I came across Dawn’s blog My Thoughts Exactly when I was reading through our Children’s Classics carnival. I noticed in her sidebar that she had read the Water Horse. I enjoyed the movie (which I reviewed HERE), so I asked her if she had read it and might like to do a guest column here. She hadn’t seen it, but said she’d watch it. Before agreeing to review, she did tell me that she might not be the ideal person to write a review. I told her that I thought her perspective would be perfect. Read on, and welcome Dawn (aka morninglight mama) to 5 Minutes for Books.
I’ve always been lured in by the power of books- the power to transport a reader into an author’s imagination, the power to bring characters to life. I am also a big fan of movies, and I can easily let myself be swept up in a silly comedy or a tear-inducing drama. Looking at those two mediums that bring me such joy, one would think I would be the perfect candidate to write about movie adaptations of books.
One would be wrong.
I have yet to see a movie adaptation of a book that I was able to really enjoy. Part of that is the difficulty I have in accepting the inevitable changes that take place when the words on the page get transformed into images on the screen. I’ve been trying to get past this.
My 8-year-old son and I read The Water Horse by Dick King-Smith back in February. The movie version had been released a few months before, and the advertisements for the movie had gotten us interested in the story initially.
This gentle story of the legendary “Loch Ness Monster” had the requisite conflicts and plot tensions of a compelling story, but the intensity level was relatively low, which happens to work best for my particular child who sometimes has difficulty handling the emotions that arise when the intensity increases. We especially liked the character of Angus, who was entertaining even as a side character, mostly because he liked using phrases his fisherman father had taught him, and he would regularly burst out with a “Shiver my timbers!” or a “Blow me down!” and just crack us up. The main character Kirstie discovered the egg that opened the story in Scotland in 1930. The story continues over a period of two years, in which the creature was cared for by the family in a variety of settings before being released into its most famous home of the Loch Ness.
Now to the movie. I turned it on last night, fully expecting that there would be some changes from the book, which even I can admit, might not have had enough action to translate to the big screen, and certainly not as a traditional PG-rated children’s movie. I told myself not to make too big a deal of the incidental changes that probably would have been made to the events or characters. Hmmm. Even with that attitude, by 15 minutes in, I was beyond frustrated. The movie takes place a full decade later than the original story; the integral character of the children’s grandfather does not even exist; rather than the father being a merchant seaman away at sea for periods of time, the movie portrays him as a fallen naval seaman in World War II. Let’s see, what else? The main character of the book, Kirstie, the daughter who finds the egg, morphs into a very side character, and Angus ages significantly and takes her place in the lead. The only thing consistent about the setting is that it takes place in Scotland, and the characters become much darker and tortured, as a result of the loss of the father. Add to that some unnecessary hints at adult relationships or potential interest in forming adult relationships, and you’ve got a completely different story that, in my humble opinion, does not qualify for branding itself based on the book.
Mind you, even I am aware of the level of grumbling I am doing here, but my biggest disappointment was the incorporation of WWII into the plot of an otherwise very gentle and accessible story. While I can see that in transforming the book into a movie required some level of stretching out the more simple conflicts in the original story, this particularly vast change boggled my mind. The movie attempts to incorporate an extremely complex historical period, but it ends up becoming way more than just the background context. I simply cannot understand the motivation for this significant change.
I am fully aware that my opinions on the movie are 100% affected by my previous experience with the book. Had I not read the book before, I think my review would have been much simpler- it’s an entertaining enough movie. I do like the framing of the film as the story being told by the main character now in his later years. The special effects were fun, and the water horse himself is a mischievous little guy. I know that it would be too heady for my 8-year-old son, with the more intense chasing and hunting scenes. And honestly, I’d like to enjoy a movie with my son without having to get into an explanation of the Nazis. Perhaps in a few years this would be more appropriate fare, but I’m pretty sure that we’ll remain content with the original book being our experience with The Water Horse.
Dawn–
Thanks SO much for participating as a guest columnist. I love your honesty and strong feelings — that come from a love of books and movies.
I hadn’t thought of the whole Nazi element, but you’re right, it seems superfluous. I always hated that part of the Sound of Music.
Great post! I haven’t read the book or seen the movie, but your response mirrored the feelings of many who left comments on my Books on Screen post last week. Too often, the movie just falls way to short of the book. As you said, the movie might stand alone, but when you have the book in mind, it is easy to be baffled and disappointed!
Ok, I’m going to me the voice of dissent here [Sorry! Hope you don’t mind! 🙂 ]
I USUALLY read books before watching movies but I didn’t in this case. My husband and I watched this movie with our 6 yr old son and we LOVED it.
Now maybe my family is different than others, but my son knows a great deal about WWII. Hubby and I are history buffs and kiddo has been to many museum exhibits dealing with WWII. Also, my grandpa fought in the war and kiddo knows that. So for our family, the WWII parts were interesting and added to the story – kiddo loved those parts.
Yes, this movie had intense scenes but nothing too scary. Kiddo was concerned when the water horse seemed to “turn mean” but he wasn’t scared by it.
If I had read the book first, I might have objected to the way the movie was done. Since that’s not the case, I wholeheartedly loved this movie. In fact, we went out and bought a copy the very next day.
(I blogged about this a while back – if you’re interested, click here)
Great post! I haven’t seen this movie, or read this book, but agree that for the most part Hollywood takes too many liberties with movies based on books. My dh is a huge Stephen King fan and was so disappointed with the adaptation of Running Man, saying it was nothing like the book. I myself picked up the Princess Diaries series after seeing the movies but found the two to have not much in common. In fact, book 6 actually makes fun of the two movies lol!
I haven’t seen or read the story, so I’m not much help. 🙂
I would like to see your opionion of the recent Narnia movies, though. There are various and sundry opinions amongst my friends and I on this one… 🙂
I totally get your perspective. I don’t mind if movie adaptations have to condense plot, leave out characters, hurry up storylines in order to fit in a great book in 100 minutes. But when they completely change it and the result is totally lacking? I am always ticked.
I look forward to enjoying this book with my family. The movie? Feeling fine that I’ve skipped it thus far.
Thank you!
Oh I’m so with you on movies changing books. I’ve actually consciously decided to NOT watch any movie of a book I’ve read. It’s just too disappointing and frustrating. About the only exception I can think of is Joy Luck Club where I would hear whole phrases from the book come out of the characters’ mouths and make me smile!
Good review, Dawn!
I totally agree. I read the book in prep for the movie, and everything I really liked about the book was gone from the movie. I thought Babe was an excellent adaptation and true to the overall tone and theme of the book. This, on the other hand, really went overboard and moved completely from the light-hearted fairy-tale feeling of the book. Too bad.
Well, I’m with you on this one Dawn. I read the book to both my 7 year old and 5 year old. They adored the book and I went to the movie first in anticipation that I would take both of them to see it later.
I didn’t take either of them to see it.
Not that I didn’t enjoy it for myself (those Scottish accents would’ve been enough…) but it was way too intense for my kids too. Even though my older daughter does know about WWII somewhat, I still feel it would’ve been too much for her. In a couple years, maybe, we’ll watch it together and discuss it.
Thanks for the post Dawn, I like your perspective 🙂
Me again – just letting you know that I linked back to this post from one I did today about The Spiderwick Chronicles, FYI.
Hi Dawn,
So glad to see this review…hadn’t heard of either the book or the movie so I will look forward to checking them out. I am with you on the movie/ book thing…I usually can’t stand to see movies made from books I have read. I just can’t get past the images I create in my head while reading a book and the movie always feels like a let down.