As you probably know, my
thoughts are never far from adaptations of children’s literature. However, for
the past several weeks I have had nagging thoughts in particular about one of
my all-time favorite books, Peter and
Wendy.
I have recently come across three “adaptations” or works based on Peter and Wendy: the stage production of Peter and the Starcatcher, the YA novel Tiger Lily, and the Sky TV miniseries Neverland. I am still processing my thoughts on Starcatcher and have yet to brave Tiger Lily, so although this will not be a review of Neverland (suffice it to say that it goes in a direction that was too self-indulgently "creative" for me to want to finish watching), I will be focusing the
rest of this post on book-to-screen adaptations.
Here is my question: What is
so difficult about making a film adaptation that actually reflects the source
material?
Now, I see what many of you
are doing. Some of you are rolling your eyes; still more of you are shaking your heads disappointed.
“Can’t she think about anything else?” I hear several of you exclaim. Please bear with me.
I feel the need to interrupt
myself here and remind you that I have not found all adaptations of children’s
literature to be horrendous. There have been adaptations that were equal parts
infuriatingly and embarrassingly poor (Inkheart,
The Tale of Despereaux, The Golden Compass), but there have been
others that were decent but frustrating (Harry Potter, A Series of Unfortunate Events), and even some that should be
applauded (The Lion, the Witch, and the
Wardrobe; Where the Wild Things Are;
The Hunger Games).
So, I repeat: What is so
difficult about making a film adaptation that actually reflects the source
material? Is it that screenwriters have horrendously large egos and
feel that their story is more important to tell while still clinging to shreds
of a beloved tale that will then almost automatically increase their
viewership? Are they incapable of actually reading a text? (Sorry, sorry, I'll simmer down. Perhaps.).
I'm not even asking that the book and film match one hundred percent. My adaptation studies professor has worn me down in that respect. But main plot points and, equally important, the tone should without a doubt be consistently the same in the source and the adaptation.
Peter Pan
was not a universal folk or fairy tale collected and made famous by
Barrie; it was a tale created by Barrie—of course, influenced by others, as all
stories are, but genuinely created by him. It does not have the same flexibility that, say, Grimm fairytales do. The Grimms collected tales told by many
people and many cultures. They adapted them as they saw fit and,
indeed, revised and adapted their own adaptations when it was deemed necessary. Although intense deviation from the "traditional" fairy tale often irks me (I'll save fairy take adaptations for another day), I'll admit that to adapt these stories in any manner is only
to further tradition.
But Peter Pan is different. I have no interest in seeing someone's clever ideas that riff on Barrie's specific, individual story. J. M. Barrie’s
story is so rich in quirky and complicated detail, psychological and sociological depth,
and dark humor. Why would anyone adapting his work not take advantage of the
wonderfully specific world he offers?
