A typical assignment in my high school Creative Writing course was to be handed a photograph and asked to write a story about it. Now that I think about it, I had similar assignments even in grade school. It's an enjoyable exercise I'd forgotten about until I read Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. As you may recall from last week, I found the first two novels in this series in a Little Library across from a fantastic waterfall.
Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is a young adult book, which falls a bit older than I typically read. I prefer to keep to middle grade, which is what I write and what I generally tend to enjoy the most. I was also wary of it being the first part of a trilogy— actually, the first part of two trilogies, making for a total of six published books! I'm partial to done-in-one adventures. Nothing is worse than reading 400 pages and having unresolved plotlines dangling everywhere and the sinking feeling that you'll be no closer to resolutions at the end of the next book than you are at this one.
But these were free, and I was curious, and I'm happy to report that my curiosity was rewarded. Ransom Riggs does an excellent job telling a complete story while still prepping you for the next adventure. The book has some dark, disturbing bits, but it also has strangely compelling characters and an unpredictable storyline that kept me turning the pages. When I first picked up the book, I assumed the designers created the photographs to look old, so I was surprised when I learned that all the photos are authentic and come from private collections. The world-building is solid, but the images lend an extra layer of eerie realism. Below is a listing of the vintage photography in the book and the collectors who lent them from their personal archives.
My folks are "antiquers," so old-timey photographs such as daguerreotypes and tintypes were common items around our house. To this day, I enjoy looking through old photo albums at antique stores we frequent and noting the curious fashions, stiff poses, and stern expressions. I enjoy sketching these as well. This book, however, has me thinking about hunting some old photos and putting them together for a story of my own. It's fun to let your imagination go like that. Have you created a story this way? If so, I'd love to read it!
After finishing Book One, I discovered Tim Burton had adapted it into a 2016 movie. For any writer who longs for their story to be adapted into a film, this movie serves as a cautionary tale. Working from a screenplay by Jane Goldman, Burton succeeds at ripping the heart out of the story.
At first, I was pleasantly surprised to see the photographs from the book appear at the start of the movie, but I was soon disappointed at how quickly they were abandoned. If anything, this movie should have been a tribute to that old image-making. I can imagine a film like that, with grainy, obscure imagery, being very interesting and creepy. Instead, the characters and sets are all "Burtonized," the story is turned into a typical cliched, convoluted Hollywood mess. I mean, compare the two photos above.
From the beginning, senseless changes are made. Significant character bits that wouldn't have either added to the budget or the film's running time are dropped entirely. One of the book's central characters is Emma Bloom. In the novel, she is tough, strong-willed, and has dangerous, fiery hands. In the film, they change her abilities, personality, and motivations. For my life, I don't understand why. You have a book that spent seventy weeks on The New York Times Best Sellers list for children's chapter books, and yet, somehow, it needed "fixing." And it didn't stop with her character. Everything is dumbed down. As the movie progresses, it goes further afield until I don't know what I was watching at the end.
The book is dark, with creepy characters, scary monsters, and gruesome moments, but Burton makes it even worse, to the point of (SPOILERS) having the villains dine on people's eyeballs! Which makes me wonder… who was the intended audience for this film? Whether you are a fan or unfamiliar with the source material, I suspect you'd find it all silly and repulsive.
The film has an incredible cast, starring Asa Butterfield, Terence Stamp, Eva Green, Chris O'Dowd, Allison Janney, Rupert Everett, Ella Purnell, Judi Dench, and Samuel L. Jackson. By the way, Jackson looks very cool (see below), but he's also ridiculous and not anything like the creature in the book. Judi Dench, who I have always adored, is utterly wasted in this movie. If she agreed to be in it simply because she was a fan of the novel, I'd have to think she now regrets it.
I get that when you adapt things to another medium, concessions have to be made, but it frustrates me to no end when the changes are so arbitrary and cliched. And again, it has to be said, Emma does not float or manipulate air!
…Sigh…
Deep Breath.
OK. Better.
So, this brings me to an interesting question: What’s the worst book-to-film adaptation you’ve ever seen? Let me know in the comments below. Please feel free to rant away! Let it all out. It may not make you feel better, but I will certainly enjoy it. :)
Until next time, Always Be Creating! (And think twice before selling your work to Hollywood!)
—Bill