Elizabeth Culmer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
edenfalling) wrote2018-03-26 02:40 pm
edenfalling) wrote2018-03-26 02:40 pm
Entry tags:
wherein Liz watches A Wrinkle in Time
I was afraid I wasn't going to make it to A Wrinkle in Time before it closed at my local theater, but my morning appointment finished early and I didn't have anyone scheduled until 2pm (and that guy is thus far a no-show, grr), so I blocked a fake appointment for myself, walked over to the mall, and watched a movie. :)
I don't know if I'd say it was objectively a very good movie -- though it was worlds away from a bad movie -- but I am unable to be completely objective about A Wrinkle in Time and the movie captured enough of the heart of the book that I love it too. ♥
A few of the changes made perfect sense -- Dr. Kate Murray's particular scientific specialization, cutting the twins entirely, the visualization of IT (because the book version would have been ridiculous instead of terrifying) -- but some of the others seemed made solely to provide some "action" sequences and I'm frankly iffy on them. I really think the new Camazotz scenes could easily have been trimmed (and the stuff with the Happy Medium, and talking to the flowers, and Calvin's big fall) in favor of including Ixchel and Aunt Beast as more than a throwaway comment, and also because going back for Charles Wallace is in some ways a more powerful statement than simply refusing to leave. Plus creepy social conformity/control is a lot scarier than random chase-and-destruction sequences; the identikit cul-de-sac and the red-eyed man's false helpfulness (and then his puppet strings) are easily the most effective parts of the Camazotz sequence.
The visuals were gorgeous all the way through, and as I said, they got the themes correctly. This is a story about the power of love and faith and family and intelligence and courage and understanding and compassion, and the movie stands up and proclaims its support of those virtues without an ounce of irony. I am so grateful for that.
The setting switch from New England to what I assume is southern California was overall neutral. The various race switches made perfect sense within the story's own context, and I think the multicultural adoption thing helped strengthen the themes of family and love. The Happy Medium's switch from female to male, on the other hand, was completely unnecessary and threw me -- especially after Mrs. Whatsit's comment about knowing a "cute" seer made me hope for a little bit of lesbian subtext on-screen. But I guess it's still hard to sell a movie like this without a few more male characters, and maybe I could handwave something about Meg needing to accept a male authority figure other than her father, particularly after she rejected Principal Jenkins' horrifically awkward attempt at counseling. Eh.
The opening scenes with Meg on the playground and Charles Wallace overhearing teachers' gossip were very stilted, but either the dialogue loosened up after that or I just got used to the movie's chosen idiom. Hard to say; I'd have to watch it again to be sure.
This sounds like I'm complaining a bunch. Really, it's just that the movie got the heart of the story so utterly right that I am harping on relatively minor details because I wish they'd matched up/been in tune with that heart a little more. I gripe because I love. *wry*
And like I said, the movie is visually gorgeous. I am glad I got to see it on the big screen, and I am glad the story was adapted by people who so obviously understood its point, and how vastly important a story it is to tell. ♥
I don't know if I'd say it was objectively a very good movie -- though it was worlds away from a bad movie -- but I am unable to be completely objective about A Wrinkle in Time and the movie captured enough of the heart of the book that I love it too. ♥
A few of the changes made perfect sense -- Dr. Kate Murray's particular scientific specialization, cutting the twins entirely, the visualization of IT (because the book version would have been ridiculous instead of terrifying) -- but some of the others seemed made solely to provide some "action" sequences and I'm frankly iffy on them. I really think the new Camazotz scenes could easily have been trimmed (and the stuff with the Happy Medium, and talking to the flowers, and Calvin's big fall) in favor of including Ixchel and Aunt Beast as more than a throwaway comment, and also because going back for Charles Wallace is in some ways a more powerful statement than simply refusing to leave. Plus creepy social conformity/control is a lot scarier than random chase-and-destruction sequences; the identikit cul-de-sac and the red-eyed man's false helpfulness (and then his puppet strings) are easily the most effective parts of the Camazotz sequence.
The visuals were gorgeous all the way through, and as I said, they got the themes correctly. This is a story about the power of love and faith and family and intelligence and courage and understanding and compassion, and the movie stands up and proclaims its support of those virtues without an ounce of irony. I am so grateful for that.
The setting switch from New England to what I assume is southern California was overall neutral. The various race switches made perfect sense within the story's own context, and I think the multicultural adoption thing helped strengthen the themes of family and love. The Happy Medium's switch from female to male, on the other hand, was completely unnecessary and threw me -- especially after Mrs. Whatsit's comment about knowing a "cute" seer made me hope for a little bit of lesbian subtext on-screen. But I guess it's still hard to sell a movie like this without a few more male characters, and maybe I could handwave something about Meg needing to accept a male authority figure other than her father, particularly after she rejected Principal Jenkins' horrifically awkward attempt at counseling. Eh.
The opening scenes with Meg on the playground and Charles Wallace overhearing teachers' gossip were very stilted, but either the dialogue loosened up after that or I just got used to the movie's chosen idiom. Hard to say; I'd have to watch it again to be sure.
This sounds like I'm complaining a bunch. Really, it's just that the movie got the heart of the story so utterly right that I am harping on relatively minor details because I wish they'd matched up/been in tune with that heart a little more. I gripe because I love. *wry*
And like I said, the movie is visually gorgeous. I am glad I got to see it on the big screen, and I am glad the story was adapted by people who so obviously understood its point, and how vastly important a story it is to tell. ♥