21st-century retelling of early 20th-century stories

Darrell 2022-07-17 22:35:31

Last month, I saw someone remind me about this movie. Although I knew the news about this movie for a long time, I always felt that this movie could not be made, so I didn't pay much attention to it. It reminded me that I found out that it was actually filmed, but it didn't make any splash after the release due to the impact of the epidemic. After finding time today to read it in its entirety, as someone who has written reviews for almost every adaptation, it seems like a no-brainer to write an article for this one.

This time, let's start with the protagonist Mary. It has to be said that this time the film side has a deviation in the direction of this role: the original Mary's situation at the beginning was caused by being neglected by her family. Since she came to Misserswaite, with the environment The change made her have a lot of changes and growth. However, judging from the adaptation of this film, the filmmaker's positioning of Mary seems to be closer to "autistic". Mary kept herself in a small circle throughout the whole process, and kept doing endless fantasies, communicating with the people around her. Communication is difficult. Even if it is "autistic", if it is like Marianne ("Marnie in Memories"), it can show changes before and after, but Mary in this film is basically the same before and after, and it is impossible to see what she has had. such changes and growth. Mary is not a child who doesn't like to learn in her heart. The original book temporarily not sending Mary to school is just a decision made by Mr. Craven considering Mary's current situation at the time, but if it is changed to Mary's own like this film There is a problem with the idea. Such changes are not unique to this film, but because of the mispositioning of Mary in this film, it has become very conspicuous.

The description of Mary's parents in the original book is very small, basically only one or two sentences are mentioned in Mary's memories. However, the portrayal of Mary’s parents in this film is better than any previous version. Mary recalls their scenes almost throughout the film. It seems that her mother has always been very cold to Mary, and her father seems to be ok with Mary, but maybe because of work Have little contact with Mary. In this way, Mary's current situation has been deduced into her resentment towards her parents, and in the end, it is just that Mary has eased this resentment in her heart.

Like the 1993 version, this film also changed the relationship between the original Lannicks and the Craven family - into Mary and Colin's mother are sisters. The purpose of this change is the same as the 1993 version, which is to let Mary form a projection on Mrs. Craven through this relationship, but this film handles it more bluntly and unreasonably.

Next, let's discuss Colin. The film has the same problem with his portrayal, that is, it doesn't show his growth and changes at all. At most, it only allows him to stand up when he meets his father. The film even wisely added that Colin refused to see anything related to her because she couldn't accept the fact that her mother was dead. In fact, when the original Mrs. Craven died, Colin was very young, and he had little to do with her mother. Impression, such an arrangement is supposed to be completely impossible. The film also added a scene where Mary imagined that their mother was holding a baby Mary and Colin together. This is another clever adaptation, because according to the original book, this is absolutely impossible.

Then there is Mr. Craven, the owner of Misselthwaite, who actually only appeared twice in the original book, the one where he met Mary in the middle and at the end. Although on the surface Mr. Craven is a reckless master, from the perspective that the manor has been managed in an orderly manner and has never been out of control for so many years, he is still able to manage and control it all behind the scenes. , so that he has basically no problems except that he can't get out of the shadow of his bereaved wife (although he is not a qualified father). The film also gave Mr. Craven more plots, and this time he stayed in the manor the whole time and did not go out, but unfortunately the film played him as a eccentric person who was difficult to approach Moreover, his management of the manor has also become a reckless attitude, such a person will be very suspicious of how he is capable of managing such a large manor. The actor of Mr. Craven in this film is Colin Firth. I can only say that it is a waste of acting skills. Ordinarily, it is very suitable for him to play such a role. It is a pity that the film is clever enough to change it like this.

I don't think it's necessary to mention other characters. These characters who played a big role in the original book, such as Deacon, Martha, Mrs. Medlock, etc., either have no sense of existence in the film, or simply do not appear at all. Perhaps the film party squeezed out the space for the characters in the original in order to entrain their own private goods.

But for me, the film's most unforgivable adaptation is where the title "Secret Garden" refers. Needless to say, the importance of this garden is greatly discounted in the film, and the most critical point is that the film does not reflect the change of the garden from being abandoned to fully restored. When Mary first discovered the garden, it was in a state of abandonment (it was abandoned when Mrs. Craven had an accident in the garden), and then with the efforts of Mary and Deacon, the garden was finally restored. come alive. The film garden has been in a very good state since Mary was first discovered, and it has not changed until the end. Mary in the film made little effort to the garden, which is actually the original Mary who can best express herself. The plot was deleted. It is said that a garden of this scale must be maintained by someone to maintain it. Once no one takes care of it, it will be completely abandoned. If you look at it this way, who has been taking care of this garden for so many years in the movie?

The film moved the story to after World War II. In fact, there have been similar adaptations before, that is, "Back to the Secret Garden" performed in the name of the sequel. This part makes people feel extremely awkward, but this film does not learn its lesson. There is no way to change it. I won’t go into details, but I will only mention one point here, that is, the way that this kind of master takes care of everything in the family by raising a large family is completely the practice of the 19th century. Not at all appropriate. The origin of the original work can be pushed back to the middle of the 19th century at the earliest, and the latest time limit is before World War I, and it is difficult to guarantee the rationality of the plot after that.

In fact, I have come up with a modern version of the adaptation method: Mary is a child who grew up in a big city. Her parents neglected her children because of their busy work, which led to Mary's formation of such a character. After her parents died in an accident, Mary Sent to relatives in the country for foster care, as for Colin, a child who had become erratic because of a serious illness (his mother died because of him), others such as Deacon, Martha , Mrs. Medlock, Ben Weatherman, etc. all need to be changed according to the background of the times. I don't know if this is possible...

Here is a summary of the current film and television adaptations of "Secret Garden": The BBC drama version in 1975 is currently the most restored version of the original, and most of the plots of the original have been restored very accurately (although there are still a few A few things are not in place), if you are as obsessed with the original as I am, then this version is a must-see. However, it is precisely because the degree of reduction is too high that this series is the same as the original, lacking dramatic conflicts, and it is not very attractive to those who have not read the original. Although the selection of the actors is not too beautiful, it is still reasonable, at least not like a few BBC children's dramas that choose a group of crooked melons and jujubes to play. The BBC's radio drama is also worth recommending. I heard it once and thought it was very good and helpful for learning English. It is almost certain that the BBC will not be able to adapt it to this extent today. The 1987 TV movie version is currently the second most restored version after the 1975 version. This version of the filming location was later used by "Downton Abbey", which is one of the highlights of the film now. This film is a rare version of the story in the form of flashbacks, which is also a point of controversy among book fans. By the way, Colin Firth also appeared in this version, and he played the role of It is because of the particularity of this film that there is a role. Mary in this film is said to be the most in line with the description of the original in terms of age and image, but her acting skills in this film are really disappointing. The 1993 movie version is the version I would recommend to everyone. This film is the best version of the beauty, and many shots can be used as photography examples or wallpapers. The delicacy of the female director is greatly demonstrated here, but many of the changes made in this version compared to the original are very much criticized by the fans. For me, the biggest resentment of this film is that the portrayal of Mrs. Medlock is relative to the original. deviation. However, unexpectedly, this film is the only version that really does the right thing for the scene of father and son meeting, which even the 1975 version failed to do. The film's theme song "Winter

Finally, explore the prototype possibilities of the original. Mary can be considered as the prototype of the author Mrs. Burnett herself. She once had the experience of living in Mason Manor in England for a period of time. This experience has become the creative material of this work, but I also heard that Mrs. Burnett She also had the experience of being fostered in a relative's house after her parents died when she was a child, and she fell in love with gardening here, so perhaps she also incorporated her childhood experience into it. As for Colin's prototype, it may be Mrs. Burnett's two sons. Her eldest son died of lung disease at the age of 16, which hit her hard. Later, her second son suddenly came out while studying at Harvard. The news of a serious illness, so she immediately rushed to the United States to take care of her son for a period of time. Perhaps it was because of this experience that she created the role of Colin.

View more about The Secret Garden reviews