The Secret World of Arrietty (2010) based on The Borrowers (1952)

The Secret World of Arrietty is an animated film from Studio Ghibli, the "Disney of Japan," based on Mary Norton's classic novel "The Borrowers."

The Borrowers is not a particularly exciting book. Much of the novel is spent setting up the world of the Borrowers, little people who "borrow" items from regular sized folk (explaining why earrings and pins always go missing). The main characters are the Clock family, Pod, Homily and their daughter Arrietty.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great book and re-reading it recently, I remembered how fond of the concept I was as a child. Little people! I'm not sure if I would rather have lived as a little person or with them in my house, but in any case it was fascinating to consider that a sugar cube would serve them for months.

The plot, though, is sparse. After setting up the world, we learn that Arrietty is old enough to go "borrowing" with her father while her mother worries at home.

There is a change in the house, however. A boy is staying in the house, convalescing from an illness and he spots Arrietty. Her parents immediately resign themselves to leaving -- borrowers cannot stay in a house where they are known by humans. Arrietty, however, trusts the boy and they become friends. Still, the family eventually leaves.

That doesn't sound like enough plot to fill 90 minutes but the film is filled with beautiful paintings and a fair amount of light comedic scenes alternately featuring the housecat or the maid who are both suspicious of the borrowings in the house.

The movie changes the book through setting -- it's modern Japan, rather than mid 20th c. England -- and a rather more explicit discussion of the boy (Sean in the film) and his illness. In the movie he is awaiting an operation.

Other than that, the movie stays very close to the book, even to the somewhat downbeat ending. It's a good artistic choice, but I can understand why an animated movie that doesn't end with a princess marriage might not have done so well at the box office.

Bottom line: The book is a children's classic and the movie is beautiful and features some good voice to Japanese mouth movement dubbing by Amy Poehler, Will Arnett and Carol Burnett.

Seabiscuit (pub. 2001, rel.2003)

This is both a great book and a great movie. As usual, the book is better, in this case because history is more complicated and more interesting than fiction.

The movie surprisingly takes the same structure as the book; surprising because the book seems to meander a bit as it collects the principal characters: Charles Howard, Tom Smith and Red Pollard (the horse's owner, trainer and rider, respectively). David McCullough's narration in the film gives it a literary (or at least PBS) feel, but in truth director Gary Marshall lays out many of the ironies visually and asks the viewer to fill in. For example, the fact that Howard started out making and selling bicycles but made his fortune in automobiles -- and then goes back to the horses that pre-dated mechanical transport, is shown through the use of the stables on his property as they house cars, and then horses.

Some of the complicated relationships are also told somewhat quickly, including Pollard's friendship with George Wolfe.

The movie is fairly accurate historically, although there is a large discrepancy in the age of Howard's son, who dies in an accident. I assume the choice was made to make sure Howard didn't seem too old, which would in turn make his relationship with his much younger second wife seem a bit more scandalous.

The book treats locations and professions almost as characters -- Tijuana, jockeys, for example -- and the film couldn't do these themes justice. There is a lot more information on these topics, and on the life and pranks of Tom Smith, for one, that were just not explored in the film.

That said, while the narrative describing some of the races are suspenseful and gripping, the visual recreations of a horse race are much more visceral and can be presented in "real time" (i.e. about 2 minutes).

For a documentary film on Seabiscuit, the PBS series The American Experience created a compelling story.

Jack Reacher based on One Shot (pub. 2006, rel. 2012)

As a fan of Lee Child's Jack Reacher books, I was looking forward to seeing this film, and had a number of reactions afterwards.

First: the casting of Tom Cruise was fine for the most part. I noticed they cast a lot of other short (i.e. average height) actors around him, although Reacher is supposed to be 6'5" or something. The bit where Cruise plays Reacher hiding in a bus stop crowd is great and Cruise shows just a wry grin that's appropriate. Unfortunately, his megawatt movie star smile is too much for Reacher.

The other thing I realized, too, was that Cruise is actually not far from the right age and does a good job thinking (so much of Reacher is about thinking, you need an actor who can convey that). I'm wondering who else in the age range conveys that internal gear turning. Perhaps Bryan Cranston (aka Breaking Bad's Walter White)? Frankly, a lot of that is in the editing and having the director linger on a face that's not actually "doing" anything.

Second: reading about violence is very different from watching it. I love the Terminator films and other scenes of mass carnage, but the Reacher universe is a realistic world and thus all the collateral damage feels a lot worse. This movie is based on One Shot, and I think that was the 2nd or 3rd Reacher novel I read. For my taste, I like that Reacher is basically a smart detective, not bound by legalities, but basically a guy who observes and thinks and calculates and figures stuff out. That's what I like about the books, and I'm glad the bad guys get their just reward, but mostly I enjoy being privy to the thought process.

Again, as someone who enjoys R-rated action films, I guess the idea of a nanny getting killed while holding a 7 year old girl is just a little too much for me). Also, the scene where The Zec proves how tough he is is funny/horrible in a Carl Hiassen sort of way in the book. In the movie, sick and sadistic and not all that funny.

Third: I love that the actors all basically break character when they meet Robert Duvall's character. I hadn't realized that Duvall was in the movie. You can clearly see, though, that when Cruise, and then later Rosamund Pike are introduced to Duvall, their faces light up, like, "Awesome, I'm in a scene with Robert freaking Duvall." On the one hand, lame. On the other hand, awesome, because, let's face it, he's Robert freaking Duvall.

Fourth: enjoyed Lee Child's cameo as a police sergeant. They actually gave him a bit of acting that gave me a chuckle.

Overall, this was a relatively faithful adaptation, given the compression necessary to get all the plot on film. Most importantly, Reacher's character made it to the screen intact.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Read this to my son (6); my daughter (4) lost interest pretty quickly. Like the movie, and like other books by Fleming, there is a magical car that can fly and do other remarkable things. Not much else is similar to the movie, but lots that recall the Bond books: a secret hideout in a cave, an international gang of mobsters, and a girl named Pus--no, just kidding on the last bit. It's been years since I read Casino Royale, but I remember the writing to be similarly clunky (lots of adverbs, lots of random bloviation) but the plot actually moves along and is both exciting for kids and not too scary. I'm not sorry I read it, but I wouldn't recommend it except for curiosity value.

Bottom line: the movie is much more entertaining.

Tell No One (pub. 2001; rel. 2006)

My assumption in creating this blog was that people who watched a popular film might be curious as to how closely it followed its literary source and, more importantly, whether the book might be worth reading. For Tell No One, the book by popular mystery/thriller author Harlan Coben may have had more exposure than the French film adaptation, Ne le dis à personne.


Let me first acknowledge that I read the book first and saw the movie second. And when I sat down to watch the film, I wondered how they would pack 400 pages of rather dense plotting into two hours. At the same time, I wondered if this film would suffer from what I find to be the overly stylized, atmospheric character of le cinema de la France. As it turned out, the combination of American thriller plotting and evocative French filmmaking was very successful.

The book, mostly told in first person by Dr. David Beck (but with 3rd person cheats to check in on villains and police investigators), is about Beck's grief over losing his wife Elizabeth during an assault eight years ago; the narration focuses on his love and inability to find closure. Her case has long been closed but then Beck receives an e-mail message that suggests that she is still alive.

The film, mostly close first person on Dr. Alexandre Beck (with fewer 3rd person scenes), follows the basic plot of the book but streamlines many plot elements. Actor Francois Cluzet's expressive face and a few evocative flashback scenes deftly convey the pining for Margot, the lost wife. Similarly, dialogue heavy confrontations between Beck's lawyer and the D.A. are simplified but the essence remains.

The biggest plot change comes at the end. Like all great thrillers, the idea of a well-connected man of wealth is revealed to be the shadowy engine of evil in Tell No One, but the film trusts French justice and lets the conclusion play out neatly (albeit with a bit too much plain exposition). In contrast, the novel suggests American justice has its limits and resorts to vigilantism. I think I prefer the film here; it makes the ultimate bad guy less globally powerful but he's still the worst person that Beck is ever going to meet in his life.

(There's one more twist to the book that the movie eliminates. When I told my wife [who watched the movie but didn't read the book] about that twist, she thought it was neat and was sorry it was cut. Thinking about it, however, I realized that it would have required a longer resolution.)

Let's also applaud small changes. Kristin Scott-Thomas, as Cluzet's best friend (and lesbian sister-in-law) is a successful restaurateur rather than a plus-size model, and is as brilliant and charismatic as ever. The shifting of the setting from New York City to Paris could have been just one urban backdrop exchanged for another, but I personally found the images of poor, immigrant-populated neighborhoods of Paris more colorful and interesting than the poor neighborhoods of NYC (where I've lived).

Bottom line: if you liked the movie, you will find clearer explanations of relationships and motivations in the book but you might still find it a hundred pages too long. If you liked the book, I would highly recommend the movie.

  

I Love You, Beth Cooper (pub. 2007; rel. 2009)

So this blog is for people who see a film and wonder if the book is worth reading.

The movie, I Love You, Beth Cooper presents a bit of a quandary.

The book was written by Larry Doyle, a writer for The Simpsons and other moving pictures. The book is itself a pastiche or homage to 1980s teen movies and -- let's be honest -- is a detailed synopsis for a movie. And of course, the movie was also written by Doyle "based on his book" so really the differences between the two are few and mostly amount to the different media.

In other words, the movie is more visual and the book is more textual. If you like sight gags like guys falling off of roofs or being hit by cars, the movie would be your preference. If you like self-deprecating asides and pop-cultural allusions, the book is better. (I prefer the latter.)

The other big difference is in the casting. I think I knew that Hayden Panettiere was cast as Beth Cooper when I read the book, but she's not who I imagined in my head. The difference in book and movie is evident in the original cover of the book which shows the protagonist with a thought balloon over his head -- i.e., it's about this guy and his thoughts -- versus the movie poster of Panettiere with the guy peeking over her shoulder -- i.e., it's about this girl and the guy who has a crush on her.

Mini-Spoiler! Beth is clearly not the perfect girl that the protagonists imagines her to be at the beginning of the story, but Panettiere is not nearly enough of a crazy bitch (and I write that fondly) to pull off how insane Beth actually is. Which is probably good for her career and for the movie, but let's just say that Beth's personality is a bit more exaggerated in the book which heightens the humor.

Bottom line: If you have a fondness for 1980s teen flicks, then Beth Cooper (in either form) is an amusing way to pass some time. This an extremely close adaptation so choose whichever form you prefer.
  

The Great Escape (pub. 1950; rel. 1963)

The Great Escape is one of my favorite movies of all time. When I found the DVD for sale I bought it with the intention of watching it with my son. He was only 3 at time, alas. I waited.

We finally saw it a couple of weeks ago and it definitely holds up and turned out to be a great war movie for an 8 year old -- not too violent or scary but full of adventure and excitement.

Doesn't everyone like escape movies? Escape From Alcatraz is practically required viewing for Northern California residents. People love the Shawshank Redemption but no one really wants to root for criminals, and so Stephen King had to make sure we knew that Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) was an innocent man.

POW movies are totally different. The Nazis are bad guys and the Allies are good guys. No redemption or character study necessary, just set up the situation and get the plot rolling.

Title cards claim that The Great Escape is based on a true story. The basic story of Allied airmen vs. Nazi prison guards is also told as a comedic thriller in Billy Wilder's Stalag 17 and as farcical sitcom on television's Hogan's Heroes. But The Great Escape is the best of the lot and, it turns out, very much the most accurate.

The Great Escape was written by Paul Brickhill, who was shot down in Tunisia in 1943 and brought to Stalag Luft III where the escape took place. He describes his part of the escape organization in the foreword:

I was a cog in the machine, boss of a gang of "stooges" guarding the forgers, who had to work in an exposed position by windows to get enough light....
      And when I finally drew a privileged position for the actual escape, "Big X" debarred me and three or four others on grounds of claustrophobia, a correct, if infuriating, decision. A few weeks later I was deeply grateful. (p. xiv)

As those familiar with the story will recall, his gratitude is because the Gestapo killed 50 men who were part of the escape. Although it was wartime, those killings were murders and prosecuted as such at the end of the war. Brickhill follows the story past the end of the movie as War Crimes officials track down what exactly happened to the escapees and put their murderers on trial.

After the hangman's job was done in 1948 I went through several thousand pages of unpublished reports, getting all the German side of the affair as well as a lot more of our own. And then I searched out the important survivors and filled in the few gaps left.
      So here it is, as nearly the way it happened as I can make it. (p. xv)

The book does not have footnotes, index or other academic apparatus but given the author's place in the story and the short time between event and history, I will assume that this is an accurate memoir, supplemented by research.

What the book does have, though, are photographs of actual men, Allies and prison officials, and maps and sectional drawings of the tunnels and equipment. Many photographs came from sympathetic German interpreters or other captors, and the drawings were from the pen of Ley Kenyon, one of the forgers.

So... how does the movie hold up under fact checking?

Well, many characters and events are amalgamations of reality designed to give more structure to the emotional and narrative arc of the story.

That said, there are many parts of the movie that I felt were a little "too much" but turned out to be absolutely true. For example:

• one of the tunnelers was indeed claustrophobic, like Charles Bronson's character
• they did bribe and befriend German guards, sometime trading information or blackmailing them for supplies and news (rather than a stolen wallet, the real POWs tricked a guard into signing a receipt for a ration of chocolate -- once they had his signature, he was stuck)
• the tunnels were truly hundreds of feet long, lit by electricity and had trolleys and way stations every hundred feet. And yes, they were a little short of the woods.
• a bunch of Americans did distill some alcohol for a Fourth of July celebration
• during the escape, Roger Bartlett (Richard Attenborough) and Mac are tripped up when a German official speaks to them in English and Mac responds in kind; the real "Big X" (the operational planner) Roger Bushell's travelling companion reportedly fell for the same trick
• the movie shows 76 men escaping, 50 shot dead and three escaping (Broson and his buddy get to a Swedish ship and James Cogburn, as an Australian, makes it to Spain); in fact, only 3 did make it to England

Here is some of what is not true to life:

• there was no one like the Steve McQueen character (although there were plenty of men who planned individual escapes and were caught and put in "the cooler" for solitary confinement, and there were those who went stir crazy like McQueen's buddy "Ives" who is shot climbing the barbed wire in broad daylight)
• head forger Tim Walenn, although reportedly as kind and proper as Donald Pleasance's performance, did not become legally blind 
• before the breakout, the Americans were moved into an adjacent camp, away from the Royal Air Force officers and without access to the tunnel; the only American escapee was "The Artful Dodger," Major Johnny Dodge, who was born American but had joined the RAF 
• the escape occurred in March, with snow on the ground

Here is a sampling of information that the book provides that is not in the movie:

• the actual tunnel ran directly under the cooler
• one of the men singing in the group that camouflaged the sound of tool making once shouted to the manufacturers to keep their noise down, as he could hardly hear himself sing
• Hitler was directly involved in the kill order
• Churchill received an eyewitness account of the escape

Let me unpack this a bit. First of all, all of the prisoners were airmen -- pilots, mostly -- and as such, all were officers. The prison they were in was established for them and run by their opposite numbers, i.e. German Luftwaffe. There was mutual respect for each other and by all accounts the prison Kommandant was respectful and did not mistreat the men under his care. The Luftwaffe were officers who mostly disassociated themselves from the Gestapo. 

Second, although the movie is three hours long, I don't think it ever fully establishes a chronology. Some of the men were shot down just weeks into the war. Stalag III was established in 1942. Tunnels were dug, and discovered, and blown up (blowing up the hut with the trap door along with it -- not a great day for the Germans). The actual escape occurred in March of 1944; some of the men had been interred in various camps for three or more years. Of course, they had no idea how much longer the war would last (although an illicit radio brought BBC news) and some of them continued to attempt escape until the end, especially when rumors came that, in case of German defeat, prisoners would be shot and killed rather than returned to the Allies.

The orders for more brutal treatment came directly from the top. A month before the breakout, Himmler decreed that recaptured airmen were to be handed over the the Gestapo (p. 145). Weeks later, he ordered that escapees, with the exception of British and American officers, were to be taken to Mauthausen Concentration Camp to be gassed or shot (p. 151). After the breakout, Hitler got involved. Just as Roger Bushell/Bartlett had planned, the escape forced the Nazis to spend a lot of energy and manpower within Germany even as they were fighting on two fronts. Hitler was furious with the escape and issued his decree: "They are all to be shot on recapture." Goering protested, noting that it would be obvious that the men would have been murdered. "In that case," Hitler amended, "more than half of them are to be shot" (p. 209-10).

As depicted in the movie, 50 recaptured men were shot and killed by the Gestapo (General Nebe selected which men were to receive the death sentence). Unlike the movie, these deaths happened in twos and threes and fours, as various men were caught at different borders or train stations and brought to the local Gestapo.

In the aftermath of the escapes, one prisoner, The Dodger, was recaptured and released to England by the Germans. But before his release, he was brought before Dr. Schmidt, Hitler's interpreter and given a message to deliver to Churchill (Dodge was a relation): 1. no unconditional surrender, 2. respect ethnographical boundaries and 3. maintain the balance of power in Europe (spoken with an eye toward Russia) (p. 241). Two days before VE Day, Dodger met with Churchill and told him his story. "When he got the the part about Schmidt and no unconditional surrender, Churchill took the cigar out of his mouth and grinned from ear to ear." (p. 243)

So is the book worth reading? 

Sadly, I have to equivocate. If, like me, you love the movie, Stalag 17, Hogan's Heroes and all the rest, and you want to know what the true story was behind these tales, this book is worth reading, and fascinating in its details and facts. However, if you had never heard of these stories, I would not recommend the book, for many of the same reasons: it's an attempt at proper history. 

Many of the isolated moments are cinematic and exciting, but Brickhill tries to be a conscientious historian and that robs him of a lot of storytelling momentum. For example, he lists the names of dozens of men and their nationalities, thus commemorating their efforts and sacrifice, but oftentimes bogging the story down. 

While reading the book, I kept thinking to myself, Boy, whoever first optioned it must have been thrilled to dramatize some of these events. I also thought to myself, boy, it's nice that they invented the James Garner character to embody so many of the scattered anecdotes.

Bottom line: the book is great for fans, but for a newcomer or casual reader, I would here recommend starting with the film, and know that while many sequences have been condensed, for the most part the tale told on screen holds true to history.