Page to Screen

I’ve been seeing commercials lately for the upcoming movies Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Where the Wild Things Are. Both are based on beloved children’s books, by Judi Barrett and Maurice Sendak, respectively. (That's my son David in the photo, at age 2. He absolutely adored that book!)

Now, it’s no surprise that I’m a big fan of children’s books, and I happen to consider myself a movie lover, too.* But instead of feeling excited about these particular movies, I find myself apprehensive. The chances of either or both of them being terrible are, I'm sorry to say, excellent.

It seems to me that really good movies based on children’s books are few and far between. And of the ones that are good, very few are recent. In fact, one of the best ones turned 70 this year. In 1939, MGM did a masterful job bringing

L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz to life. They had to leave out some of his original story, of course, but they managed to capture its essence—a farm girl’s thrilling/terrifying journey into an unknown and often hostile world, and her triumph over adversity by virtue of brains, heart and courage.

Not that they didn’t try to mess it up. At least three different directors worked on it—never a good sign. One director had Judy Garland in a curly blonde wig and heavy kewpie-doll makeup. Another had the brilliant idea of cutting the “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” scene, saying it slowed down the action too much. The composer and lyricist had to beg to have it restored.

In fact, I would give those two much of the credit for the success of Oz. The songs they created were not simply interludes that interrupted the action, as was the case with most musicals at the time. These songs contained storyline elements; they defined the characters and moved the plot along. You knew as much—or more—about Dorothy Gale from that song as from anything that “happened” in the film. This approach truly changed the way musicals were written.

OK, I seem to have veered off onto the yellow brick road here. My point was supposed to be that for every good film made from a children’s book, there seem to be an awful lot of terrible ones. I think this especially applies to picture books. A picture book story is intentionally short. Making it long enough to fill up a 90-minute movie completely changes and, more often than not, ruins it. And it doesn’t help that most of the additions tend to fall into these unimaginative categories: zany hi-jinks, sappy sentiment and potty “humor.”

Author Chris Van Allsburg once said that those who write for adults have to worry about what Hollywood screenwriters take out of their book when adapting it for the screen. This holds true for longer, more sophisticated children's books as well—think Harry Potter and Little Women. But most children’s writers have to worry about what screenwriters put in. He was right to worry. Jumanji looked like a movie with ADD. And despite the state-of-the-art special effects and presence of actor extraordinaire Tom Hanks, The Polar Express has little of the magic and charm of the original picture book. Turning that hushed and lovely train trip to the North Pole into a roller coaster thrill ride was both unnecessary and obnoxious. (Sorry, Tom! Still love you, though!)

Other terrible film adaptations? Rod Howard, a guy you can usually count on for high-quality entertainment, has much to answer for with his wretched version of Dr. Seuss’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas. It wasn’t just that he stuffed it with all kinds of senseless, boring plotlines, he actually changed the story so that the Grinch ends up teaching the Whos not to be materialistic. Just unforgivable.

Conversely, some of the best children’s movies have been from original screenplays. The geniuses at Pixar, for example, wrote incredible stories that became Toy Story, Toy Story 2 (see, Tom? You were brilliant in these!), Cars and Up. All the characters and situations in those movies are organic—they feel as though they belong there, instead of being grafted on to fill up time or to meet "famous actor" quotas. Maybe Hollywood should consider keeping its grubby paws off beloved children’s books—especially picture books—and just hiring talented screenwriters instead.

So what are the chances that Cloudy and Wild Things will retain the magic of the books? I’m not optimistic, but would love to be pleasantly surprised.

While you all wait breathlessly for my verdict, take a look at these other page-to-screen projects for children's books, in no particular order except the one in which they popped into my head. I didn't repeat any I already mentioned. Feel free to chime in, challenge, or point out any you love/hate that I may have missed/boycotted (yes, I’m looking at you, Cat in the Hat!)

Pretty Good
The Snowman (Raymond Briggs), 1982 – gorgeous, inventive, charming, and the only picture book in the bunch
The Brave Little Toaster (Thomas M. Disch), 1987
Because of Winn-Dixie (Kate DiCamillo), 2005
Holes (Louis Sachar), 2003
Sounder (William H. Armstrong), 1972
Call it Courage (Armstrong Sperry),1987
Flight of Dragons (Peter Dickison), 1986

Pretty Dismal
Ella Enchanted (Gail Carson Levine), 2004
The Tale of Despereaux (Kate DiCamillo), 2008
Stuart Little (E.B. White), 1999
Heidi (Johanna Spyri), 1937 Shirley Temple version
The Borrowers (Mary Norton), 1997

James and the Giant Peach (Roald Dahl), 1996
Little House on the Prarie (Laura Ingalls Wilder), 2006 ABC-TV miniseries

*Oh my gosh, do yourself a favor and run to the theater to see Julie & Julia. It’s just delicious, pun intended. Trust me, you’ll never think of butter the same way again!