Like many others, I’m very much looking forward to the release of the Where the Crawdads Sing movie adaptation.
I’m a big fan of Delia Owens’ novel, having read it during the 2020 lockdown. I enjoyed my escape to North Carolina in the 1950s and 60s, at a time when I really needed it.
I find the main character, Kya, fascinating and mysterious. Furthermore, I’m sure Daisy Edgar-Jones (fantastic star of Normal person and indie thrillers New) would do well in this role.
Then I watched the movie and regret to express my disappointment. I have no qualms with the cast, all of which are excellent, especially Edgar-Jones. Rather, it’s the production design that lets it down.
I envisioned (as I am sure Owens intended) the marsh as a place of green, wet and muddy – a place of danger and darkness, but also life and freedom.
The movie’s setting is full of reeds and rivers, but also CGI birds and a clear green screen. It is pristine, completely free of dirt. This perfect setup doesn’t give off any realism or immersion.
Meanwhile, its protagonist, who is meant to live a wild child alone in the swamp, always looks well-kept and camera-ready – except for a brief flashback, when As a child, Kya had a little dirt on her face. and feet.
Perfectionism like jars with stories.
The lack of sharpness makes it feel like another Hollywood release.
This isn’t the first time I’ve noticed this. Film adaptation of Book thief — another bestseller that Tinseltown deemed ripe for purchase — proved another disappointment.
Fans of that novel were unimpressed because the critics were less than convinced.
Far from the brutal backdrop of war, the actual set made Nazi Germany so picturesque. Its main character has nice clothes and beautiful, golden curly hair.
With John Williams’ stellar score to boot, many have described Book thief bait Oscar. The emotional depth and unique structure of the novel is long gone.
Video of the day
While The Hunger Games proved to be much more successful (and set off the trend of many dated teen movies that followed), the series was another example of characters who were starving and destitute under appalling circumstances.
long before it can survive. In fact, while the first book consistently depicts how hungry the characters are, the film focuses almost exclusively on how its characters are eating.
One said that if you’re going to have kids killing each other, they should at least do it looking good.
Tinseltown just can’t seem to help with things that are “going on in Hollywood,” over-produced and made to look polished.
Studios reject the wild and dirty setting of the books they’re adapting, don’t want things to become “too real” and can deter audiences with bleak content.
We can accept that book adaptation can be a losing battle. Movies will never fully respond to readers’ complaints of “well, that’s not how I imagined it,” but some have done it better than others.
When a studio produces a book and it is less than the sum of its parts, its soul can be sacrificed for its beauty.
And too often, the result is that we become empty rather than full.
https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/movies/hollywood-appears-afraid-of-getting-its-hands-dirty-when-it-turns-books-into-films-41859343.html Hollywood seems to be afraid of getting their hands dirty when turning books into movies