parent's lives and the spyglass. These additions give the film a sense of purpose that the books don't really gain until later.
If the film really soars in any particular category, it has to be in tone and visuals. The world that the children inhabit in the films is always how I imagined it. Dark, twisted, and Victorian! I just wish we could have seen more of it. Overall, it's no surprise this film was unable to start a series of movies. It fails in telling the story and bringing the character to life in a way that is harmonious and faithful to the vision of the book. Much of this can be blamed on the sheer volume of material in one movie. Kate's right: one book per movie might have saved the franchise.
No comments:
Post a Comment