REVIEW: Inkheart 2008 (the film)
Jan. 3rd, 2009 06:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
feather_ghyllHappy New Year! I had hoped to post this much sooner after I saw the film, but it didn't work out. Still, I hope to post something about my Christmas reading (what bliss it is to be able to spend day after day reading books) in the near future.
Inkheart 2008
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0494238/
As I previously discussed in my review of the book, I read the translation of Cornelia Funke's Inkheart in preparation for this movie adaptation, charmed by the central idea of people with the gift of bringing characters and objects out of books when they read them out loud. They're known as Readers in the book, Silvertongues in the film - a small point, but in the book, it's what the characters of ‘Inkheart’ whom Mo has read out call him, which make sense in a culture where a fire-juggler is known as Dustfinger. How would they know that if it's a name used in the culture of the world of the film, as they do? The film invites us to consider this world as ours(ish) by virtue of the use of a - typical for the fantasy adaptation genre - voice-over.
Inkheart has a similar problem to most adaptations - the issue of how much is changed from the book and why. Is it too much to alienate the readers/fans of the book who'd be the natural audience or base, but cannot be the only audience to consider? The adapting film-makers must remember the needs of the medium as well as two segment of the audience that is unfamiliar with the book fact, focusing on that and making the best of the movie is vital. In a succesful adaptation, lots of changes can be made and are accepted, applauded even, by the readers who become fans of the adaptation as an adaptation, because they've helped to make the film the best it can be. But the changes don't work here. not always.
There's a streamlining of the action, which makes sense. When I read the book, I felt that there was some padding going on. In the film, Meggie and Mo first meet Dustfinger at a (mouth-watering) bookshop, not at their home. Actually, although the reminder that this is not our reality isn't as overt as in the book, this shop is in a Germanic/Alpine location, yet the books are all in English. (And even less realistic is the fact that Meggie, brought up by an American with a wandering lifestyle, has kept her mother's RP English). But there's a lot of info-dumping, most of which falls to Paul Bettany's Dustfinger, who nearly steals the film despite that.
The film makes his motivation for wanting to return into the book a wish to return to his family (Bettany's real life wife Jennifer Connolly appears in a cameo), which serves to make him a mirror for Mo. Poor Brendan Fraser in once again somewhat lost in a large cast of scene-stealers. Mo is far less interesting a character than Dustfinger, who's selfish motivations mean that he's as likely to betray the white hats as side with them, despite his relationships with Meggie and her mother and fellow out-of-place character Farid's adoption of him as a role model. On the other hand, you never doubt that Mo's first priority will be protecting/saving Meggie, which is heroic, but dull.
Of the scene-stealers, best of all is Broadbent's Finoglio, who I found hilarious (I can't wait for his Horace Slughorn), but Helen Mirren has fun as batty book-loving Elinor, and Serkis' voice reconciled me to his Capricorn, although he wasn't quite as malevolent as I'd imagined he'd be. The hench-men were broader figures than I'd imagined too, which relates to one of the ideas that book plays with.
Visually, the film borrows heavily from Lord of the Rings, more so than the book, even, which takes a bit from here, there and everywhere. But given that New Line were behind both films and the presence of Serkis... Capricorn’s village is pure Minas Tirith, the Shadow made me think of the Balrog, and Helen Mirren is a White Rider at one point. The trouble with referencing of the works is that you invite comparison, and this is no The Princess Bride (neither is the book). Unlike the book (because of copyright?) it references the Wizard of Oz.
Meggie is STILL a bit wet for my tastes, although the development of her as a writer, and how that saves the day is not just visually effective, it's good character development. Neither the film or the book could live up to what I imagined when I first heard of the concept, although there are things about it that bookworms of any age will love.
Inkheart 2008
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0494238/
As I previously discussed in my review of the book, I read the translation of Cornelia Funke's Inkheart in preparation for this movie adaptation, charmed by the central idea of people with the gift of bringing characters and objects out of books when they read them out loud. They're known as Readers in the book, Silvertongues in the film - a small point, but in the book, it's what the characters of ‘Inkheart’ whom Mo has read out call him, which make sense in a culture where a fire-juggler is known as Dustfinger. How would they know that if it's a name used in the culture of the world of the film, as they do? The film invites us to consider this world as ours(ish) by virtue of the use of a - typical for the fantasy adaptation genre - voice-over.
Inkheart has a similar problem to most adaptations - the issue of how much is changed from the book and why. Is it too much to alienate the readers/fans of the book who'd be the natural audience or base, but cannot be the only audience to consider? The adapting film-makers must remember the needs of the medium as well as two segment of the audience that is unfamiliar with the book fact, focusing on that and making the best of the movie is vital. In a succesful adaptation, lots of changes can be made and are accepted, applauded even, by the readers who become fans of the adaptation as an adaptation, because they've helped to make the film the best it can be. But the changes don't work here. not always.
There's a streamlining of the action, which makes sense. When I read the book, I felt that there was some padding going on. In the film, Meggie and Mo first meet Dustfinger at a (mouth-watering) bookshop, not at their home. Actually, although the reminder that this is not our reality isn't as overt as in the book, this shop is in a Germanic/Alpine location, yet the books are all in English. (And even less realistic is the fact that Meggie, brought up by an American with a wandering lifestyle, has kept her mother's RP English). But there's a lot of info-dumping, most of which falls to Paul Bettany's Dustfinger, who nearly steals the film despite that.
The film makes his motivation for wanting to return into the book a wish to return to his family (Bettany's real life wife Jennifer Connolly appears in a cameo), which serves to make him a mirror for Mo. Poor Brendan Fraser in once again somewhat lost in a large cast of scene-stealers. Mo is far less interesting a character than Dustfinger, who's selfish motivations mean that he's as likely to betray the white hats as side with them, despite his relationships with Meggie and her mother and fellow out-of-place character Farid's adoption of him as a role model. On the other hand, you never doubt that Mo's first priority will be protecting/saving Meggie, which is heroic, but dull.
Of the scene-stealers, best of all is Broadbent's Finoglio, who I found hilarious (I can't wait for his Horace Slughorn), but Helen Mirren has fun as batty book-loving Elinor, and Serkis' voice reconciled me to his Capricorn, although he wasn't quite as malevolent as I'd imagined he'd be. The hench-men were broader figures than I'd imagined too, which relates to one of the ideas that book plays with.
Visually, the film borrows heavily from Lord of the Rings, more so than the book, even, which takes a bit from here, there and everywhere. But given that New Line were behind both films and the presence of Serkis... Capricorn’s village is pure Minas Tirith, the Shadow made me think of the Balrog, and Helen Mirren is a White Rider at one point. The trouble with referencing of the works is that you invite comparison, and this is no The Princess Bride (neither is the book). Unlike the book (because of copyright?) it references the Wizard of Oz.
Meggie is STILL a bit wet for my tastes, although the development of her as a writer, and how that saves the day is not just visually effective, it's good character development. Neither the film or the book could live up to what I imagined when I first heard of the concept, although there are things about it that bookworms of any age will love.
