Why I'm dreading the new Wrinkle in Time movie
There's several big (named) reasons that I'm dreading the new Wrinkle In Time movie. Now, this is the book (series) that more than anything got me into SciFiFan. While most of my friends will point to Tolkein or Lewis as the books that got them started, I can in through L'Engle.
Specifically Meg Murray.
Now, you might think I have a problem with the young actress playing Meg, and the only problem I have with her (is the same problem I have with the movie version of Hermoine) is that she's too adorable/attractive. Meg is an ugly duckling. She's gangly, and awkward, and smart, and will grow into her self and who she is, but first, she has to learn to accept her faults and herself. She doesn't have to be perfect, she just has to be herself, and true to herself.
So, until I see the movie, that's my biggest problem with her. She's too adorable. (I'm guessing that they're going to be using race as what makes her awkward, instead of the typical "ugly duckling" sort of story, which I'm also fine with.) I have NO problem with changing the ethnicity of the main character, or that her mother is African American, and her father is white. I *love* this idea. I love seeing sort of family on screen, which is a reflection of a growing number of families in real life. This is so needed.
This is one of those books where I don't think that modern movie making can really, truly capture the imaginative elements of the book, and is trying too hard to be fantastical, going for the "razzle dazzle" approach. Especially not when the three witches are little more than big names stars that are bedazzled and put in awkward looking clothing. Now, I've just come from seeing Black Panther, which had amazing costuming, but it was also functional. There's a scene in the trailer where Mindy K. is running through a field in this ... get up... and it's awkward. It doesn't look like something that anyone would actually wear if they had to do anything like... walk, move, breathe. Reese W. is shown at one point saying that this is her favorite planet in the galaxy, "No offense", and she had green eyeshadow and a fishtail braid with green coloring in parts of it, in another piece of clothing that's more art than function. Her make up just seems like it's trying too hard to be otherworldly, same as her outfit.
And then there's Oprah.
Look, I know Oprah's a huge name, but... she's no Ian McKellan or Patrick Stewart. She doesn't disappear into a role. Everything she does is done within the aura of Oprah. And that's even before they put fake, plastic looking jewels on her forehead and called it good in a weird looking dress. (Again, trying way too hard.)
Granted, Reese and Mindy have the same problem for me as Oprah does - I don't see their characters, I see the actresses, or what the actresses typically do. Bubbly, friendly, outgoing? I'm pretty sure I've seen Reese do that in Legally Blonde. Being wise and mystical and a guiding light to all who look to her? Didn't Oprah do that for 30 some odd years on her own show? And I will fully admit that Mindy is the one I'm least familiar with, but I know enough to be able to ID her, and think "didn't I see her act similarly for her show?"
Now, it's been a few years since I've rerereread the book. But to me, the witches were more... grandmotherly. And one of them - Mrs. Which - was nothing more than a pair of (horned-rimmed) glasses in a mist because that's as much as she could materialize. I'm not sure it if was a pair of 1950's style horn-rimmed glasses, or if that was just what I imagined them as, but she was often described as a pair of glasses in a mist, and her words are not "normal" - often using double letters as if speaking through a fog, or from another plane. As if she's far away. And in some ways, she is the furthest from human, so her language, and lack of materializing makes sense.
[Okay, looking some things up, it seems I'm combining descriptions of Mrs. Which and Mrs. Who. Mrs. Which is a mist and has an other worldly voice, while Mrs. Who wears glasses. I need to reread it, again, apparently. The whole quintet. In my copious amounts of spare time.]
Which one of the famous actresses fits that description in the movie? From the trailers, none of them. They are all fully formed, in their impractical outfits and make-up, with nary a pair of glasses between the three of them (with the exception of Meg's because, well, Meg needs her glasses. For reasons.)
Given that Andy Serkis has appeared in several different movies looking completely different from his physical self because he acting using a motion capture suit and his character was then CGId, it makes me wonder why something like that couldn't be done. Yes, I haven't seen the whole movie, only the trailers, but at this point, right now, I'm not sure which actress is playing which Mrs. W. It should be obvious from the start which Mrs. W is which (no pun intended). I mean, one is a floating mist, another wears a pair of glasses and speaks in quotes, and the third is wears clothing she steals off clothes lines.
And while the Mrs. Ws can change their appearances, we're first introduced to Mrs. Whatsit in the book as a bundle of clothes with grey hair. I get that they are going for big name appeal and diversity, but maybe could they have looked towards Nichelle Nichols, Betty White, and Whoopi Goldburg? Adding some diversity, as well as employing older actresses? (Part of me sees Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, and Betty White as the perfect three Mrs. Ws, and then the three Mrs. Ws changing appearance to Nichelle Nichols, Whoopi Goldburd, and Helen Mirren because they enjoy changing their appearance.)
There's also, to me, something lacking about the actresses chosen, and it's the nuanced acting that I think is needed for the Mrs. Ws. You need to have someone playful, but who can also convey a sense of sadness at a choice she made, and then turn around and be a Tough Love sort of character, who then turns grandmotherly again. And that's just one character. Granted, I've been wrong before about actors/actresses and being able to pull off a role, but... I'm not holding out much hope.
(Part of me is wondering if going in, not expecting anything is a good goal at this point.)
And speaking of big names, another problem I have is with the company producing in - Disney. In some ways, I which this was being produced by New Line, or Paramount, or by anyone other than Disney. Disney has a certain look, and feel, to so many of their movies and I'm not sure that's going to work. Granted, I grew up on live action Disney movies, and they were different from the more modern stuff. But I think Disney, and I think... Mighty Ducks. I think... Enchanted. I think... saccharine sweet stories where nothing is ever truly in doubt, and nothing feels really dangerous. Their animation is better, and I think Wrinkle in Time would have worked better as an animated film like Wall-E or Brave, or even trying something new like the old animation hybrids. (I haven't seen the new Pete's Dragon, but the old one was also a staple of childhood.) Their animation tends to have tighter stories, and less... star worship inducing.
I'm hoping that this movie is better than I'm expecting. I really do. But one final problem I have is the movie poster.
Anyone know who the main character of the novel is? Hint: It's a bit of a trick question. It's Meg and Charles Wallace. It's a story about the love a daughter has for her father, yes, but far more a story about the love a sister has for her kid brother, who's even more of a misfit than she is. It's about family with four kids (a set of twins that are between Meg and Charles Wallace in age), and their scientist mother, and their father who is missing. It's about fighting evil, but at the heart the story is Meg's love for Charles Wallace. That protective love of an eldest sibling to the youngest sibling. Of the two misfit children finding solace in each other's company and the acceptance of each other for who they are, regardless of how society thinks they should be.
And yet, the movie poster has six names across the top. One is for the actress that plays Meg. Instead, we get the Three Famous Actresses. We get The Big Bad. And we get the Absent Father. But what about Charles Wallace? What about Calvin who also travels with them in the books? The three kids all had major roles in the book, did they cut down some of that story to focus on the the Mrs. Ws?
From all the excitement I've seen in Facebook groups, and else where online, I'm starting to wonder if I'm alone in my worry.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Specifically Meg Murray.
Now, you might think I have a problem with the young actress playing Meg, and the only problem I have with her (is the same problem I have with the movie version of Hermoine) is that she's too adorable/attractive. Meg is an ugly duckling. She's gangly, and awkward, and smart, and will grow into her self and who she is, but first, she has to learn to accept her faults and herself. She doesn't have to be perfect, she just has to be herself, and true to herself.
So, until I see the movie, that's my biggest problem with her. She's too adorable. (I'm guessing that they're going to be using race as what makes her awkward, instead of the typical "ugly duckling" sort of story, which I'm also fine with.) I have NO problem with changing the ethnicity of the main character, or that her mother is African American, and her father is white. I *love* this idea. I love seeing sort of family on screen, which is a reflection of a growing number of families in real life. This is so needed.
This is one of those books where I don't think that modern movie making can really, truly capture the imaginative elements of the book, and is trying too hard to be fantastical, going for the "razzle dazzle" approach. Especially not when the three witches are little more than big names stars that are bedazzled and put in awkward looking clothing. Now, I've just come from seeing Black Panther, which had amazing costuming, but it was also functional. There's a scene in the trailer where Mindy K. is running through a field in this ... get up... and it's awkward. It doesn't look like something that anyone would actually wear if they had to do anything like... walk, move, breathe. Reese W. is shown at one point saying that this is her favorite planet in the galaxy, "No offense", and she had green eyeshadow and a fishtail braid with green coloring in parts of it, in another piece of clothing that's more art than function. Her make up just seems like it's trying too hard to be otherworldly, same as her outfit.
And then there's Oprah.
Look, I know Oprah's a huge name, but... she's no Ian McKellan or Patrick Stewart. She doesn't disappear into a role. Everything she does is done within the aura of Oprah. And that's even before they put fake, plastic looking jewels on her forehead and called it good in a weird looking dress. (Again, trying way too hard.)
Granted, Reese and Mindy have the same problem for me as Oprah does - I don't see their characters, I see the actresses, or what the actresses typically do. Bubbly, friendly, outgoing? I'm pretty sure I've seen Reese do that in Legally Blonde. Being wise and mystical and a guiding light to all who look to her? Didn't Oprah do that for 30 some odd years on her own show? And I will fully admit that Mindy is the one I'm least familiar with, but I know enough to be able to ID her, and think "didn't I see her act similarly for her show?"
Now, it's been a few years since I've rerereread the book. But to me, the witches were more... grandmotherly. And one of them - Mrs. Which - was nothing more than a pair of (horned-rimmed) glasses in a mist because that's as much as she could materialize. I'm not sure it if was a pair of 1950's style horn-rimmed glasses, or if that was just what I imagined them as, but she was often described as a pair of glasses in a mist, and her words are not "normal" - often using double letters as if speaking through a fog, or from another plane. As if she's far away. And in some ways, she is the furthest from human, so her language, and lack of materializing makes sense.
[Okay, looking some things up, it seems I'm combining descriptions of Mrs. Which and Mrs. Who. Mrs. Which is a mist and has an other worldly voice, while Mrs. Who wears glasses. I need to reread it, again, apparently. The whole quintet. In my copious amounts of spare time.]
Which one of the famous actresses fits that description in the movie? From the trailers, none of them. They are all fully formed, in their impractical outfits and make-up, with nary a pair of glasses between the three of them (with the exception of Meg's because, well, Meg needs her glasses. For reasons.)
Given that Andy Serkis has appeared in several different movies looking completely different from his physical self because he acting using a motion capture suit and his character was then CGId, it makes me wonder why something like that couldn't be done. Yes, I haven't seen the whole movie, only the trailers, but at this point, right now, I'm not sure which actress is playing which Mrs. W. It should be obvious from the start which Mrs. W is which (no pun intended). I mean, one is a floating mist, another wears a pair of glasses and speaks in quotes, and the third is wears clothing she steals off clothes lines.
And while the Mrs. Ws can change their appearances, we're first introduced to Mrs. Whatsit in the book as a bundle of clothes with grey hair. I get that they are going for big name appeal and diversity, but maybe could they have looked towards Nichelle Nichols, Betty White, and Whoopi Goldburg? Adding some diversity, as well as employing older actresses? (Part of me sees Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, and Betty White as the perfect three Mrs. Ws, and then the three Mrs. Ws changing appearance to Nichelle Nichols, Whoopi Goldburd, and Helen Mirren because they enjoy changing their appearance.)
There's also, to me, something lacking about the actresses chosen, and it's the nuanced acting that I think is needed for the Mrs. Ws. You need to have someone playful, but who can also convey a sense of sadness at a choice she made, and then turn around and be a Tough Love sort of character, who then turns grandmotherly again. And that's just one character. Granted, I've been wrong before about actors/actresses and being able to pull off a role, but... I'm not holding out much hope.
(Part of me is wondering if going in, not expecting anything is a good goal at this point.)
And speaking of big names, another problem I have is with the company producing in - Disney. In some ways, I which this was being produced by New Line, or Paramount, or by anyone other than Disney. Disney has a certain look, and feel, to so many of their movies and I'm not sure that's going to work. Granted, I grew up on live action Disney movies, and they were different from the more modern stuff. But I think Disney, and I think... Mighty Ducks. I think... Enchanted. I think... saccharine sweet stories where nothing is ever truly in doubt, and nothing feels really dangerous. Their animation is better, and I think Wrinkle in Time would have worked better as an animated film like Wall-E or Brave, or even trying something new like the old animation hybrids. (I haven't seen the new Pete's Dragon, but the old one was also a staple of childhood.) Their animation tends to have tighter stories, and less... star worship inducing.
I'm hoping that this movie is better than I'm expecting. I really do. But one final problem I have is the movie poster.
Anyone know who the main character of the novel is? Hint: It's a bit of a trick question. It's Meg and Charles Wallace. It's a story about the love a daughter has for her father, yes, but far more a story about the love a sister has for her kid brother, who's even more of a misfit than she is. It's about family with four kids (a set of twins that are between Meg and Charles Wallace in age), and their scientist mother, and their father who is missing. It's about fighting evil, but at the heart the story is Meg's love for Charles Wallace. That protective love of an eldest sibling to the youngest sibling. Of the two misfit children finding solace in each other's company and the acceptance of each other for who they are, regardless of how society thinks they should be.
And yet, the movie poster has six names across the top. One is for the actress that plays Meg. Instead, we get the Three Famous Actresses. We get The Big Bad. And we get the Absent Father. But what about Charles Wallace? What about Calvin who also travels with them in the books? The three kids all had major roles in the book, did they cut down some of that story to focus on the the Mrs. Ws?
From all the excitement I've seen in Facebook groups, and else where online, I'm starting to wonder if I'm alone in my worry.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Comments
Post a Comment