The children's books of Dr. Seuss are so beloved and revered that any feature-length film adaptation is going to be highly scrutinized and met with skepticism. The same can be said with any children's literature classic brought to the big screen, and for every successful attempt, like the Harry Potter series, there's a stinker, like The Cat in the Hat. A computer-animated version of The Lorax hits theaters in March of 2012, and Seuss fans await with the usual mix of excitement and trepidation. Will it meet expectations? There is reason to be optimistic.
First, though, let's consider what elements would make for the ideal film adaptation of a Seuss book. Of course, as with just about any adaptation, we want our Seuss movies to be true to the source material. It has to look like it belongs with Seuss's distinctive and whimsical artwork. It is not good enough to simply pay homage to the Seuss style; these films must have an authentic Seuss look. Main characters should not be drastically altered. No new plot points that Seuss himself would clearly not add. No contemporary pop/rock tunes or quips about present-day novelties like the iPad and Facebook. Seuss fans will quickly reject films that so tamper with the original. While the scripts understandably cannot consist solely of clever Seuss rhymes, a significant dose of Seussian wordplay is required. We want our Seuss movies to be genuine Seuss.
I'd like to think Hollywood gets that, but of the three major Seuss films made to date, only one has obtained widespread approval from Seuss fans. Perhaps the biggest problem in adapting these books is their short length, all less than eighty pages long, with many of the pages consisting of only one or two sentences. Inevitably, new material must be added. Characters must be fleshed out, given back-stories and a sensible motivation. New characters may have to be added. Filmmakers must tread carefully here.
Lead actors can also factor largely in a Seuss film's reception. If the character's tone is off, it's all over. It's tempting for many actors to want to put their stamp on a classic character, to give the portrayal a "freshness" and to make it their own. For example, in Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Johnny Depp turned the mysterious-yet-avuncular Willy Wonka into a goofy, effeminate weirdo. Great actor, odd choice.
Let's take a look at the three existing Seuss films and how they measure up to our ideals:
How The Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
What it got right: The production design effectively captured the look and feel of Seuss's Whoville in the first live-action Seuss adaptation ever made, although too often it felt too much like a sound stage set. The new material and Grinch back-story were acceptable.
What it got wrong: Jim Carrey's performance as the Grinch was too loud and over-the-top, overpowering the charms of Whoville and the Christmas season. His interpretation of the song "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch," from the 1966 Boris Karloff-narrated TV special paled badly in comparison. Perhaps our expectations were too high.
The Cat in the Hat (2003)
What it got right: Again, the production design was the highlight, widely praised by critics.
What it got wrong: Everything else. Mike Meyers' Cat is not the magical playful visitor from the book, but an unnecessarily crude and unlikable annoyance. Sadly, the kids' family is dysfunctional. It was all too far removed from the book. We can only hope for a proper remake one day because this was a bona fide failure, and The Cat deserves a proper big-screen treatment.
Horton Hears a Who (2008)
What it got right: As the first computer-animated Seuss film, the look and feel was once again on target. There was even a nice nod to Seuss's artwork when Horton imagines the inhabitants of the speck. The new material felt appropriate and changes to the original seemed logical. As Horton the elephant, Jim Carrey's performance worked this time, as did Carrell's Mayor of Whoville. We even got Carol Burnett as the sour Kangaroo.
What it got wrong: The pop song tacked on at the end was a terribly ill-conceived. Had the filmmakers not done so much else right, this ending would be unforgivable.
Early next year comes The Lorax, that sad tale of a greedy industrialist destroying the forest of truffula trees to make thneeds, which nobody needs. There is good reason to think this computer-animated movie will be a successful adaptation. The script is by Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio, the same team that adapted Horton Hears a Who, and also the writers of last year's Despicable Me, which was an enormous success. Suess's widow, Audrey Giesel, is on board as executive producer, as she was with Horton, and is presumably working to preserve Seuss's legacy. The talented cast boasts Ed Helms as The Once-ler, Danny DeVito as The Lorax, Zac Efron, Taylor Swift, Betty White, and Rob Riggle. One cause for concern for some is the reported decision to show the Once-ler's full body, as opposed to just showing his arms, which lent the character an air of mystery in the book. Judging from their work on Horton, however, these filmmakers have earned the benefit of the doubt, and soon we'll see The Lorax speaking for the trees on the big screen. Here's hoping his voice is well-received.
Patrick C. Dalton is a life-long fan of Dr. Seuss. You can keep up-to-date will new developments of the upcoming Lorax Movie at his website, http://www.loraxmovienews.com/.
No comments:
Post a Comment