It was while huddled up under a blanket, braving the weather and my rear-end fighting numbness induced by the new 'innovative' Bumbox (a cardboard, fold up seat that should see an increase in cases of piles), that I realised that film adaptations of much loved books come under a different set of critical criteria to original films without a history in literature. Especially so when it's a book like One Day. It's one of those that you see every day on the train, there is always someone reading it. If you went into work tomorrow and took a quick show of hands I would guess around half would have read it. Every single one of them would know someone who had read it. I did so recently, as hype gathered about the coming film adaptation, my mum, sister and girlfriend all told me I had to read it before the cinema release. When three women in my life tell me to do something, I'm better off doing it, so I did. And I have to say that I loved it. I'm sure everyone around knows about the structure by now, we visit two characters, Emma and Dexter, on the same day, 15th July over two decades as their lives weave in and out of one another's. David Nicholls' real achievement though is not making any gaps appear despite the obvious holes in time that would arise as you miss out 364 days of every year. There is no over-explaining of what happened over the past 12 months, it all just falls into place and you feel that you've been with them every step of the way. He cleverly manages to have us fill in the gaps on our own, the book just infers and suggests.
The structure, the real hook of the novel, is ultimately the biggest challenge to the adaptation. Where Nicholls had 400 or so pages to take time and care in giving Dexter and Emma (the two leads) depth and character, a two hour film might get a little cramped or rushed. Nicholls, on screenplay duty as well, sensibly leaves certain parts of the book out. Lone Scherfig, who we know from the very good An Education, does superbly with the material that Nicolls retains, and there is plenty of it. I get the feeling that they had a good time recreating various parts and aspects of the last 20 years. Haircuts and clothes, including some horrendous suits that you can't believe people wore. The book is a great look back at modern history with clever observations at things like the growing market for posh sandwich shops, useless 90's TV and what 'trendy' meant back then. The film pulls this off very well and feels nicely like a late-twentieth century period piece, much more subtly done than what we have become used to (Flashbacks in Friends for example, and the hideous caricature opening in Sex And The City 2). Aside from these moments Scherfig does as she did with An Education, gently efficient.
The tone of the film is a lot more delicate than the book. There is a lot more sardonic wit on the page than on screen, the edge of the characters being taken away slightly in the film. In fact, I didn't really read the book as a love story, it was more about a male meltdown and how many bad choices, men and women, we all make during our lives. The film's focus is definitely as a love story though and I think that is both a cause and a symptom of the toning down of the dark. Having said that, it serves this purpose very well, there are some nice 'lovey' scenes, some very touching moments (the one that got me was a scene with Dexter and his father), and the broad comedy is kept to a minimum, only a couple of moments akin to typical Brit-Rom-Com laughs. Although those moments both appeared in the book, in the film they both felt very out of place, Scherfig playing the subject matter seriously and not for guffaws. If laughs are to be had it's to be on a much more slight level than Bridget Jones. Dialogue and facial expressions rather than slapstick.
All of the press attention in the build up to the release has not actually been about it not being faithful to the book, it's been about Anne Hathaway's attempt at a Yorkshire accent. Having read and heard all of this 'furore' it's impossible to watch the film without thinking about how's she getting on. It must be said that her accent does take a walk around a few places in the UK, never really sure where it wants to land, but to go on about that wouldn't be fair, because her performance is very, very good. It's a big challenge, to both her and Jim Sturgess, to play one character over a twenty year period. Not just in terms of appearance, but also in how previous events in the narrative have had an effect on them, especially when, due to the structure, we aren't party to everything that has happened. Sturgess has been getting the majority of the plaudits, with Hathaway getting slated (solely on the accent - on that subject, there is an argument that for someone who has lived in Yorkshire, Edinburgh and London, the accent might nip about a bit), but she was the one I was more impressed with. Considering that her last attempt at 'serious' was her incredibly irritating role in the slightly irritating Rachel Getting Married, One Day has put her firmly on my map and I'm a little more confident about her being chosen for The Dark Knight Rises. Also, good to also see Rafe Spall, his career trajectory coming along nicely from his beginnings in Shaun of the Dead. He verges on a slightly cartoon performance, and doesn't feel totally consistent with the rest of the film, but that is a small gripe. Ken Stott will be who I remember from the film though as he was the one who delivered the line that was the straw that broke the camel's back, the one that opened the tear ducts.
Now, back to my original point, adaptations getting a rough deal. I enjoyed the film a lot, and I do mean enjoy, and I do mean a lot, but I walked away with the remains of my picnic, slightly disappointed. Why? The only reason is that the film not the book. Much of what I've written above is comparing screen to page, while what I should be doing is comparing One Day to other releases, other films in that genre. When I do, I become much more positive in my overall assessment. If you group it together with other rom-coms it's far superior. The useless Jennifer Anniston vehicles don't come close, even if you look at a more serious rom-com, such as the awful The Holiday, it smashes it out of the park. It's a better film and deserves more than to be thought of in that bracket. It was an attempt at something like An Education, even Never Let Me Go, a 'proper' film, and ultimately it falls slightly short. And there is no shame in that.
Perhaps the right thing for me to do would have been to not read the book before the film, that way I would have watched it as what it is - A film. Let's see if I manage to watch The Hobbit without comparing that to the book....that'll be the test of me turning over a new leaf.
The tone of the film is a lot more delicate than the book. There is a lot more sardonic wit on the page than on screen, the edge of the characters being taken away slightly in the film. In fact, I didn't really read the book as a love story, it was more about a male meltdown and how many bad choices, men and women, we all make during our lives. The film's focus is definitely as a love story though and I think that is both a cause and a symptom of the toning down of the dark. Having said that, it serves this purpose very well, there are some nice 'lovey' scenes, some very touching moments (the one that got me was a scene with Dexter and his father), and the broad comedy is kept to a minimum, only a couple of moments akin to typical Brit-Rom-Com laughs. Although those moments both appeared in the book, in the film they both felt very out of place, Scherfig playing the subject matter seriously and not for guffaws. If laughs are to be had it's to be on a much more slight level than Bridget Jones. Dialogue and facial expressions rather than slapstick.
All of the press attention in the build up to the release has not actually been about it not being faithful to the book, it's been about Anne Hathaway's attempt at a Yorkshire accent. Having read and heard all of this 'furore' it's impossible to watch the film without thinking about how's she getting on. It must be said that her accent does take a walk around a few places in the UK, never really sure where it wants to land, but to go on about that wouldn't be fair, because her performance is very, very good. It's a big challenge, to both her and Jim Sturgess, to play one character over a twenty year period. Not just in terms of appearance, but also in how previous events in the narrative have had an effect on them, especially when, due to the structure, we aren't party to everything that has happened. Sturgess has been getting the majority of the plaudits, with Hathaway getting slated (solely on the accent - on that subject, there is an argument that for someone who has lived in Yorkshire, Edinburgh and London, the accent might nip about a bit), but she was the one I was more impressed with. Considering that her last attempt at 'serious' was her incredibly irritating role in the slightly irritating Rachel Getting Married, One Day has put her firmly on my map and I'm a little more confident about her being chosen for The Dark Knight Rises. Also, good to also see Rafe Spall, his career trajectory coming along nicely from his beginnings in Shaun of the Dead. He verges on a slightly cartoon performance, and doesn't feel totally consistent with the rest of the film, but that is a small gripe. Ken Stott will be who I remember from the film though as he was the one who delivered the line that was the straw that broke the camel's back, the one that opened the tear ducts.
Now, back to my original point, adaptations getting a rough deal. I enjoyed the film a lot, and I do mean enjoy, and I do mean a lot, but I walked away with the remains of my picnic, slightly disappointed. Why? The only reason is that the film not the book. Much of what I've written above is comparing screen to page, while what I should be doing is comparing One Day to other releases, other films in that genre. When I do, I become much more positive in my overall assessment. If you group it together with other rom-coms it's far superior. The useless Jennifer Anniston vehicles don't come close, even if you look at a more serious rom-com, such as the awful The Holiday, it smashes it out of the park. It's a better film and deserves more than to be thought of in that bracket. It was an attempt at something like An Education, even Never Let Me Go, a 'proper' film, and ultimately it falls slightly short. And there is no shame in that.
Perhaps the right thing for me to do would have been to not read the book before the film, that way I would have watched it as what it is - A film. Let's see if I manage to watch The Hobbit without comparing that to the book....that'll be the test of me turning over a new leaf.
No comments:
Post a Comment