Movie Adaptation: Inkheart (2009)
I'll admit it. The only movies I ever see nowadays are some how related to books. For example, the last two movies I saw were Twilight and Inkheart. Since I see so many adaptations, I've decided to post reviews of them here on my booklog. The review will be separated into two sections. The first part will have a standard movie review, which will be relatively spoiler free. Under the cut is a more in depth review how the film fairs as an adaptation of a work of literature. They'll be given grades for how they fare in each category and than an average grade will be listed below.
Here's my first movie review!
Title: Inkheart
Year Released: 2009
Director: Iain Softley
Writer: David Lindsay-Abaire. Based on the novel by Cornelia Funke
Starring: Eliza Bennett as Meggie, Brenda Fraser as Mo, Paul Bettany as Dustfinger, Helen Mirren as Elinor, Rafi Gavron as Farid, Jim Broadbent as Fenoglio, and Andy Serkis as Capricorn.
While reading a good book, a talented writer can create the characters feel alive. In Inkheart, Silvertongues, while reading aloud, can bring these characters right out of the books they were written in. But as bookbinder Mo is aware, bringing characters to life has consequences. Nine years ago, while reading aloud from the book Inkheart, he released three characters into our world, including a cruel man named Capricorn. In return, his wife became trapped within the pages of Inkheart. Ever since then, he has searched for a way to bring her back. His daughter Meggie is unaware of what happened when she was only three, but knows that something is plaguing her father. He appears to be looking for a book, but refuses to talk to her about it. She's about to get all of her questions answered when she meets a strange man named Dustfinger, a fire tamer who her father read out of the pages of Inkheart all those years ago.
Inkheart is an uneven film. During the beginning of the movie, the viewer can't help but feel as if the director is just rushing us through the exposition just so we can get to the more exciting parts. The dialogue, as a result, sometimes seems forced and unrealistic. These make the beginning of the film a little frustrating to watch. Luckily, this film does succeed in other areas. The biggest one would have to be casting. The characters are mostly played by A-list actors. Helen Mirren is laugh out loud funny as Elinor the book collector, and Andy Serkis is wonderfully evil as Capricorn. Brendan Fraser is a strange choice to play a scholarly bookbinder, but does well enough with the role. The one that steals the show is Paul Bettany as Dustfinger. Despite his characters cowardliness, he portrays Dustfinger as very sympathetic. While I was at the theater, I was impressed how he drew in the audience. They could not help but react to his character's struggle. Another area where the movie succeeds is in creating beautiful sets. For example, Capricorn's castle manages to mix the fantasy world of Inkheart and the modern world quite well. Also, despite the problems with the script early on, it does manage to rev up to a nail biting conclusion.
Now let's take a look and see how it succeeds as an adaptation
WARNING- The review under the cut is FILLED WITH SPOILERS FOR THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE.
What makes a good adaptation? To me, it does not mean slavish dedication to the text. Instead, a good adaptation should keep the spirit of the book alive. Viewers should feel as if the characters are close, if not the same, to the ones they fell in love with while reading the book. The plot sh
ould be similar to the source material. Any changes to the story should be for the purpose of making it fit better in a movie format.
So how does Inkheart fair? To be honest, I think it did quite well. Yes, there are changes from the book but for the most part, I felt as if all those changes were made for a reason. There are a lot of cuts made for length. For example, in the book there is a long section that takes place after our heroes escape from Capricorn and before they meet the writer Fenoglio. They are followed by Basta and Flatnose and end up hiding in the woods. In the film, this sequence is completely taken out.. There are some changes that I’m sure will bother some fans of the book. For instance, in the book, Meggie stops the Shadow by reading aloud pages written by Fenoglio. In the movie, it starts out this way, but she has to improvise by writing her own story. Since she has no paper she writes on her arm and hand. I actually liked this ending more than the one in the book. It presented Meggie as a much more active and heroic character than in the book, and it was great to cheer her on. I’m not positive that other book fans will agree with me, but I was fine with this and most of the changes they made. The only changes that bothered me were their attempts to make the movie more magical. In the book, Dustfinger is a talented fire tamer, but in the movie he his abilities are more magical. One of the things I enjoyed about the book was the fact that the magic was more subtle and grounded in reality. It feels like these changes are purely meant to draw in the Harry Potter fans.
One of the things that excite me the most about seeing a book adaptation is how the movie will portray things that I had only viewed in my head. When Mo reads aloud from Arabian Nights, they do a great job of showing how the story creeps in. Another thing that I look forward to is seeing how characters are portrayed. Each character remains pretty close to how they were written in the novel, the biggest change being with making Mo a more physical character. Dustfinger seems to be pushed more to the forefront of the story then in he was in the book. To be honest, I’m not sure if that’s due to the fact that he was written that way, or the fact that Paul Bettany tends to steal the scene. Physically, he looks a lot like Dustfinger. I was happy to see that they even kept his scars.
Conclusion? Inkheart is an imperfect, but watchable movie and quite a good adaptation of the novel.
End Grades
Film- C
Adapation-B+
Ending grade- B-