Conference bookie::movies

When you read the book you will find that liberties
were taken with the story, at least as regards the
death of the main character's parents.

I can't for the life of me understand why, after at
least 3 prior film productions of this, "they" decided
that death from cholera was "too disgusting".  So we
get an earthquake instead.  At least that's what
I read the filmakers had done; I haven't seen this
version yet.

dcl

    
    I was curious about the decision to change the means of Mary Lennox'
    orphaning, but not terribly dismayed by it. This is the best
    version of the film I've seen - it captures the mystery, sensuality, 
    and polymorphous perversity of childhood beautifully. There's a scent of
    Edwardian decadence as well, although young children don't need to 
    recognise Mary's uncle's laudanum-induced behaviour - he seems like any
    preoccupied and unpredictable adult. 
    
    My only complaint has to do with the final look of the springtime
    garden itself - I wanted something straight out of Vita Sackville-West
    and Sissinghurst, with clear and bright colours. It was all very
    soft-focus, falling flower petals and Maxfield Parrish-looking. But
    that's my own quirk, and the children who allowed me to join them
    absolutely loved the film.
    
    A must-see and re-see for, at the least, those with memories of easing 
    sadness by visiting magic and secret places. 
    
    gloria

    Re the changed beginning: Mom and I speculated that it may have been
    because modern audiences might identify more readily with earthquake
    damage than with cholera epidemics, as large-scale, fast-acting plagues
    have become so rare. [My other thought was that, since the book's
    "cholera" scenario included the abandonment of Mary - the adults fled
    the city in a panic, leaving her behind (what a dramatic way for a
    kid's book to open! I loved it!) - the filmmakers thought this might be
    too strong, even though the movie drives home (too much and too
    directly, I thought) the theme that Mary's parents had neglected her.]
    
    We enjoyed the film very much - it is gorgeous, and the actors cast as
    the children were splendid. However, I felt that the film wasn't as
    subtle as it should have been; often, Mary would explain things in
    voice-overs that didn't seem necessary to me, and there were some scenes
    later on that dragged on too long for my taste, some saccharine enough
    to make me wince [and I have a high tolerance for sweets!]. Overall,
    I'd say I like it much better than the made-for-TV production of a few
    years back, but not quite as well as the early black-and-white version
    (I've forgotten most of the casting in that, though I think Elsa
    Lancaster played Martha).
    
    <spoiler warning>
    
    Other items that bothered me a little - and I tried to analyze these
    based on the movie alone, not as compared to the book: 
    
    o The "magic" sequence looked _really_ silly to me, and put an
    odd-tasting twist on things; not that the kids did it at all - on the
    contrary, having a secret garden all to themselves might easily suggest
    games and rituals, and with Mary's background in India the torches and
    chants weren't out of line. But the way it was shot - and the
    involvement of the undeveloped character of the gardener [see the
    compared-with-the-book section, to follow] - made it seem awkward and
    out of place to me.
    
    o Why, why, *why* add hints of a love interest? Colin says to Mary,
    "You could marry me" - OK, so kids get crushes on each other, but it
    didn't _add_ anything. Colin's jealousy of Dickon made perfect sense -
    he wanted Mary's attention all to himself - but Dickon and Mary making 
    calves' eyes at each other did not... I dunno, some people may think it
    added something, but I just found it annoying and distracting. Personal
    relationships, even among those who've achieved puberty, do not all
    have to include a romantic element, and for kids ten and under it felt
    silly.
    
    o Would somebody explain to me how Dickon found a fawn on the Yorkshire
    moors? [And why didn't _somebody_ feed that poor lamb? Dickon made a
    point of saying how hungry it was, and only a few days old; logically,
    one would think they'd want to feed it, wouldn't one?  But the film
    seemed more interested in comparing the wobbly-legged lamb with the
    wobbly Colin, and the scene made the children all look as if they were
    unconcerned about caring for the orphan - a contrast to the mutual
    nurturing that was going on most of the time.]
    
    Compared-to-the-book items:
    
    o Ben Weatherstaff got stiffed. His character was reduced to a walk-on,
    and his role as "curmudgeon with a heart of gold" fell a little flat as
    in his first couple of scenes he wasn't at all surly with Mary. His
    presence added nothing to the film that I could see; either do him
    justice or leave him out!
    
    o Mrs. Sowerby (Martha and Dickon's mother), a key (though off-stage)
    character in the book, was omitted almost entirely, despite the fact
    that (a) she was practically the only really benign, positive, _and_
    effective adult in the book, and (b) that it was largely through her
    doing that Craven got word to come home at all. I _loved_ all the parts
    in the book where Dickon or Martha would describe what Mother had said
    or done about this or that; the contrast of the exceedingly healthy
    family with the gloom and secrets at Mistlethwaite was quite dramatic.
    I missed it.
    
    [I confess that "The Secret Garden" has been one of my favorite books
    from early childhood, and any attempt at film or stage versions of it
    is fated to suffer severe scrutiny from me. That said, this version -
    despite the items I've quibbled about - is both a respectable
    adaptation of the book and a decent (if not great!) motion picture.]
    
    -b

    >  modern audiences might identify more readily with earthquake damage

as might modern filmmakers residing in southern California.  

Also, the Japanese have lots of earthquakes, and they own many production
companies.  Sony owns Columbia Pictures and TriStar Pictures as well as 
Loews Theatres and MCA Home Video.  Universal is owned by another Japanese 
company.  But I don't know which studio made the movie.

    I believe the director and many of the crew are Polish; don't know how
    that part of Europe rates re earthquakes vs. cholera... <wry face>
    
    -b

    I really don't know what to do about this movie. The kids want to
    see it but I hesitate to take them because we *do* live in southern
    California (earthquake country) and my 8 yr old daughter was terribly
    affected by last year's twin quakes. We just happened to be vacationing
    on the fault line when they hit.
    
    I think of the "Secret Garden" as a beautiful, peaceful story but
    I'm afraid the earthquake theme would overshadow the rest of the
    story.  
    
    Jodi-

    
    Re -1
    
    I saw this last night, and I am laso from Southern California. Worry
    not, the earthquake scene is very well done, and blessedly short. All
    the horror is left to the imagination. The movie seems to have been
    done with children in mind, so there isn't anything a little one, even 
    in earthquake country, couldn't stand.
    
    I liked it. Unfortunately, I wanted to love it, but I also read this
    several times as a child and was bound to compare it unfavorably with
    any movie/stage version. My chief complaint is that I think the story,
    to be well told needs a mini series, certainly more time than this
    movie allowed, for character development. The people seemed to go from
    one type of personality to another without too much motivation.
    (more in spoiler)
    
    Visually a beautiful film, the coutryside shots were breathtaking as 
    were the ones of Misselthwaite (sp?). I will still probably buy it 
    when it comes out on video for the cinematography.
    
    
    Spoilers to follow:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Re Beth's review:
    
    
    The part where Colin tells Mary she could marry him didn't bother me. I 
    saw it as an attempt to keep her there always. But the part of Dickon
    and Mary on the swing did. You're right, there was NO need for that.
    
    The newborn lamb bit bothered me too. I remembered your comments when I
    got annoyed at their lack of concern to get the lamb food and a mother 
    substitute.    
                  
    The finished garden was also a bit much. I wanted it to be beautiful
    from a child's perspective. Lots of flowers any which way, after all 
    they just scattered seeds (except for the empress Lily). The garden
    they got that could have been the cover for Gardens Beautiful was too
    much for my suspension of disbelief.
    
    
    I still liked it, tough.

    
    Oops, the last word in my spoiler comments should be though not tough!
    
    Marilyn
    
    
    more spoiler material to follow:
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    I also forgot to mention that Martha was by far my favorite character 
    in this movie, I really wanted to see how she made Mary respond to her
    kindness. Mrs. Metlock was not mean enough, either IMHO.

    Marilyn,
    
    Thanks for the reassuring words about the earthquake scenes.
    
    Jodi-

    I loved this movie.  I noticed the discrepancies between the movie and
    the book, but could live with them.  It was beautifully filmed -- the
    time lapse photography of the garden is breathtaking.  The scenes of
    the animals are also well done.
    
    I didn't realize that the uncle's problem was laudanum -- is that in
    the book, or is there a prop that would clue you in (as there often is
    in a Sherlock Holmes episode).
    
    I was impressed, as always, with Maggie Smith's character.  I also
    loved Martha.  The attention to detail in the sets and props and
    clothes was impressive.  I thought they did a great job with the
    ending.
    
    The magic scene seemed most out of character.

I enjoyed this and my wife really loved it.  It had a real storybook feel
to it.  Some things didn't flow as well as they could but the 
characters were interesting and I always enjoy seeing the wonderful
Maggie Smith.  Too bad she seems to be getting typecast lately.  She really
is capable of a lot more.

The magic scene was pretty well done but seemed to come out of nowhere
with no preparation.  I didn't think the characters were developed enough for
the scene to make sense.  In fact, I was never sure how to feel about either
Mary or Colin.  Most of their character development shows them just as
spoiled little rich kids.  

Actually, I guess it was just the srotybook look and feel that carried me 
through it.  I felt as if I were looking through a very well illustrated
children's book, reading the picture captions instead of the text.

Bob

My video club is offering The Secret Garden starring Gennie James and Barret
Oliver; is this the same version as the one discussed in this note?  I'd like
to order it, but want to make sure it's the right one first.

Thanks!

    Yes, it was recently released on video. MAke sure you get the version 
    with a free silver plated locket! ;^)
    
    
    Marilyn