Cinematic Saturdays: Tuck Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt

If you’re on the lookout for a children’s novel that will launch you head first into an existential crisis, look no further than Natalie Babbit’s Tuck Everlasting. It’s short, lovely, and is perhaps what first made you realize you’re going to die someday.

Title: Tuck Everlasting

Author:  Natalie Babbitt

Publisher: Farrar Straus Giroux

Publication Date: 1985

Pages: 144

Genre: Middle Grade, Fantasy

Rating: 

Summary (from Goodreads): 

Doomed to - or blessed with - eternal life after drinking from a magic spring, the Tuck family wanders about trying to live as inconspicuously and comfortably as they can. When ten-year-old Winnie Foster stumbles on their secret, the Tucks take her home and explain why living forever at one age is less a blessing that it might seem. Complications arise when Winnie is followed by a stranger who wants to market the spring water for a fortune.

Warning! This may contain, well, a lot of spoilers.

Tuck Everlasting follows privileged child protagonist Winifred (Winnie) Foster as she finds the courage to question the meaning of life.

After spending ten years confined to her parents’ property in itchy, expensive dresses and being forcibly transformed into a “lady of society,” she flees to the woods for an afternoon. Of course, she’s unaccustomed to such untamed places and soon becomes lost, making what was first intended to be an hour-long excursion into an indefinite, potentially life-threatening venture. Exhausted and nearly dead from dehydration, she comes upon a family – mother, father, two sons, and a horse – drinking from a small spring at the roots of a massive oak tree. Desperate for water, she ignores the potential danger of approaching a small hoard of strangers in the forest, and asks for a drink. At this the family kind of flips out, and insists she comes home with them. Because that’s not freaky or anything.

Being ten, and exceptionally sheltered for a person of any age, Winnie is ill-equipped to prevent, or appropriately respond to, her own kidnapping, and goes somewhat willingly with the strange family (the Tucks). They take her back to a secluded cabin deep in the woods where she’s held for an unestablished number of days.

In this time, after she’s gotten over the whole begging to go home thing, she develops a pretty wicked case of Stockholm syndrome and begins to appreciate the slow, almost meditative lifestyle the Tucks have adopted. They seem to have a patience the rest of the world has forgotten about. However, they also do a lot of whispering and sidelong glancing, which seems to indicate the presence of a fairly gnarly secret.

Desperate to discover what this might be, Winnie befriends Jesse, the youngest Tuck son at fifteen years old, who eventually informs her of their accidental immortality. He tells her that many years ago, when passing through the woods on their way “out west,” his family came upon the spring Winnie had found them at. They all (apart from their cat) had a drink and moved on, thinking nothing of it. In the following year, they all had brushes with death they shouldn’t realistically have recovered from, but walked away from unscathed. They found this odd, but it wasn’t until their cat (who hadn’t drunk from the spring) died of old age that they suspected the spring was magical and had granted them eternal life. Decades passed, and when none of them had aged, they were hunted for witchcraft. This sent them fleeing back east, eventually settling deep in the same forest as the spring that had taken their mortality.

Jesse then, lonely from spending nearly one hundred years with no one but his immediate family, and desperate for some modicum of “normalcy,” gives Winnie a tiny bottle filled with spring water, which he begs her to drink when she’s fifteen so she can spend forever with him.

In the movie this has a completely different context/tone that almost makes the audience wish she would. Of course she’s also older in the movie. In the book this is legitimately sad and little troubling. Jesse, who’s technically over 100 years old, is profoundly stunted emotionally/socially because of his solitude, and is so eager for love and alternative human interaction that he begs a ten-year-old to spend eternity with him. This is the first time in the story when immortality is really presented as a negative. Jesse maintains a kind of childlike optimism, but is completely separated from reality.

Once the rest of the family knows that their secret is out, the father, Angus, has a chat with Winnie suggesting that existing is not the same as living, and that there is no life without death. He emphasizes the importance of death and then returns her to her family, saying that they needed to move on for a while or risk being discovered (now that a blabby ten-year-old knew their secret). Before they leave, Jesse once again asks Winnie to drink from the bottle he gave her, and he would come back for her one day.

Now, because she’s ten, and thereby a bit emotional, irrational, and, let’s face it, incapable of making a decision regarding her own mortality, she empties the bottle onto a frog at the side of the road who was nearly hit by a horse-drawn cart, so that he can live forever, not having to worry about becoming road kill.

Many years later, Mr. and Mrs. Tuck revisit the town and find Winnie’s grave at the cemetery, to which Mrs. Tuck exclaims “good girl,” and the book ends.

I can’t speak as to why Natalie Babbit wanted to familiarize children with their eventual demises, but I’m sure she had good intentions. And I really do love this story.

As a child, when I first read this book, I didn’t fully understand or appreciate the amount of thought and control that went into the narrative. Reading as an adult, I picked up on a lot of layers and discovered this story is intended to be dissected over several reads during several, different phases of life. For example, when reading as a child, one relates to Winnie’s naïve inner monologue, and is still kind of in the dark as to the full meaning of the book at the end. As an adult one’s more attuned to the subtle ways in which the Tucks are impaired by their immortality, and begins to feel sorry for them. Not to mention uncomfortable. They’re all a bit childlike themselves in a way because they’re profoundly, irreversibly stunted. Stagnant. And as the book points out, there is no life without change. It’s a surprisingly bittersweet read as an adult.

Okay, yuk it up, movie fans, I’m sayin’ it again; I enjoy this movie more than the book. Now, don’t misunderstand me, that’s not to say it’s better, it’s just more entertaining.

One big difference in the movie (though there are many) is that both Winnie and Jesse are “seventeen,” which makes their potential love dynamic infinitely less creepy. This does detract from the original message, and completely strips Jesse of his awkwardness/desperation, but it also makes his character much more likable, and the story more suspenseful.

Here’s some more.

In the film, Winnie finds Jesse at the spring alone, and is kidnapped by his brother when he discovers them there together. After being taken back to their cabin, it takes only one night to relax Winnie enough to spend whole days with Jesse frolicking through fields of daisies, climbing small mountains, and swimming under waterfalls. They fall head-over-heels in love and share a sweet first kiss before he informs her that they’ll never die. It’s then Jesse’s brother Miles (again, the killjoy), who discovers them all cozy by a bonfire and lays down all the negatives of eternal life, among them his own personal experience losing his wife and two children.

Hey, I just met you, and this is crazy, but there's this spring...

Another big difference from book to film is the emphasis on a smaller character, “The Man in the Yellow Suit,” the grandson of a woman who lived in an insane asylum with Miles Tuck’s former wife. This is how he came to hear of the family who was, allegedly, immortal. Why he trusted the ramblings of a woman in an 1800’s insane asylum, I’m not sure, but it inspired him to track them down so he could learn their secret and also live forever.

Total Creeper

Being fairly certain that he’s discovered the forest where the Tucks are hiding out, he offers Winnie’s parents to search the woods for them. When he discovers Winnie is with the Tucks, and conveniently overhears the story of the spring’s magical properties, he offers to bring her to her parents in exchange for the woods, which Winnie’s moneybags father also owns. They agree and he rushes off to fetch her.

Here he holds Winnie at gunpoint, demanding the Tucks take him to the spring lest she be blown to kingdom come. At this, May Tuck (the mother), in a supremely badass move, bludgeons the dude on the back of the head with the butt of a rife and kills him.

This is when Winnie’s father shows up with the police and hunting dogs and so forth, and May Tuck is arrested for murder. Never mind that Winnie was being held at gunpoint. Guess they missed that part.

In the movie, this is the reason why the Tucks flee. May is scheduled to be hanged, but obviously won’t die, so this will expose their secret. After Winnie freaking breaks May out of jail, the Tucks run away. At night. In the middle of a thunderstorm. Tearfully leaving Winnie behind. Just before they’re to be chased, Jesse begs Winnie (for the first time) to go back to the spring and drink from it, vowing he’ll come back for her when it’s safe. He then rides off in the dark, reaching back to her and screaming “Winnie Foster, I will love you until the day I die!” …Which is never! ::Bawls::

See for yourself! (Clip below).

I cry my eyes out every time.

Fast forward to modern times. Jesse shows up all James Dean on a motorcycle, and discovers Winnie’s grave at the foot of the oak tree.

It is so sad.

It is so good.

Rating: 

I’ve never been able to decide if this movie is a guilty pleasure or not.

As always, thanks for tuning in, and see you next Saturday!

Note! I just discovered this was first adapted to film in 1981. I had no idea! Perhaps I’ll watch it and post a part two to this review.

Cinematic Saturdays: The Fantastic Mr. Fox

This time of year, with its ice cream trucks and back-to-school specials, always makes me super nostalgic. So this week we’re taking a little trip down memory lane (if you’re a Roald Dahl fan, that is).

Title: The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Author:  Roald Dahl

Publisher: Knopf Books for Young Readers

Publication Date: 1970

Pages: 94

Genre: Children's

Rating: 

Summary (from Goodreads): 

Fantastic Mr. Fox is on the run! The three meanest farmers around are out to get him. Fat Boggis, squat Bunce, and skinny Bean have joined forces, and they have Mr. Fox and his family surrounded. What they don’t know is that they’re not dealing with just any fox–Mr. Fox would never surrender. But only the most fantastic plan ever can save him now.

As the title suggests, The Fantastic Mr. Fox follows, well, Mr. Fox as he thieves various farmers of small livestock. Three in particular, farmers Boggis, Bunce, and Bean, are among his favorites to burgle. If you’ll indulge me:

“Boggis, Bunce, and bean
one fat, one short, one lean.
Those horrible crooks
so different in looks
are nonetheless equally mean"

In a nutshell, these three chumps get sick of Mr. Fox breaking into their barns and stealing their livelihoods (the nerve). While they are, as previously stated, chumps, and likely deserve having their crap taken, they decide, as many others would, to defend their property. (So many commas!). It begins with a gun-happy stakeout outside the Fox family den. They figure, “hey, the sun’s down. He’ll come out soon to steal our poultry and we’ll blast him to kingdom come!” Or something like that. So when Mr. Fox predictably slithers out to steal himself a juicy goose, Boggis, Bunce, and Bean open a Sam’s-Club-sized can of whoopass on his behind. No, seriously, they shoot his tail off. So Mr. Fox rushes back inside to warn the family (which in the book consists of his wife and four children), and they all begin to dig. Good thing, too, since the farmers have now decided to rent bulldozers and shovel the foxes out.

((So many parentheses!))

To make a long story short (too late), the Foxes team up with some other critters to take advantage of the farmer’s absence, and tunnel up into their barns for the biggest heist yet. All said critters then decide, “hey, with access to all this food, we never have to go outside again!” And they live indefinitely underground, stuffing themselves with the farmer’s stolen fare.

Seriously, if you’re having a bad day, read this book. It will take the same amount of time as one episode of whatever horrible (but admittedly addictive) reality TV show you were planning to watch.

Rating:

To my tremendous delight, the incomparable Wes Anderson adapted The Fantastic Mr. Fox to film in 2009. And in stop-motion, no less!

The movie embellishes quite a bit story wise, but I honestly don’t mind. Anderson’s quirky style is so appropriate for Roald Dahl that the changes seem original. His additions mesh so seamlessly, in fact, that the majority of the quotes on goodreads attributed to Roald Dahl’s work actually appear exclusively in the movie. Good on ya, Wes.

There’s a substantial amount more character development/depth in the movie than the book, particularly with relationships. For example, in the book, Mrs. Fox (voiced by Maryl Streep) is nothing more than a slightly weak, doting wife. In the movie she’s a former hussy (no, really) who’s since reformed and paints landscapes in attempt to cope with her husband’s kleptomania. She resents their new life on the run, and blames Mr. Fox (George Clooney) for stealing their chance at a normal existence. Their son Ash (Jason Schwartzman), an only child, feels taken for granted and tirelessly craves the attention of his narcissistic, emotionally unavailable father. 

The almost gritty emotional dynamics are just so ironic when paired with Claymation animals in suits that it becomes impossible not to laugh. This is a hilarious movie that I’m certain can be enjoyed by viewers of any age. And on a slightly unrelated note, virtually every character in this movie is voiced by a household name. I love, love, love that Wes Anderson committed so much time and attention to detail to a children’s book.

Speaking of detail, every character in the movie was given a fully formed, delightfully remedial identity. They drink coffee and go to school and have day jobs. Mr. Fox himself is a columnist for a dying newspaper. His friends Badger and Weasel are lawyers, with the fancy suits and brief cases to prove it.

And that’s not even counting the tremendous artistic ability and patience exercised in the production of this film. When you consider that each frame was built, photographed, strung together, edited, etc., it’s pretty mind-boggling. The character’s facial expressions alone make my head spin.  

Crazy!

In case you hadn’t surmised, I love this movie and Wes Anderson in general. If you haven’t already, go watch The Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Limited. Immediately. …Or else. And then devote some time to The Fantastic Mr. Fox.

As always, feel free to offer suggestions for other comparison reviews and purchase either book or film via the links below. Thanks for tuning in, and see you next weekend!

 

Cinematic Saturdays: The Hunger Games

As I’m sure most of you know (because we’re a bunch of shameless nerds), the theatrical trailer for Catching Fire was released this week. In honor of this embarrassingly momentous event, I’ll be focusing on Suzanne Collins’s The Hunger Games! ::Confetti shower::

Title: The Hunger Games

Author:  Suzanne Collins

Publisher: Scholastic Press

Publication Date: September 14, 2008

Pages: 374

Genre: Dystopian

Rating: 

Summary (from Goodreads): 

In the ruins of a place once known as North America lies the nation of Panem, a shining Capitol surrounded by twelve outlying districts. The Capitol is harsh and cruel and keeps the districts in line by forcing them all to send one boy and one girl between the ages of twelve and eighteen to participate in the annual Hunger Games, a fight to the death on live TV.

Sixteen-year-old Katniss Everdeen, who lives alone with her mother and younger sister, regards it as a death sentence when she steps forward to take her sister’s place in the Games. But Katniss has been close to dead before—and survival, for her, is second nature. Without really meaning to, she becomes a contender.

If she is to win, she will have to start making choices that will weigh survival against humanity and life against love.

Please direct your attention to the puffy Carolynn of yesteryear as she gushes about the series.

I excitedly fidgeted in a packed theater at midnight to see this film, and at the time I was in no way disappointed. Truthfully, I’m still not because I love this franchise so gosh darn much. But if I’m being objective there are a few things the film could have handled better.

As with many films quickly adapted from popular books, The Hunger Games does disappoint a bit in the visuals department. While movie studios occasionally create art, their primary objective is to make money. So when an overnight sensation like Suzanne Collins’s stroke of genius explodes onto the scene, they all scramble over themselves to start making ticket sales as quickly as possible. This doesn’t usually manifest in any one huge way, but rather a bunch of small ones.

Some examples are;

1) The fire in all of Katniss’s outfits is underwhelming and looks completely artificial. 

2) Peeta’s camouflage is laughable.
3) The Capitol city, which Peeta describes as “huge,” looks tiny and fake

4) The “dogs” in the final moments in the arena are in no way frightening

You sure did.

Okay, I can’t go on. I can’t say anything else negative about this movie. So there are parts that disappoint, that doesn’t stop it from being completely gush-worthy. Also, Jennifer Lawrence's overall delightfulness cancels out anything less than perfect about this movie. I mean, really. She's awesome...

Us too...

If you're a book fan still craving some movie bashing, I'd like to encourage you to watch this hilarious, albeit occasionally incorrect, criticism by one of my favorite youtube channels, Screenjunkies (makers of Honest Trailers). Have fun!

Rating:

What do you think should have been handled differently? Feel free to comment below!

 
As always, thanks for tuning in. You can purchase either the novel or film in the links below. See you next week!

 

Cinematic Saturdays - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Running with last week’s review, I’m shining the spotlight on another Swedish author, Stieg Larsson, creator of the Millennium Trilogy and my all-time favorite badass heroine, Lisbeth Salander. 

Title: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Author:  Stieg Larsson

Publisher: Knopf

Publication Date: 2000

Pages: 465

Genre: Crime Thriller

Rating: 

Summary (from Goodreads): 

Mikael Blomkvist, a once-respected financial journalist, watches his professional life rapidly crumble around him. Prospects appear bleak until an unexpected (and unsettling) offer to resurrect his name is extended by an old-school titan of Swedish industry. The catch—and there's always a catch—is that Blomkvist must first spend a year researching a mysterious disappearance that has remained unsolved for nearly four decades. With few other options, he accepts and enlists the help of investigator Lisbeth Salander, a misunderstood genius with a cache of authority issues. Little is as it seems in Larsson's novel, but there is at least one constant: you really don't want to mess with the girl with the dragon tattoo.

This is actually one of those rare instances in which I prefer a movie to the book. The story is solid but overall the novel reads a bit like an unfinished manuscript. Because Stieg Larsson unfortunately died before US publication, he wasn’t able to contribute to the final editorial process. Therefore the book contains quite a lot of extraneous detail and characters that often read flat. However, to be fair, it’s possible that flatness is just the result of a more event/story driven plot and is therefore merely preferential (I like character-driven novels).

Speaking of characters (sorry, Stieg), it feels as though he tried so hard to make his characters unique that they ended up unrealistic and almost impossible to relate to. There isn’t a single character in this book, even a minor one, who’s a regular person. Either they’re eccentric, billionaire titans of industry, or incestuous, serial murderers, or criminalized journalists, or super-genius hackers. The list goes on and on. Even though it’s set in the “real world,” I felt I needed to try pretty hard to suspend reality.

But all that being said, again, the story is freakin’ awesome. My summery is below. 

Beware of Spoilers – Mikael Blomkvist, a financial journalist who built his reputation on exposing high stakes, white-collar crimes, faces jail time when he defames the character of a local billionaire. Wanting to avoid prison, he agrees instead to resign from his position at Millennium, the Stockholm-based magazine he writes for and co-owns. At this time, with nothing to fill his days and no income to speak of, he’s hired by another billionaire, Henrik Vanger, to investigate the 36-year-old disappearance of his niece Harriet. Feeling overwhelmed, Blomkvist elicits the help of hacking mastermind and “private investigator” Lisbeth Salander (aka an incomparable atomic bomb of unbridled badassery), who incidentally was the one who landed him in his pile of professional excrement in the first place. Together they uncover the strange and troubling truth of the Vanger family and young Harriet’s mysterious disappearing act.

I wouldn’t not recommend this book, but I also wouldn’t suggest making time in your busy schedule to read it. If you’re bored and actively seeking something to do, by all means, go for it.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was first adapted to film in 2009 by Swedish director Niels Arden Oplev. It remained incredibly true to the book and won the BAFTA film award in 2011 for best foreign language film.
 
The only criticism I really have is that this movie is very long (152 minutes). That paired with the fact that it’s subtitled makes it require some commitment to watch. It’s not the kind of movie you can have on in the background while you peruse Pintrest. You have to pay attention, and you have to pay attention for a long time. Like the book, this adaptation contains some extraneous detail and tends to move a bit slowly.

One of the biggest differences between this film and the American remake is the artistic interpretation of Lisbeth Salander. Oplev and actress Noomi Rapace create a very unaffected, unemotional, and almost sociopathic Salander. While she’s in no way a villain, she is bristly and very difficult to connect with. This is somewhat true to her character in the book, but in the movie she seems almost inhuman. However, that’s not in any way a testament to poor acting. Rapace was incredibly committed and convincing in her role.

This movie is acted well, written well, shot well, and worth a watch. So drink some coffee, put the internet away, and glue your eyes to the screen.

Rating : 

An American remake was released in 2011 by Oscar nominated director David Fincher (The Social Network, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). The film also won an Academy Award for film editing, was nominated for four others, and won AFI’s 2012 film of the year. It also won the prestigious Carolynn Staib, double-thumbs-up stamp of approval and inspired me to go as Lisbeth Salander for Halloween.

Much, nay, most – almost there – all of the extraneous detail was pruned away to reveal a thrilling story arc that was in no way slow, and the characters were infinitely more relatable than in either the novel or Swedish film. Especially Lisbeth. While she is still exceptionally independent, cunning, and capable, she possesses a fragility that makes me want to protect her despite the undeniable fact that she’d never, ever need it.

In both novel and original film, Salander seems to act on some kind of detached, moral code. A good example is in the infinitely cringe-worthy tattoo scene. For those who need a refresher, she breaks into the home of a man who’d raped her, ties him down, gags him, and forcibly tattoos “I am a rapist pig” in giant letters onto his abdomen. In the original film she’s entirely unemotional, as though merely doling justice for some unspecified crime. In the American remake Salander is clearly exacting revenge. She is livid and she is terrifying. 

"Hold still, I've never done this before."

Another example is in her relationship with Mikael Blomkvist, with whom she has a brief physical affair. Near the end of the story, Salander abruptly and entirely cuts Blomkvist off. In the novel and original film it seems as though this is because she’s developed feelings for him and can’t be bothered with the inevitable emotional complications this will cause. In the American remake Lisbeth cuts ties after feeling betrayed by Mikael. Again, the motivations for her reactions were made much more emotional than calculating. Most of the time I would have a problem with this because of the whole “emotional female” stereotype, but because she was so aloof before, I genuinely think it’s an improvement.

But those are all testaments to superior writing/direction and don’t really spotlight the stellar acting ability of Roony Mara, who before The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was virtually unknown. I think it’s safe to say that I have never believed a performance more than hers in my life. She was so invested in her role that I couldn’t see the actress behind the character if I tried. Her performance got her nominated for the Academy Award for best actress in a leading role, and she probably should have won. And talk about a committed physical transformation (see photo below).

This movie may be perfect. Really. It’s beautifully directed, written, shot, and acted, and is, in my opinion, a manifestation of how the book should have been. Soak it up, movie buffs, you won’t hear me say that often.
 
Rating: 

As always, the novel and films can be purchased via the links below. Thanks for tuning in and see you next week!