By 1962 when A Wrinkle in Time was published I was already a bit older than its target audience. But I have read the book to nieces and nephews at least three times. You'd be amazed at how many of those I've got and as a single uncle who was self-employed, I babysat for them a lot and our family has a tradition of reading to children. So I'm very familiar with the book having read it over the course of several decades, out loud.
It is but seldom that a movie of a good book will do it any justice so I wasn't thrilled to find out that Disney had made a movie of Madeleine L’Engle’s book. Though I was thrilled to find out that they had cast Meg Murray as a bi-racial girl, looking in the stills she looks wonderfully real as an awkward, self-conscious young teen. Her brother Charles Wallace, adopted in the movie, as Asian (which I don't get unless it was stereotyping of Asian exceptionalism, though, of course, I'm glad the kid got to play the role). I was thrilled to find out that other casting was inclusive - Mindy Kaling playing Mrs. Who, Oprah Winfrey playing the central role of Mrs. Which - Reese Witherspoon as Mrs. Whatsit must seem almost exotic with such a wonderfully diverse cast. From what I can tell, the love interest, the geeky basketball player, Calvin,* is still Irish.
Given so much to be glad about the casting, I was greatly disappointed to read this review of it at VOX which says what of the book they left out. Never having thought of how the book would have worked as a movie, I think they should have broken it up into two movies like they did with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows** Wrinkle In Time is as complex a story as the last of the Harry Potter books, maybe in some ways more so. I can imagine they could have made the break, right as they made the escape from Camazotz to Ixchel and kept the integrity of the story more intact - apparently they don't include the very important character of Aunt Beast without who I can't see how the story holds together. Anyway they told the story it would have needed more than one 2 hour movie to tell it right.
The review also notes that they de-Christianized the substance of the book, which also couldn't help but destroy the integrity of its meaning. L'Engel was a religious writer, no matter how inclusive she was of other religious content, rather obviously a Christian writer. The story can't be told without that content and remain intact. It is a story all about risking your life, your mind, even, perhaps, your soul for someone else and the redemption that is only possible through real self-sacrifice and the strength that comes from allowing yourself to be vulnerable through non-selfishness.
I'll say this about the movie, any child who goes to the book after that will imagine Meg, Charles Wallace and some of the other characters as I didn't when I read the book. And that's great. I think their way of imagining them is better. But I hope they do go read the book, it's almost always better than the movie.
* Considering what I've been posting this week, never noticed the name before and will have to think about any implications, that is unless L'Engel said something about it.
** I read the entire series to my youngest nieces and nephew, most of them more than once. I didn't see the last two movies, I just know they broke up that complex story into two movies. I don't usually watch movies of books I like because they are bound to disappoint. Though I did see some of the First and all of the Third one and didn't like them much. The books were better.
You know what's not a good thing? Ava DuVernay insisting that the film's lukewarm response from critics and audiences comes not because of the low quality product that sucked the teeth out of the novel but because of racism.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, at a time when 'Black Panther' has made over 600 million dollars domestically!
L'Engle wrote once, "If it's bad art, it's bad religion no matter how pious the subject." I imagine she'd have a similar take on crammed-in, virtue-signaling attempts at diversification that serve no purpose to the story while removing the "offensive" elements like Christianity that are integral to it.
I loved that book as a child and just got a copy for my nephew. We won't be seeing the movie as everyone I know who saw it (granted, only two people) said don't bother. They cussed it up but good.
Remember, hell is paved with good intentions.
I haven't seen the movie but, being familiar with the book, having Meg Murray being bi-racial is nothing like a violation of the text, given the themes of the book it is consistent with L'Engel's theme. The deleted Aunt Beast part of the book is certainly supportive of diversity far more removed than the equality of different ethnic groups in the human species. Arguably, in the context of 1962, Calvin being a working class Irish kid was somewhat in that direction.
DeleteShe's the director? I'm not surprised she's looking for excuses for a large budget movie that should have been a guaranteed success other than her directorial choices in seriously distorting the story. I did see a clip of Oprah and thought the role was seriously misconceived. Mrs. Which is more like a frightening angel - of the kind Rilke talks about in the first of the Duino Elegies than a Hollywood life coach.