Adaptations fascinate me. The evolution from one complete medium to another is incredible and revelatory. I love to observe the different forms a story can take, and what difference any changes may make. Many – dare I say most? – popular films, plays, musicals, television series, and even novels are based on older versions of the same story, stories so inherently interesting or diverting that we thrill to tell them again and again. In our world, stories travel through our technology faster than ever before and novels are optioned for film adaptations before they are written.
I read Water for Elephants after it hit the best-seller list, before it was optioned for a film, and before everyone I knew had read it. Naturally, I had developed my own idea for how the characters should look (“Marlena a blonde? No. Absolutely not. Never.”), but the novel itself was written in a very accessible and cinematic manner, and its subsequent adaptation came as no surprise. While I was by no means enamored of Sara Gruen’s novel, there were still a lot of expectations riding on this film.
My own misguided hope that caused me to anticipate something akin to Big Fish, but Francis Lawrence directs a surprisingly faithful adaptation in this elegant period piece. Lawrence previously worked in the shorter media of music video and mini-series, and learning this now explains the up-and-down pacing of the film. The conflict/resolution/climax cycle is off, the film’s arc disjointed – though I have a vague memory of feeling similarly about the book. That aside, his visuals are dynamic and effective, with a very clear depiction of camaraderie and menagerie.
The elephant in the room (forgive the pun) is of course, Robert Pattinson. If you’ve read any of my other reviews, you know that I own up to any partiality where it exists. I have neither seen nor read Twilight, and the closest I have come to watching Pattinson at all is Jimmy Fallon’s hilarious “Robert is Bothered” sketches. But you know what? Good job, Pattinson. And that’s a damn fine performance from Ms. Witherspoon as well. Even if she is blonde. And no one had any doubt that Christoph Waltz would be brilliant as circus ringleader and tyrant August Rosenbluth (though not having seen his Oscar-winning turn in Inglorious Basterds, I could not have imagined his suitability for the part).
I read Water for Elephants after it hit the best-seller list, before it was optioned for a film, and before everyone I knew had read it. Naturally, I had developed my own idea for how the characters should look (“Marlena a blonde? No. Absolutely not. Never.”), but the novel itself was written in a very accessible and cinematic manner, and its subsequent adaptation came as no surprise. While I was by no means enamored of Sara Gruen’s novel, there were still a lot of expectations riding on this film.
My own misguided hope that caused me to anticipate something akin to Big Fish, but Francis Lawrence directs a surprisingly faithful adaptation in this elegant period piece. Lawrence previously worked in the shorter media of music video and mini-series, and learning this now explains the up-and-down pacing of the film. The conflict/resolution/climax cycle is off, the film’s arc disjointed – though I have a vague memory of feeling similarly about the book. That aside, his visuals are dynamic and effective, with a very clear depiction of camaraderie and menagerie.
The elephant in the room (forgive the pun) is of course, Robert Pattinson. If you’ve read any of my other reviews, you know that I own up to any partiality where it exists. I have neither seen nor read Twilight, and the closest I have come to watching Pattinson at all is Jimmy Fallon’s hilarious “Robert is Bothered” sketches. But you know what? Good job, Pattinson. And that’s a damn fine performance from Ms. Witherspoon as well. Even if she is blonde. And no one had any doubt that Christoph Waltz would be brilliant as circus ringleader and tyrant August Rosenbluth (though not having seen his Oscar-winning turn in Inglorious Basterds, I could not have imagined his suitability for the part).
There’s something else special about this film, something unexpected and beautiful: the chemistry between Pattinson and Witherspoon, remarkable because it is not sexual chemistry, but something older, wiser, and respectful. Their characters share an instinct for self-preservation, and a sympathy, an understanding, a love of animals of which the circus seems devoid. The profound affection between these kindred spirits actually generates the sense that this relationship – not driven by lust – might actually last.
Water for Elephants is a lovely film, and well-cast, recommended for viewing. Because we all like “tricks and illusion” now and again, don’t we?
No comments:
Post a Comment