Do Film Adaptations Add More To The Story?

The following movie is...for the music makers and the dreamers of dreams.


Come with me and you’ll be in a world of pure imagination. Take a look, and you’ll see, into your imagination. We'll begin with a spin. Traveling in the world of my creation, what we'll see will defy explanation.


These lyrics instantly bring imagery of a world filled with colors, candy, and Gene Wilder in a purple coat. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is a childhood staple for many and is a personal favorite film of mine. However, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory doesn’t have the same aspects that the book, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, does.


Film adaptations of books are a hot topic. Familiar names in literature (IT, King Arthur, and Murder on the Orient Express) are being made into films but, due to the nature of film, they don’t follow the plot closely. Film adaptations add in, leave out, or change aspects of a story to fit time constraints and visual composition the filmmakers have been given. Changes can mean that the way we see characters or view the chain of events is skewed and can change the story itself.


Do these changes add anything to the original story? There are some cases in which changes lead to the audience better understanding a character’s motivations or personality; it could also be argued that this takes away from the mystery a character holds when we don’t know these aspects. This can also be said for the plot. Plot changes can lead to a deeper development of character temperaments and chances for world building. They can also misrepresent the original characters and cause confusion in the audience.


In Charlie in the Chocolate Factory, the reader sees only that Charlie is a good boy in a group of awful children. Charlie watches in amazement at all the inventions and specialty treats Mr. Wonka puts together, while the other children act out in disrespectful ways. This ultimately leads to the bad children leaving the factory in various ways (being shot out of a pipe from the Chocolate Room or being dropped down a garbage chute in the Nut Room, just to name a few). Charlie is not depicted as being a multi-dimensional character, instead he is shown merely as the single “good” child in a sea of bad ones.


The film, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, takes a turn from this one-dimensional depiction of Charlie Bucket. Charlie is shown multiple times acting out in his own self-interest, buying candy bars with the money he finds in the street gutter and taking Fizzy Lifting Drinks when no one is watching. These actions stray from the idea that Charlie is the only good child of the group brought to Wonka’s factory, and shows the audience that Charlie isn’t perfect and he is still, in fact, a child. Children think in their own self-interest and this doesn’t negate their good qualities. While Charlie may have taken the Fizzy Lifting Drink and used the money he found to purchase candy for himself, he also selflessly returns the Everlasting Gobstopper when he lost the contest and refused to tell Wonka’s secrets to Mr. Slugworth to get his family the money they desperately need.



These changes deviated from Roald Dahl’s initial story, but the impact they make is significant in our modern world. Having the change in Charlie Bucket’s character traits leads the audience to connect with him on a more human level. Viewers of the film decades later can appreciate and relate to acting on one’s childish desires and showing grace and regret for the actions they took.


There is no life I know to compare with pure imagination. Living there, you’ll be free. If you truly wish to be.


Grab the Everlasting Gobstoppers and snozzberries, the show is about to start.

Comments

  1. I agree that plot and character changes can both add and take away from a movie adaption. I can think of numerous movies that didn’t do books justice and vice versa. I think it’s also interesting to look at directors' choices in multiple movie adaptions, such as the 1971 version of Charlie and Chocolate Factory versus the 2005 adaption. For instance, the 1971 Oompa Loompas were preachy, but the 2005 Oompa Loompas didn’t seem to have a moral message (sometimes I couldn’t even understand their songs).

    On a side note, a movie adaption can encourage people to read the book the movie is based on (which is always a positive). I would have never read Pride and Prejudice if I hadn’t seen the 2005 movie, and after I read Pride and Prejudice I read Jane Austen’s other works. The Atlantic posted an article in 2014 about a study done on novels’ increasing popularity when their movie adaptions are released (Hunger Games, Maze Runner, etc.). The amount of people reading these books spiked when the movies came out, so movie adaptions of books are beneficial in encouraging reading.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/09/kids-actually-read-the-books-that-movies-are-based-on/380395/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would agree that the liberties that the director has to take in regards to explaining the characters' motives are sometimes beneficial and sometimes extremely angering. In the Harry Potter series, many characters' motives or histories were not explained, even though they made an impact on the mental states of other characters.

    Spoilers ahead for Harry Potter.

    Let's start with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Harry learns that the Mauraders included his father, Sirius Black, Peter Pettigrew, and Remus Lupin. You learn that they are a mischievous bunch. But in learning about the Mauraders, you also learn about why James, Sirius, and Peter became animagi to help Remus in his transitions as a werewolf. That shows Harry what kind of man Sirius and James were, but a movie viewer who has never read the book never learns of that fact.

    Moving on to Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire. A change that angered all readers of Harry Potter and the film-only fans just don't understand is when Dumbledore *calmly* asks Harry if he put his name in the goblet of fire. JK Rowling specifically wrote "calmly," but in the movie, Dumbledore pushes past countless people, hits a chandelier out of the way, and slams Harry into a shelving unit full of things that clang when they are knocked over by Harry's body. Dumbledore may have raised Harry for slaughter, but he never raised his voice or got violent with Harry. This is a major change in Dumbledore's character. Perhaps this shows Dumbledore's true colors since he isn't a good guy, but this show led viewers to dislike Dumbledore way before they were supposed to.

    Another big thing that was left out of the movies that impacted the franchise was the scene at St. Mungos, a hospital for witches and wizards. This is where the rest of Harry Potter's friends discover the truth about Neville's family and why he lives with his grandmother: his parents were tortured into insanity by Bellatrix Lestrange. This was during Voldemort's first reign as the Dark Lord, which means that Neville could only be as old as one and a half when he lost his parents for all intents and purposes. While Neville is a wimp for a lot of the franchise, he has a good reason to be. He lost his parents.

    These few things greatly changed the movies from what they should have been according to the books. Of course, the books are very long, but leaving out things that explain why characters are the way they are is inexcusable to me.

    On a side bar, I like the 2005 version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory more than the 1971 version. But, Gene Wilder can't really be beat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot to put the link in.

      Here are some of the changes that I talked about.

      http://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/lost-plots-harry-potter/

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts