Stardust
Yesterday I went to see Neil Gaiman's Stardust, and it was really really good. I'm not going to say that it was the most amazing movie ever and you should all see it because it will blow your socks off, since I think hyped-up expectations are the easiest way to ensure disappointment, but it was a truly solid, good fantasy movie. And those of you who like fantasy movies (or perhaps those of you who don't) know that it's surprisingly hard to make a solid, good fantasy movie. Most fantasy movies fall into the pitfalls of being too ridiculously grandiose, too schlocky, or just too silly.
Stardust wasn't any of those.
I had been really looking forward to seeing it because, you see, Stardust is actually my least favorite Neil Gaiman novel. To be entirely honest, I do not like it much at all. However, I had been very curious about what it would be like as a movie, because I felt that most of what I did not like about it would have to be addressed in the process of adaptation, since Hollywood would probably not like it either. And after watching it, I am now convinced that Neil Gaiman is the one author who is perfect for Hollywood movies (so long as he has enough creative control). Not because he's Hollywood-like at all, but rather because his talents and their demands work together so well for this type of venture.
I've talked on here before about my one complaint with Neil Gaiman's work being his seeming inability to write an ending. In "Mirrormask," that was still an issue, since it was an indie DIY type of movie and all. But I remembered that "Neverwhere" had quite a good ending, possibly due to its being a tv series first, and so had hopes for Stardust--and was very pleased to see it live up to them. Generally one complains about Hollywood's insistence on happy endings, but here this is actually beneficial--mostly because at least we are guaranteed an ending at all. Hollywood supplies the demand for some tried-and-true elements and less meandering all over the place, and Neil Gaiman supplies his trademark witty dialogue, endearingly quirky characters, cleverness of concept and richness of story--and we get a lovely movie.
Watching it was really an interesting experience because in general, I never quite like adaptations--I always think they should have been better, or that this-or-that part should not have been left out, and it always feels less satisfying than the book. Here, though, I think everyone did a great job. For the first time ever, I was watching a movie and each time I realized that something deviated from the book, my reaction wasn't a resigned sigh, but rather "Oooh, hey, that does work better here! Great idea!" I was quite impressed.
Some things were small timeline changes--in the book, Tristran is traipsing around behind the Wall for months, and in the movie they shortened it to a week, which was right for this medium--and some were pretty major plot and character changes. But in general, it all worked wonderfully. I liked the fact that we breezed past most of what happened with Tristran's father and got right to his own story, I liked the fact that the movie didn't bother going into how whether he had a mother figure and what-all there, and I also liked the avenues that little "omission" opened up for later. I liked the condensation of Tristran's and Yvaine's adventures and the much closer tie-in between the various episodes thanks to that. I liked the smoother interaction between Tristran and Yvaine, and I liked that the dead brothers were fully as wonderful on screen as in the text. There were basically only two things I didn't quite like, which is saying something if you know me.
The first (and really only actual one) was Deniro's Captain Shakespeare character. Two gripes with this one: first, the whole "Magical Queer" as the 00's new "Magical Negro" bit is getting a tad old. It's mostly used in chick lit books rather than movies (it seems like every chick lit book has to have a hilarious gay friend who helps the heroine with her wardrobe and lovelife), but it's still already an old cliche. Hey, look, it's the Fairy godpoof to the rescue! Since he's queer and fabulous, he can give everyone a makeover and provide them with clothes and makeup tips. He can teach the girl the fine feminine arts of playing piano and dancing and tea, and he can teach the boy self-defense, since he's not just a ponce you know. And he can see into the innermost depths of your heart, of course. Then, his duty as a plot device accomplished, he can conveniently step off-stage. And as if this wasn't cliche enough, Deniro plays Captain Shakespeare as though the last 20 years of on-screen queer representation never happened. Robin Williams called: he wants his character from "The Birdcage" back.
The second thing isn't even really a thing. It works just fine in the movie, I just liked how it worked in the book a bit better. In the movie, Victoria's character really is just what she seems, while as in the book there was a bit of a twist in the end that played off on your expectations of her that I thought was quite refreshing. But then again, it was probably best to drop it since they may not have had the time to go into it anyway.
And these really were my only possible gripes. It was such a charming movie I wasn't even bothered by the obvious non-Victorianness. Usually things like nobody having a problem with Tristran's unmarried father raising an obviously out-of-wedlock son, or Victoria receiving male visitors at all hours of the night, or nobody seeming to think it was particularly indecent for Yvaine to go around in a bathrobe (and Tristran appearing to consider it entirely all right for her to announce she was "covered up" when she was wrapped in a towel) would nag at me, but not here! It didn't matter, it was fantasy, it was all so cheeky and cute anyway that those types of things seemed beside the point.
So anyway, yes, go see it. Go see it and make it get money so that Neil Gaiman can make more really good Hollywood fantasy movies, because there are far too few of those and we need them.
Stardust wasn't any of those.
I had been really looking forward to seeing it because, you see, Stardust is actually my least favorite Neil Gaiman novel. To be entirely honest, I do not like it much at all. However, I had been very curious about what it would be like as a movie, because I felt that most of what I did not like about it would have to be addressed in the process of adaptation, since Hollywood would probably not like it either. And after watching it, I am now convinced that Neil Gaiman is the one author who is perfect for Hollywood movies (so long as he has enough creative control). Not because he's Hollywood-like at all, but rather because his talents and their demands work together so well for this type of venture.
I've talked on here before about my one complaint with Neil Gaiman's work being his seeming inability to write an ending. In "Mirrormask," that was still an issue, since it was an indie DIY type of movie and all. But I remembered that "Neverwhere" had quite a good ending, possibly due to its being a tv series first, and so had hopes for Stardust--and was very pleased to see it live up to them. Generally one complains about Hollywood's insistence on happy endings, but here this is actually beneficial--mostly because at least we are guaranteed an ending at all. Hollywood supplies the demand for some tried-and-true elements and less meandering all over the place, and Neil Gaiman supplies his trademark witty dialogue, endearingly quirky characters, cleverness of concept and richness of story--and we get a lovely movie.
Watching it was really an interesting experience because in general, I never quite like adaptations--I always think they should have been better, or that this-or-that part should not have been left out, and it always feels less satisfying than the book. Here, though, I think everyone did a great job. For the first time ever, I was watching a movie and each time I realized that something deviated from the book, my reaction wasn't a resigned sigh, but rather "Oooh, hey, that does work better here! Great idea!" I was quite impressed.
Some things were small timeline changes--in the book, Tristran is traipsing around behind the Wall for months, and in the movie they shortened it to a week, which was right for this medium--and some were pretty major plot and character changes. But in general, it all worked wonderfully. I liked the fact that we breezed past most of what happened with Tristran's father and got right to his own story, I liked the fact that the movie didn't bother going into how whether he had a mother figure and what-all there, and I also liked the avenues that little "omission" opened up for later. I liked the condensation of Tristran's and Yvaine's adventures and the much closer tie-in between the various episodes thanks to that. I liked the smoother interaction between Tristran and Yvaine, and I liked that the dead brothers were fully as wonderful on screen as in the text. There were basically only two things I didn't quite like, which is saying something if you know me.
The first (and really only actual one) was Deniro's Captain Shakespeare character. Two gripes with this one: first, the whole "Magical Queer" as the 00's new "Magical Negro" bit is getting a tad old. It's mostly used in chick lit books rather than movies (it seems like every chick lit book has to have a hilarious gay friend who helps the heroine with her wardrobe and lovelife), but it's still already an old cliche. Hey, look, it's the Fairy godpoof to the rescue! Since he's queer and fabulous, he can give everyone a makeover and provide them with clothes and makeup tips. He can teach the girl the fine feminine arts of playing piano and dancing and tea, and he can teach the boy self-defense, since he's not just a ponce you know. And he can see into the innermost depths of your heart, of course. Then, his duty as a plot device accomplished, he can conveniently step off-stage. And as if this wasn't cliche enough, Deniro plays Captain Shakespeare as though the last 20 years of on-screen queer representation never happened. Robin Williams called: he wants his character from "The Birdcage" back.
The second thing isn't even really a thing. It works just fine in the movie, I just liked how it worked in the book a bit better. In the movie, Victoria's character really is just what she seems, while as in the book there was a bit of a twist in the end that played off on your expectations of her that I thought was quite refreshing. But then again, it was probably best to drop it since they may not have had the time to go into it anyway.
And these really were my only possible gripes. It was such a charming movie I wasn't even bothered by the obvious non-Victorianness. Usually things like nobody having a problem with Tristran's unmarried father raising an obviously out-of-wedlock son, or Victoria receiving male visitors at all hours of the night, or nobody seeming to think it was particularly indecent for Yvaine to go around in a bathrobe (and Tristran appearing to consider it entirely all right for her to announce she was "covered up" when she was wrapped in a towel) would nag at me, but not here! It didn't matter, it was fantasy, it was all so cheeky and cute anyway that those types of things seemed beside the point.
So anyway, yes, go see it. Go see it and make it get money so that Neil Gaiman can make more really good Hollywood fantasy movies, because there are far too few of those and we need them.