Boy Called Twist

Boy called Twist is a strange little appropriation. It’s hard for me to call it an adaptation (yes, technically it is), because it seems to be mostly based on David Lean’s movie. And while it was inherently an appropriation, it only really worked for me when it was appropriating.

The rest of the movie was almost a shot-for-shot remake of Lean’s movie, swiping everything from camera angles to subtle nuances. We’re pretty much given the same scenes from Lean’s movie with no additional scenes from the book making it in. You could argue that Lean took it down to the meat and potatoes of the story, and BCT was just following form, but really Boy called Twist is just lazy.

I honestly think people expected it to turn out good because of the concept. It was dealing with “real   South African issues.” Except it didn’t. Not one damn bit. Other than the glue huffing and the brief criminal spree, which is the highlight of the movie, really it’s pretty much just ethnic Oliver Twist.

The budget was actually decent on this flick, but the effects and camerawork recall bad Sci-Fi Channel movies.

Jarrid Geduld is maybe the saving grace of this movie as Twist. He plays a tougher, less passive version of the classic character, which makes him a little easier to identify with. And he still has that “sadness behind the eyes” thing going.

Bart Fouche was also an excellent casting choice for Sykes. The neo-nazi biker thing really nails the spirit of that character.

The music was kind of weird because it sounded mostly like the Dave Matthews Band. I guess he’s from South Africa, so that’s alright, but not really…

To return to my earlier point, the best parts in the movie are when we see Twist being a kid and hitchhiking, stealing, and getting high. It’s the only time the movie’s setting serves its purpose, and the only time that the gimmick feels relevant.

I think just rewriting some dialogue would’ve went a long way here.

I didn’t like this movie because the mistakes it made were sloppy ones. The movie felt cheap, and not because of the budget.

The League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen

I felt like really shitting on a movie, so I picked this one.

Let’s discuss why The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is the worst adaptation of all time.

Alan Moore, the writer of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, ended up so disenchanted with how his work was treated by Hollywood that he is no longer credited for his comics in adaptations of them. This movie is a key reason why.

For those of you unfamiliar, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen is a comic set in Victorian-era England, featuring famous characters from British literature. These characters include (but are not limited to): Allan Quartermain (of King Solomon’s Mine), Wilhelmina Murray (of Dracula), Captain Nemo (of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea), Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and The Invisible Man. Of course we are given Moore’s spin on these characters, which recasts Quartermain as an opium addict, The Invisible Man as a rapist, and Mina Murray as the group’s powerless but none-the-less fearless leader.

The characters are brought together by British Intelligence. They do a series of missions until it’s revealed that they are actually working for the mysterious M, who is revealed to be Professor Moriarty (of Sherlock Holmes). So pretty much it’s a conspiracy theory and the League has to team up to take down the same people that brought them together. It’s more complicated then that, but let’s just take a look at how the movie interpreted these characters and their story.

In the horrendous movie, we are basically joined by the same group of people. The difference lies in the way they are portrayed. Quartermain is played by Sean Connery, with his typical Bond-swagger. No longer an opium addict, Quartermain is at the peak of his game, and takes over from Mina Murray as the leader. Mina is instead reduced to a solider on the team who can “vamp out” and turn into vampire Mina Murray. I guess the idea of a woman without super powers leading around men with her intellect didn’t sit right with Fox, so there we have our two key characters ruined.

And there is an addition to the team, an American named Tom Sawyer (Fox’s idea).

I could end the review now and you would understand just how shitty they did this book.

But there’s more. So the League is brought together, but instead of doing battle with British Intelligence in a classic spy caper, we’re just fighting Moriarty, who is involved in the story much earlier than in the book. Basically, it’s him dressed in this stupid mask that makes him look like Iron Man and Kano from Mortal Kombat had an ugly old-man baby. I think he might also have an Inspector Gadget claw for a hand or something. Anyways, it doesn’t really convolute the story, it just kind of loses it from there.

So here we have a story stripped of all of its meaning and message, with neutered Hollywood versions of its characters, pointless action scenes, and an awful soundtrack. Is the camera work or the acting at least decent? No.

This is almost like an anti-appropriation. It takes the source text and attempts to pretty much remove any meaning or thought, instead replacing it with mind-numbing action. This movie makes Fantastic Four look decent.

But the absolute worst thing about this movie, and the reason I’m including this rant in my blog, is that it actually turned people off from the source material. Because the comic was lesser-known when the movie was released, and because Hollywood rallied behind this giant piece of crap, it’s actually what most people think of when you say “League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.”

The only good thing this movie did was teach Alan Moore not to trust Hollywood, but that doesn’t really matter because they’re going to keep adapting his stuff anyway.

High Fidelity

Today I decided to talk about one of my all-time favorite books, and the pretty decent adaptation they made based off it: Nick Hornby’s High Fidelity.

I always liked this adaptation despite the liberties that it takes with its source text. But before we go into the changes, let’s look at what stays the same.

Our main character, Rob (from London in the book, Chicago in the film), owns a record store where he works with his two “friends,” Dick and Barry. Dick is a quiet introvert who enjoys “sad bastard music,” as Barry puts it. Barry is a loud, obnoxious rock n’ roller, played in the film by Jack Black.

The temptation with Black is to let him play himself, which he does to a degree here. But it doesn’t really hurt the story too much. In fact, it’s pretty believable that had Black not rose to prominence, he would’ve ended up a Barry.

But back to Rob. Rob has just broken up with his girlfriend Laura and he is reconnecting with girlfriends of the past, trying to make sense of his own inadequacies.

In the book, and in the film, he breaks the fourth wall pretty regularly. Not in a meta way, but more like a comic book character might. In the film this is achieved by cutaways and voice-over. In the novel it’s done fairly easily because the novel is in first person.

I think the way this movie breaks the curse of the voice-over is by choosing lines from the book that are actually insightful and witty. Seems like a pretty straight forward concept, but leave it to every writer ever to fuck that up.

So anyway, Rob and Laura stay broken up for most of the film until the climax where Laura’s father dies and she and Rob get back together because they are at point in their lives where they are too weak to go on single. Not exactly a happy ending, but it has optimism.

In the book Rob realizes that Laura is indeed the girl for him and goes about improving his lifestyle and maturing so that they can be together. He decides to go back to pursuing DJing as a career instead.

In the film Rob gets back with Laura, but then flirts with the idea of hooking up with another girl, before having maybe one of the best conversations from the entire film about romance, and get this, it isn’t in the book.

But that’s when it goes South. Rob decides to produce some punker kids records and they have a release party and Jack Black’s band plays a Marvin Gaye song, which is Laura and Rob’s song, to close out the movie in a typical Hollywood fashion. Yeah, it really is that “what the fuck?”

The soundtrack is one of the best parts of the movie. By choosing artists that are both relevant and obscure, we’re left with a good portrait of our three heroes, and it doesn’t feel dated (the book came out five years before the movie, which is like 15 years in the music industry). Sensitive Dick likes bands like Belle and Sebastian, Rob loves classics like Bruce Springsteen (who has a cameo in the movie), but is also in touch with contemporary artists like The Beta Band, and Barry loves the seminal stuff, and doesn’t have much respect for anything else.

Ultimately, I think the message stays very much intact, despite the strange ending. And even though he chooses some shit roles, I think Cusack is a great actor (or if not, then likable at least).

Pop culture junkies take note, you have to have a bigger purpose than referencing counter-culture to make a successful book or film, but that doesn’t mean you can’t still reference the shit out of it.

David Lean’s Oliver Twist

In David Lean’s adaptation of the Dickens classic, we are introduced to a slightly less controversial (or more if you consider the whole Fagan debacle), and slightly less powerful critique of poverty and social class. By cutting out some details and side stories, we are left with a greater focus on the meat and potatoes of the story, and that’s what makes moments like Nancy’s death so powerful.

I want to start off by talking about John Howard Davies. I feel like Davies perfectly captures the innocence, but also what Mr. Sowerberry describes as the underlying sadness, in Oliver. Davies manages to make us sympathize with a passive, slow witted protagonist, and that’s charm.

Robert Newton is about as hateable as they come, and makes the perfect villain. He never feels very cunning, just brutish, which really helps the audience dislike him.

And Michael Dear was just ugly enough to play a character named Noah Claypool.

I think what I’m trying to say is that all of these actors are very physically interesting looking. They fit their bizarrely named counterparts all too well at some points.

It was nice to cut down on some of the characters, though I feel like Rose was a pretty important omission.

On that note, the ending was a little Walt Disney, but with the twist of somebody being hanged beforehand. I’m not sure I really liked it too much, but it did feel happy, and I guess that counts for something.

The thing that bothers me the most is that the movies feels a little too much fun at some points. Scenes like the boy dying in the workhouse were key to setting a darker tone, but the movie doesn’t seem as concerned with that. Instead we’re left with a neutered, but faithful to the characters, adaptation. But being faithful to the characters doesn’t make it faithful to the cause, and I’m afraid the message is a little bit lost in all of that.