It’s now been a week since I published my reviews for this double feature. Since that time, I’ve been able to ponder over the films I have seen and my thoughts on both of them. In the conclusion of my double feature, I will reflect on what I learned, as well as the three questions that I sought to answer. These questions were the following:
Is there any aspect of either film that could be seen as relevant today?
Besides having young actors as the leads, do these films share any similarities?
Do the socio-economics of each film’s world affect the characters or the story?
As I was watching Rich Kids and Over the Edge, I was surprised to discover that there was nothing about either film that could hold it back from standing the test of time. No bygone pop cultural references or lingo plagued the scripts. By having each story focus on a simple concept, it helps each film achieve a sense of universality. I was also surprised by how little influence socio-economics had in both films. Before watching them, I thought socio-economics would be an overarching theme. But Rich Kids and Over the Edge put an emphasis on the exact same thing: its characters. Speaking of characters, there were two similarities I noticed when writing my reviews. The first one is how the youth in both films desperately needed guidance in their lives. Because they weren’t receiving any from their parents, they chose to find it somewhere else. The second similarity is how the young characters turned toward their friends for advice and help, showing how youth need to spend time with their peers. After everything is said and done, I ended up liking Rich Kids more than Over the Edge, giving the former 7.1 and the latter 6.1. Despite this, I can now recognize that they share important similarities as well as differences.
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
If you want to read my articles related to this double feature, here are the links to those posts:
Welcome to the second part of my Youth-Led Film Double Feature! This review will contain spoilers and here are the links to the double feature’s introduction and the first part:
Over the Edge poster created by Orion Pictures and Warner Bros. Pictures. Image found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Over_the_Edge_(1979)_poster.jpg
1. In your double feature’s introduction, you mentioned the fact both Rich Kids and Over the Edge were released in 1979. Is there anything from this time period that could have influenced these films?
At the beginning of the movie, a series of text appeared on the screen. This text stated that Over the Edge was based on true events. According to this part of the film, 110,000 youth under the age of 18 were arrested for crimes of vandalism in 1978. Also, the text revealed that one growing suburban community had young people under the age of 15 represent about a third of its population. Because of this, neighborhood planners/developers were having difficulty finding a way to deal with the situation. These true events not only influenced the film’s creation, but also gave it a reason to exist.
2. In this introduction, you also said you “had never heard of Over the Edge before” you saw Siskel and Ebert’s review. Why do you think this film has gotten very little recognition compared to other films from the ‘70s?
From the way I see it, cinema in the 1970s was about telling stories and doing things on film that had never been done before. Take, for instance, Star Wars: A New Hope and Jaws. Both of those films tested the limits of technology, through the use of animatronics and special effects. The contributions to cinema that were made through these two films helped them become products to remember and stand the test of time. Over the Edge, on the other hand, doesn’t really seem to break any new ground. Movies about youth were not a newer concept at this time. Also, this film had a story that was more grounded in reality. This is different from the previous two films I mentioned, Star Wars: A New Hope and Jaws, that focused on spectacle and creating a sense of escapism for their audience.
3. Do the socio-economics of each film’s world affect the characters or the story?
When it comes to Over the Edge, no. It doesn’t. Honestly, money and economic status are barely brought up in this film. Similar to Rich Kids, the primary focus was placed on the characters and how they reacted to and dealt with their problems. Giving these characters a sense of realism was more important to this creative team than talking about dollars and cents.
4. Do you agree or disagree with Siskel and/or Ebert’s views on these films? Why?
There are a few points both Siskel and Ebert make in their review of Over the Edge that I disagree with. When talking about this film, Ebert shared his disappointment over the movie’s “Hollywood ending” which involves “a big, explosive climax” where the kids of the neighborhood lock the adults inside of their school while they cause a night of chaos. I disagree with Ebert’s view on this third act because, to me, it didn’t feel like an ending you’d find in most blockbusters. While explosions made those scenes look visually interesting, I believe the purpose of those scenes are meant to show how bad a situation can get when the discovery of a solution is prolonged.
Once again, Siskel calls the parents in Over the Edge “a bunch of boobs”. And, once again, I would go so far as to say that these parents are uninvolved in the lives of their children. Throughout the story, they are so wrapped up in their own issues, that they don’t take the time to listen to and understand their children. Sure, there’s one scene where Richie White has a conversation with his mom during a car ride home. But this scene is brief and the conversation is short. In this review, Siskel also makes the argument that the film’s central message is how the country needs more recreational facilities. My counter-argument is how the film’s message is almost the same as the one in Rich Kids: if young people don’t receive guidance from a parent, guardian, or mentor figure, they are going to find it elsewhere.
5. When it comes to both films, Siskel and Ebert agreed on their views of the adult characters in each story. Did these characters have any significance within their respective movie?
Like I said in my Rich Kids review, the lack of involvement from the parents shows just how much they’re needed in their children’s lives. During the film’s third act, at a meeting in the neighborhood’s school, the adults are trying to figure out the reason behind the recent crimes. Teachers, parents, and even the teen center counselor are blamed for Richie White’s death as well as the poor choices of the youth. What this scene does is highlight my point perfectly. It also shows how they all could have done more to help the youth in their community.
6. Besides having young actors as the leads, do these films share any similarities?
One major aspect of this story was how the young characters stuck together and found more trust in each other than in the adults. In Rich Kids, Franny and Jamie were able to help each other deal with their parents’ divorce. For Over the Edge, these characters faced more than one issue, from the death of one of their peers to the changes in their neighborhood. Like Jamie and Franny, the young characters in Over the Edge try the best they can to figure everything out. They do this by talking to each other about their problems and creating their own ideas of “fun”.
7. Did you develop any thoughts and/or questions while watching this film?
While I came up with several thoughts and questions while watching Over the Edge, I’ll share just one question and one thought in this review. As I said in answer number four, the children lock the adults inside their school. The room where the adults are in, the auditorium, is located near the main entrance. This main entrance features double doors that have glass windows. Why didn’t anyone think of trying to break the windows in order to escape? To me, this decision not to was baffling, especially since there was a police officer among the group of adults.
Speaking of when the children lock the adults in the school, I saw something among those scenes that made me think about a potential plot twist. While the children are causing chaos, one boy is seen riding Richie’s bicycle. For a moment, I thought the script would pull off a plot twist where Richie ended up being alive and had just escaped police custody. However, that’s not the direction the story chose to take.
8. Is there anything about this movie that you liked or didn’t like?
Similar to Rich Kids, I thought the acting was one of the strongest parts of this film! Since the majority of this cast was made up of young actors and actresses, they proved they had what it took, talent wise, to carry a movie. One of the standout performances came from Michael Kramer, who portrayed Carl Willat. A memorable scene was when Carl was on the phone with one of his friends, curious about what happened to Richie. When he discovers that Richie died, Carl’s face quickly changes from genuine curiosity to being on the verge of tears.
Even though I liked the acting in this film, I think the character development could have been stronger. While I got to know the characters, I feel like I could’ve gotten to know them better. There was always this invisible distance between the characters and the audience. Things they said or did left me with unanswered questions. In the end, this aspect of the movie left more to be desired.
9. Is there any aspect of either film that could be seen as relevant today?
Throughout the film, the idea of actions leading to consequences was an overarching part of this story. One example is when Richie and Carl decide to run away. They steal Richie’s mom’s car and drive without a license or permit. They also carry a gun with them. As a result of these actions, Carl develops a juvenile record and Richie is killed in self-defense. The idea that I just mentioned reminds the audience of the importance of thinking before acting and accountability.
10. After watching Over the Edge, is there anything you can take away from your movie viewing experience?
In my opinion, a documentary about the events that inspired this movie would have been more interesting than the movie ended up being. It would be fascinating to hear from multiple perspectives and discover how their lives have changed since then. As for Over the Edge, it seems like the creative team tried to make an elaborate speech out of a simple message. While it can be thought-provoking to a certain extent, it doesn’t really try to do anything new. Over the Edge had so much going on, but at the same time had nothing happening at all.
Welcome to the first part of my Youth-Led Film Double Feature! This review will contain spoilers and here is the link to the double feature’s introduction:
Rich Kids poster created by Lion’s Gate Films and United Artists. Image found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rich_Kids_(film).jpg
1. In your double feature’s introduction, you mentioned the fact both Rich Kids and Over the Edge were released in 1979. Is there anything from this time period that could have influenced these films?
The film, Rich Kids, explores how wealth does not make an individual or a family invincible, as well as how money does not solve every problem. These morals can also be found within the Getty kidnapping case, which was showcased in the movie, All the Money in the World. Wealth could not prevent John Paul Getty III’s parents from divorcing or experiencing personal conflicts. Money doesn’t take away the trauma John Paul Getty III likely dealt with as a result of the kidnapping incident. Because this situation took place on July 10th, 1973, six years before the premiere of Rich Kids, I would guess the creative team behind Rich Kids absorbed these messages, contemplated on their importance, and wove a fictional, dramatic story around them.
2. In this introduction, you also mentioned how you originally thought Rich Kids “was a documentary style film about a group of rich kids growing up over a period of time”. Despite being different than what you expected, were you able to find some enjoyment in this film?
Rich Kids is a character-driven character study. When a film’s creative team decides to adopt this kind of story-telling, it’s important they create a cast of characters that the audience wants to spend their time with. Because these characters were well acted and written, it encouraged me to stay invested in their stories and journeys. In my opinion, I think it’s better that Rich Kids wasn’t the story I was expecting. Since this group of characters was smaller, it allowed the audience to not only become familiar with them, but to also truly know them. Had this film been about a group of children over the course of several years, it might have felt like they were competing against each other for attention.
3. Do the socio-economics of each film’s world affect the characters or the story?
While there was wealth being flaunted within this film, it didn’t happen as often as I thought it would. Rich Kids’ creative team places the wealth in the story to simply show it exists. But their primary focus is to present their characters as human, flawed, and inexperienced in life. When Franny visits Jamie at his father’s apartment for the first time, she is entranced by the magnificence of its existence. Even though she questions the cost of everything within that environment, her initial reaction is representative of how most people would react when entering a fantastical looking space. In reality, the characters influence the wealth, not the other way around.
4. Do you agree or disagree with Siskel and/or Ebert’s views on these films? Why?
In their review of Rich Kids, both Siskel and Ebert agree that the overall film should have kept its focus on the children. I second these opinions, as I found Franny and Jamie’s story to be more interesting than those of the adults. Because the divorce of Franny’s parents was inevitable and because Jamie’s parents were already divorced, there was no sense of intrigue from that part of the script. However, I do disagree with Siskel and Ebert on their views of the adults in this film. I wouldn’t go so far as to call them “boobs” (Gene’s words, not mine), but I would say they are uninvolved in the lives of their children. They are so caught up in their own problems and stress, that they easily and quickly lose sight of what is really important.
5. When it comes to both films, Siskel and Ebert agreed on their views of the adult characters in each story. Did these characters have any significance within their respective movie?
As I said in answer number four, these adults were so caught up in their own issues, that they lost focus on their most important priorities. This part of the story highlighted the importance of young people having a parent, guardian, or mentor that maintains a healthy amount of involvement in their lives. Because these adults weren’t involved in the lives of their children, both Franny and Jamie lacked the guidance that they desperately needed. They ended up finding guidance and life lessons elsewhere.
6. Besides having young actors as the leads, do these films share any similarities?
I haven’t seen Over the Edge yet, but based on Siskel and Ebert’s review of that movie, I can confidently say that one similarity between these films is the frustration the young protagonists feel about not being heard or understood by the adults. In one conversation, Franny tells Jamie how they have few rights because of their young ages. This statement makes them feel powerless and limited in their abilities and resources. Both Franny and Jamie are twelve years old, an age when most adolescents want to be seen less as children and hope to achieve a little more independence. Through their behavior and choices, these aspects of growing up are incorporated in Franny and Jamie’s story, as they are trying to form their own identities.
7. Did you develop any thoughts and/or questions while watching this film?
I don’t have any questions, but I did come up with two thoughts while watching Rich Kids. The first is how I loved the set design of Jamie’s dad’s apartment! From the tropical inspired oasis which is the first room characters encounter to the eccentric and eye-catching media room, these sets were both imaginative and impressively caught on film. My second thought revolves around the psychological well-being of the children. During one conversation, Franny confesses to Jamie that she named her dog after an imaginary world she created in her mind. The more she visits Jamie at his dad’s apartment, the more she uses that space to materialize her imaginary world. Later in the film, Franny shares with Jamie that prior to the start of their friendship, she lost her sister due to medical issues. I wish this script would have left some room to talk about how divorce and even a death in the family can affect a child’s psychological state, especially since Jamie’s stepdad was a psychologist. But I guess there’s only so much you can do in an hour and thirty-six minutes.
8. Is there anything about this movie that you liked or didn’t like?
Like I said in answer number two, I thought the characters were well acted and written. Because of these components, it felt like the audience took a glimpse into the lives of real-life people. This script also gave these characters a chance to come across as relatable. As Ebert said in the Rich Kids review, the conversations of the children “have a ring of truth to them”. I feel this way not just with Franny and Jamie’s conversations, but with every person in this project. The characters and their journeys were one of the strongest parts of this film!
As for what I didn’t like about this movie, I was not a fan of how Franny’s parents didn’t explore other options before deciding to get a divorce. At one moment in the film, Franny’s father’s lawyer suggests that Franny’s parents attend marriage counseling. They don’t even bother thinking that idea over and choose to treat divorce as the “end all, be all” of their problems. Like I’ve said on more than one occasion, I feel that ending a romantic relationship is a decision that shouldn’t be chosen lightly, especially if children or those who are dependent on the couple are involved. While this story is about how children deal with divorce, I think Franny’s parents should have discussed other options first.
9. Is there any aspect of either film that could be seen as relevant today?
An overarching theme that I noticed in this movie was the idea of knowing you’re not alone when dealing with a serious issue. Throughout their relationship, Jamie helps Franny deal with her parents’ inevitable divorce. Because his parents divorced prior to the start of their friendship, Jamie is able to use his experiences to show Franny that she is not the only one who has traveled down that road. They both become a shoulder to lean on and a listening ear for each other. This idea is definitely just as relevant in 2020 as it was in 1979.
10. After watching Rich Kids, is there anything you can take away from your movie viewing experience?
The biggest takeaway for me is how everyone experiences hardship, no matter who you are or what your economic status is. But as Rafiki from 1994’s The Lion King said, “you can either run from it, or learn from it”. In Rich Kids, Franny and Jamie try to handle their problems the best they realistically can. They do this by relying on one another and providing insight when necessary. Because of this, they are able to temporarily escape their issues and build a lasting friendship.
In my post called ‘Goodbye 2019, Hello 2020!’, I shared that every time I publish 100 posts, I coordinate a double feature in honor of the accomplishment. Because I published 300 posts at the end of last year, I scheduled the double feature for January. In my aforementioned post, I also mentioned the reason why this series of reviews and articles were focusing on youth-led films. This is because January’s theme for MovieRob’s Genre Grandeur is “Youth-Led Movies”. Since I’ll be participating in that blogathon, I figured it would a good idea to use my achievement to highlight my involvement.
While creating my first blogathon, “Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon”, I came across a video on Youtube of one of their episodes of “Sneak Previews”. While watching that video, I became fascinated by how two youth-led films, Rich Kids and Over the Edge, were not only released in the same year, but also around the same time (according to the Siskel and Ebert video). Not knowing whether or not this scheduling choice was intentional, I chose these two films for my next double feature! While I had never heard of Over the Edge before, I was aware of Rich Kids‘ existence. When I watched Siskel and Ebert’s discussion of this film, I was surprised to discover that it was about a completely different story from what I expected. Before choosing to watch this film, I thought the movie was a documentary style film about a group of rich kids growing up over a period of time.
For these reviews, I’ll be answering a series of ten questions related to the movies I watched. However, the three questions that will receive primary focus are the following:
Is there any aspect of either film that could be seen as relevant today?
Besides having young actors as the leads, do these films share any similarities?
Do the socio-economics of each film’s world affect the characters or the story?
Before I end this introduction, I’d like to say that there will be no pre-movie thoughts and/or questions for this double feature.
If you want to watch the video I referenced in this introduction, type ‘WTTW Channel 11 – Sneak Previews – “Real Life, Rich Kids, & More” (Complete Broadcast, 9/20/1979)’ into Youtube’s search bar. Siskel and Ebert’s discussion on Rich Kids starts at 1:41 and ends at 7:01. Their discussion on Over the Edge starts at 21:48 and ends at 24:49. If you are planning on watching this video, I just want to let you know there are sensitive topics that do get brought up at some points of the episode.
2020 is finally here! I am so excited to be embarking on my second year as a movie blogger! My movie blogging journey has, so far, been a good one. One reason for this is the support I have received from my readers and followers. Every like, visit, and comment is appreciated. It makes me feel like what I write about matters to someone. Like the previous year, 2019 was more successful than I ever expected! From receiving 100 followers to publishing 300 posts, 18 Cinema Lane grew and became a place that I’m proud of. Similar to last year, I will be sharing the stats of my blog and announce upcoming projects. This kind of post will be a new tradition for 18 Cinema Lane, as it allows my readers and followers to be informed about what’s happening on my blog.
Once again, I will be hosting another blogathon in 2020! It will be movie themed and it will take place later in the year. So that announcement will come in either May or June.
Changes to the Gold Sally Awards
The Gold Sally Awards is another event that will be coming back! However, there will be some changes made to the awards. These changes are not major, but they will, hopefully, improve the voting experience for my readers, followers, and visitors. This announcement will be posted toward the end of January.
Yearly Double Feature
Every time I publish 100 posts, I coordinate a special double feature to celebrate the accomplishment. At the end of 2019, I published 300 posts. I decided to create my double feature reviews in January because I wanted to take my time and make the best articles I realistically could. This double feature will correlate with Movierob’s Genre Grandeur, as January’s theme is “Youth-Led Movies”. Those series of articles will be published in either the middle of or later in the month.
Filmathon Readathon
On rare occasions, I talk about books on my blog. But I try to make that an exception to the rule, as my primary focus is on film. When I discovered a readathon that was movie themed, I knew I had to participate! The readathon is called “Filmathon” and will take place from January 7th to the 14th. It was created on the Youtube channel, lookingforshaki. I will making at least one post about it sometime in January.
New Blog Banner
Last year, K, from K at the Movies, created the official logo for 18 Cinema Lane. I love how it turned out and K did a fantastic job with the image! They also made two additional logos that I also like. One of them will be used as the new banner of my blog! This will take place shortly around the time this article is published.
Well, here we are. The conclusion of this double feature has finally arrived! At the start of this project, my goal was to figure out which adaptation of The Secret Garden was the best one. After reading the book, I watched and analyzed three of the most well-known film versions of this story. Now that we’re at the end of this double feature, it’s time for me to evaluate my results!
I know I’m featuring the photo from the Double Feature Introduction post. But, I figured it would fit appropriately with the context of this post’s topic. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.In the video, “Talking Anne with an E (Spoilers)”, Rachel and Amber, who are also hosts of Hallmarkies Podcast, share their thoughts on Netflix’s adaptation of Anne of Green Gables. During this discussion, Amber was saying how the film or television adaptation of this story is “not the end all, be all of Anne”. What she meant by this was that there is much more to the source material than just the first book, Anne of Green Gables. Other stories and characters from this series are just as important as the content that is considered when it comes to adaptations. Amber’s beliefs can also be applied to my double feature. No matter how many adaptations are made, they should never be a replacement for the source material. Each adaptation has a different creative team associated with it, so the beliefs about which elements are worth including in the movie are going to vary. With that said, I think that both the 1987 Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation and the 1993 version are the best adaptations of The Secret Garden! Both of these films have their fair share of similarities and differences. But I found them to be close enough to the book where I was satisfied. As a film, however, I would prefer the one from 1993 over the Hallmark Hall of Fame movie. While the 1987 production was good, it felt a little too drawn-out. I also think that Kate Maberly did a better job at portraying Mary than Gennie James did. Since I now found the answer to a question that I’ve wanted to find for years, I can honestly say that my mission is finally accomplished.
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
If you want to read the other posts from this double feature, go to these links:
If you want to watch the video that I referenced in this post, type “Talking Anne with an E (Spoilers)” into Youtube’s search bar or visit the Youtube channel, Rachel’s Reviews.
Welcome to my Bonus Double Feature! Just to let you know, there will be spoilers within this post. If you want to read the introduction, here’s the link:
The Secret Garden poster created by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer and Loew’s Inc. Image found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Secret_Garden_FilmPoster.jpeg
In what way is the adaptation like the book?
1949: There were several similarities to the book in the 1949 adaptation of The Secret Garden. One of them was the incorporation of the wind. In the book, the sounds of Colin’s cries blend with the sounds of the wind. Mary quickly picks out the cries from the wind and notices that something isn’t right. In the movie, this aspect sounded just like how it was described in the book. If one wasn’t paying attention, they would assume that the cries were a part of the wind. The other element was the path to Colin’s room. Mary, in the book, enters different rooms and passageways in order to find the source of the crying. In the movie, when Mary attempts to find out where the crying comes from, she travels through various rooms and hallways, which take her to Colin’s bedroom door. While this trip takes place in a shorter amount of time, the visuals of the different places in the house shows just how intertwined Misselthwaite Manor really is.
1987: More similarities were found in this adaptation than in the 1949 version. The one that I was pleasantly surprised by was Mary’s characteristics. Despite Gennie James’ inability to carry a British accent, she made up for this by embodying the spirit and persona of her character. Through her emotions, actions, and behavior, Gennie brought the likability and unlikability that Mary Lennox is known for. Two examples are when Mary was more upset about losing her doll over her parents and when she became friends with the robin. While we’re on the subject of this friendship, Mary forms a relationship with a robin that is also very fond of Ben Weatherstaff. By befriending the robin, in both the book and movie, Mary’s transformation from self-centered child to selfless individual begins. As for the character transformations, they were developed very well in the source material and the adaptation. Even though the movie was drawn out, it showed that the transformations of characters like Mary, Colin, and Mr. Craven happened over the course of several months. It also showed that these transformations take time and patience.
1993: Similar to the 1987 film, the characteristics of Mary are pretty close to how the character was written in the book. But in this adaptation, the characteristics of almost all the characters seemed like it reflected the book very well. In the 1993 movie, Kate Maberly’s performance was the best portrayal of Mary Lennox! Not only was she able to carry a British accent throughout the entire film, but she also did a really good job at bringing a balance of emotions to her role. During the scene where Martha accidently offends Mary, the angry emotions that Kate brought to her character reminded me of how the character would have behaved in the book. Another good example is when Dickon and Mary are in the secret garden, while they are singing “Mistress Mary Quite Contrary”. Even though she’s happy to be spending time with Dickon, she’s reminded of the painful memories when she arrived in England. Speaking of Dickon, Andrew Knott’s portrayal of this character was the best out of all three adaptations I’ve seen! He did a fantastic job pulling off a Yorkshire accent and brought a sense of likability to his role. The scene where Dickon and Mary meet for the first time is a good example of this.
As I just mentioned, Dickon and Mary sing “Mistress Mary Quite Contrary” in the 1993 movie. This song plays a small role in the book. At the beginning of the story, the song is sung to Mary in a manner of teasing. When the story goes on, she reflects on the song’s meaning and questions her outlook on life. Another aspect of the movie that reflected the book was the interior designs of Misselthwaite Manor. Mary’s and Colin’s room are a great example, as tapestry can be seen on the walls. This is an important detail to mention because tapestry was described in the novel.
Was there anything in the adaptation that was different from the book?
1949: In the 1949 adaptation, there were just as many differences from the book as there were similarities. One notable difference is how emotional Mary Lennox is. In the film, Mary bursts into tears when she finds out that her parents have died. This is not the reaction that Mary has in the book, as she wouldn’t care what happens to her parents because of her poor relationship with them. Speaking of relationships, Mary’s relationship with Ben Weatherstaff is quite different in the film. Mary, as well as Colin and Dickon, don’t like Ben. They not only keep their distance from him, but they also don’t allow him to enter their garden. In the book, however, Ben becomes the children’s ally. He provides them with plenty of information about the secret garden, such as why it’s closed off from the rest of the gardens. The children even invite him into the garden on a few occasions. Finally, how Mary and Dickon meet is also different in the movie. Mary meets Dickon before she’s even aware that a secret garden exists. In the book, Mary meets Dickon after she’s entered the secret garden. She meets him because he’s purchased some flower seeds for her.
1987: While watching this adaptation of The Secret Garden, I noticed fewer differences compared to the 1949 version. Like the 1949 film, the initial meeting of Mary and Dickon happens at a different part of the story. In this movie, Mary meets Dickon before she’s found the secret garden, yet she is aware that it exists. At the beginning and end of the movie, the audience sees that the story is told through the reflections of a grown-up Mary Lennox. Since the book only focused on Mary’s story from when she was a child, this was a creative choice that Hallmark Hall of Fame made. Unlike the book, Mary and Colin are not cousins. I’m not going to reveal the reason for this creative decision because I don’t want to spoil the movie for anyone who hasn’t seen this version. But this choice wasn’t as much of an issue as I thought it could be. Plus, it works within this particular story!
1993: Toward the beginning of the film, Mary loses her parents to an earthquake. This is different from the book, as she loses her parents to sickness. The location of the secret garden’s key is also different from the source material. In the movie, Mary finds this key in her aunt’s jewelry box instead of in the dirt. Another difference I noticed was the characteristics of Mrs. Medlock. This character, in the book, was stern but caring. Mrs. Medlock, in the movie, was much stricter. She’s not only against the idea of Mary and Colin spending time together, but she’s also mean to the other members of the staff. I’m not sure if this creative decision was made to include a conflict or to highlight the acting strengths of Maggie Smith.
Did you find anything in the movie that you felt improved upon the material more than the book?
1949: While the majority of the film is presented in black-and-white, the only scenes that were featured in color were those that took place in the garden. Frances Hodgson Burnett was very descriptive when writing about the garden. But you can only describe so much without giving someone a visual. The way the garden is presented in this adaptation helps bring the text to life.
1987: In a few parts of the film, the element of suspense was incorporated. One good example was when Mary meets Colin for the first time. The build-up to that moment was staged really well, using as little lighting as possible and featuring things like lightening and scary looking statues. Because of these elements coming together, it was better executed in the movie than in the book.
1993: During the 1993 adaptation, a transition happens between winter and spring/summer. This transition isn’t just seen through the exterior background. The cinematography and color of wardrobe are other visuals that indicate the changing seasons. An explanation of how Mary and Colin are related is included in this script. According to this adaptation, Mary’s mother was the twin sister of Colin’s mother. No explanations to how Mary and Colin are related were given in the book. All that’s known is that they’re cousins and Mr. Craven is Mary’s uncle.
This is yet another Hallmark Hall of Fame movie that I purchased. However, I bought it because I wanted to give an honest opinion for this double feature. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
Is there anything from the book that improved upon the material more than the movie?
1949: In the book, the garden itself is written as if it were its own character. Because of this, the garden creates a ripple effect on the characters and their lives. In the movie, however, the garden is treated like a Macguffin. It’s not featured in the film for very long and the progression of the characters happens pretty quickly. We also don’t see the process of the garden’s revival.
1987: When I was thinking about this Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation, I found it difficult to find anything that the book did better than the movie. This is because the adaptation was pretty close to the source material. It gives people who have read the book, like myself, a reason to find it satisfying.
1993: Even though she plays a really small role in the book, Susan Sowerby, Martha and Dickon’s mom, shares her wisdom and advice throughout the story. These things have a small, but significant influence over the events of the plot. Because Susan was nowhere to be found in this film, this part of the story was eliminated from the script.
Because each adaptation was released in a different decade, do you feel that the movie itself was affected by the time period in which it was released? If so, how?
1949: MGM’s The Wizard of Oz was one of the first movies to experiment with color imaging. Since the movie was a success for the studio, they were more than willing to incorporate color imaging into their future films. The Secret Garden was released ten years after The Wizard of Oz, so it makes sense that they reserved the color imaging for the titular secret garden. What’s interesting is how little color imaging is included in the movie. It’s only seen on three occasions, after the garden has been fully revived.
1987: There’s three key things that I think had an influence on this version of The Secret Garden. The first is the 1949 movie. Because this particular film had an equal amount of similarities and differences, it encouraged the creative team behind the Hallmark Hall of Fame project to make a more faithful adaptation. The second key ingredient was the trend where content in ‘80s children’s/family-friendly entertainment was darker and “creepier”. Since Hallmark Hall of Fame’s The Secret Garden was released in 1987, it provided an alternative for those who wanted to move away from the aforementioned trend. The last thing is the concept of home entertainment and video rental stores. One of the most well-known video rental businesses, Blockbuster, opened its doors in 1985, just two years before Hallmark Hall of Fame’s adaptation was released. Since then, the idea of renting or purchasing films has played a huge role in the world of cinema. I’m not sure when Hallmark starting allowing their movies to be sold for home entertainment. But their version of The Secret Garden has been available on VHS and DVD.
1993: Two important aspects affected the creation of this specific adaptation. The first one is the previous adaptations of The Secret Garden. This particular version of the story was the first theatrical adaptation since the 1949 film. The Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation was close enough to the source material where readers would be satisfied. Taking these films into consideration, the creative team behind the 1993 movie tried to make a movie that felt cinematic and respected the source material. The second thing is the climate that existed in children’s/family-friendly entertainment in the early ‘90s. During this time, the Disney Renaissance was in the early stages. The box office was also receiving films with Don Bluth’s signature animation style. In the live-action department, films like My Girl and Beethoven were released from their respective studios. The early ‘90s provided variety to children’s/family-friendly entertainment. Since this version of The Secret Garden was released in 1993, the film contributed to the aforementioned climate.
If an adaptation of The Secret Garden were made today, how would it be different from the other adaptations?
I think that if The Secret Garden received another adaptation, that film’s creative team would probably try to have the story take place in “modern” times. If this decision were made, the simplistic nature that comes from a historical fiction narrative would be taken away. Another possible change would be the incorporation of an environmental message. This would be unnecessary because the purpose of the secret garden has nothing to do the environment. The garden is included in the story to present the idea of becoming a better person when putting the needs of others before one’s own.
What aspect from the movie or book do you think has stood the test of time?
The messages and themes within this story have been relatable and cherished for many years. As I already mentioned, one idea that can be found in both the source material and any adaptation is how putting the needs of others before one’s own can help someone become a better person. Because the protagonist of this story is a child, the narrative evokes reflection on a time when a person’s life could be care-free. It also reminds the audience of how anything is possible when we set our minds on something.
While I have seen this version of The Secret Garden before, this was my first time watching it as an adaptation. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.Have fun at the movies!
Back in May, my post called “A Bucky Fan’s Response to one of Looper’s Avengers: Endgame related videos” became my 200th published post! Whenever I publish a hundred posts, I coordinate a double feature where I try to answer a thought-provoking question through the viewing of two similar films. But, around the time when I published my aforementioned post, I discovered that I would soon reach the milestone of 100 published reviews. So, I postponed my Double Feature until that milestone was reached. It was achieved in July when I published my review of Christmas Camp! However, that post was published just before I embarked on an out-of-town trip. So, I postponed my Double Feature until after the trip. But August became my busiest month, as I participated in four blogathons. Because of that, the Double Feature had to be pushed back again. Now that I have set aside some time to coordinate my Double Feature, I can finally announce that it will be published this week! Since I’m celebrating two milestones, I will be writing about three films.
I am fully aware of the irony that comes with reading The Secret Garden from the Hallmark Gift Books collection before watching the Hallmark Hall of Fame adaptation. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.If you ask anyone what the best adaptation of The Secret Garden is, most of them will tell you that it’s the Hallmark Hall of Fame version from 1987. For years, I have heard this statement from many people on the internet. In fact, when I asked a search engine which adaptation of The Secret Garden was the best one, the Hallmark Hall of Fame version was the film that came up as the answer. But is this movie really the best adaptation? That’s what I wanted to find out for myself! The most well-known versions of The Secret Garden that I will be watching are the 1949 release, the Hallmark Hall of Fame presentation, and the 1993 project. I read The Secret Garden prior to watching these films, so I could gain a better understanding of how similar or different each adaptation is from the source material. Because I’m going to talk about three versions of the same story, I will ask myself fewer questions than I did for my Halloween Double Feature. I will also not be giving these films any score ratings because I’m judging them as adaptations. There will be no pre-movie thoughts, questions, or predictions this time because I know what the movies are about before I’ve seen them.
When I looked through Rosalind Russell’s IMDB filmography in preparation for The Rosalind Russell Blogathon, I discovered that The Trouble with Angels was given a sequel called Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows. This is a movie that I had never seen or heard of. But, since I haven’t created a double feature for a blogathon since last August, I decided to review The Trouble with Angels and Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows! If you read my review for the first film, you would know that I enjoyed it. The synopsis for the sequel sounded interesting and different from the previous movie. This is what caused me to want to give this project a chance. Was this a complimentary story to The Trouble with Angels? Find out in my review of Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows!
The acting: Like in the first movie, the cast of Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows was good! One of things that helped was having some of the actresses who portrayed the nuns in the previous film return for the second one. This kept a sense of continuity between the characters. Also, like in the first movie, Rosalind shined in her role of Mother Superior! Her performance was very consistent with how she portrayed the character in The Trouble with Angels. It continued to make this character just as likable as she was in the previous picture.
The inclusion of Sister George: Because Mary Clancy graduated from St. Francis Academy at the end of The Trouble with Angels, Sister George, portrayed by Stella Stevens, replaced her as a counteracting presence for Mother Superior to interact with. Both Rosalind and Stella gave a strong acting performance, which allowed their talents to compliment one another. These characters were also well-written, both of them providing interesting points to their stance. I found this aspect of the film to be the most interesting. Seeing these characters progress as the movie went on was one of the strengths of this story.
The scenery: I’m glad that the building from The Trouble with Angels made an appearance in the sequel! While there weren’t many scenes that took place inside of the school, a few more exterior shots of the grounds were shown. These outdoor spaces were captured really well on film! It kind of allowed the viewer to explore this location a little bit more. Most of the movie took place on a class field trip, which consisted of traveling through several states in order to reach a peace rally in California. This gave the creative team an excuse of include scenery-heavy scenes in the movie. These scenes were interesting to look at, as they showcased the natural landscapes from each state that the characters traveled through. This was, honestly, one of the more memorable parts of the film.
A weak plot: As I’ve already mentioned, this movie is about the nuns and some of the students of St. Francis Academy going on a field trip to a peace rally in California. Besides the conflict between Sister George and Mother Superior, this story was very weak. A large portion of the scenes in this film consist of the school’s bus traveling through various states. Instead of one overarching story, this narrative was written as a series of short vignettes. Not only were none of these vignettes that interesting, but they seemed to string the movie along just for the sake of keeping this weak plot going.
Scenes lasting for way too long: Throughout this movie, I found several scenes that lasted way too long. One example is when some of the students from St. Francis Academy attend a party that is hosted by an all-boys school. The scene itself felt like a two-minute music video. It didn’t really add anything to the plot or the development of the characters. The length of these scenes feel like they are trying to make up for the weakness of the plot.
Charismatic-less characters: Since Rachel and Mary graduated in the first movie, Marvel Ann, portrayed by Barbara Hunter, and Rosabelle, portrayed by Susan Saint James, acted as their replacements. Barbara and Susan tried the best they could with the acting material they were given. But these characters weren’t as charismatic as Rachel and Mary were. Because of this, it made Marvel Ann and Rosabelle seem unlikable. It also made me not care about their story.
My overall impression:
I was very disappointed by Where Angels Go, Trouble Follows. This movie had interesting ideas that could have lent themselves to a good sequel. However, all of these ideas were wasted on poor execution. When it comes to fictional stories, I am more than willing to suspend my disbelief. But this movie tried to make me suspend more of my disbelief than I had wanted to. The only interesting aspect of this story was the conflict between Mother Superior and Sister George. This part of the film was not only well-acted, but also well-written. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same about the rest of the movie. While I would recommend The Trouble with Angels, I would suggest skipping the sequel.
Before signing up for The Rosalind Russell Blogathon, I had never heard of Rosalind Russell. Like I did to prepare for the 90 Years of Jean Simmons Blogathon, I visited Rosalind’s IMDB filmography. After searching this page, I discovered that Rosalind starred in the film, The Trouble with Angels. This is a film that I’ve heard of, but never seen. So, I used my participation in the blogathon as an excuse to watch this movie! I was also aware that Hayley Mills starred in The Trouble with Angels. Before watching this film, I had seen a few of her movies. In fact, I reviewed The Moon-Spinners earlier this year! So, I was looking forward to seeing what her acting abilities had to offer in this production. Was my movie-viewing experience a blessing or a curse? You can fly through my review of The Trouble with Angels if you want to find out!
The acting: I really liked the cast of The Trouble with Angels! Every actor and actress pulled off a performance that not only appeared realistic, but also was effective. Rosalind Russell’s portrayal of Mother Superior was interesting to watch. This character was strict, yet she always had her heart in the right place. I couldn’t help but find Mother Superior to be a likable character. I also enjoyed seeing Haley Mills in this film! Prior to watching The Trouble with Angels, I have seen The Parent Trap (1961), That Darn Cat and The Moon-Spinners. Hayley’s portrayal of Mary Clancy is somewhat different from her roles in those aforementioned films. However, Hayley’s performance had a sense of maturity to it. This particular role complimented both her age and acting abilities. Because of this, it made Hayley’s portrayal of Mary that much more entertaining to watch!
The set/scenery: The Trouble with Angels takes place at St. Francis Academy. According to IMDB, the building that was used in the exterior shots is a real-life facility in Ambler, Pennsylvania. But the interior shots were filmed in a California studio. Despite this difference in filming locations, I thought the scenery/set was absolutely magnificent! The building itself looks like a castle, the footage of it probably doesn’t do this place justice. There were grounds surrounding the building that I liked seeing as well! All four seasons was showcased in the film, which helped highlight the beauty that these grounds had to offer. The set looks like it would compliment the real-life structure. A combination of stone, wood, and stained glass were appealing to the eye. The location scout(s) and set decorator(s) did a great job with bringing this school to life!
A sense of humanity: In this story, there were moments where a sense of humanity shown through. This happened through dialogue and situations amongst the characters. One example is when Mary and Rachel (portrayed by June Harding) try to lie to Mother Superior about their whereabouts. When Mother Superior suspects that Mary and Rachel are making fun of one of their teachers, she shares the truth about this particular teacher with them. Another example is when some of the students visit a Retirement Home during Christmas-time. When Mary overhears some of the residents sharing their loneliness with others, it shows the audience that this specific season might not be the most wonderful time of the year for some people. The incorporation of this sense of humanity felt genuine, like the creative team behind this film had good intentions for including it.
A limited amount of humor: While there were moments of humor found throughout the film, I felt like the story favored the dramatic moments more than the comedic ones. These moments of humor seemed far and few between. Most of the film’s humor came from the pranks and mishaps that are caused by Mary and Rachel. Even though The Trouble with Angels would be classified as a comedy, this movie feels more like a dramedy (a mix of comedy and drama).
Mostly static characters: The Trouble with Angels is primarily about the characters of Mary and Rachel. This story follows them from the beginning of their freshmen year of high school to their graduation. In that time-frame, however, Mary and Rachel didn’t really seem to have that significant of a transition of rambunctious youngsters and responsible young adults. For more than half of the film, Mary and Rachel were static, continuously pulling pranks and despising their peers and teachers. It wasn’t until they joined their school’s band when these characters started to grow as individuals. This part of the story feels a little bit rushed, like the creative team behind this movie was trying to make up for lost time.
Little emphasis on academics: In movies that take place in a school setting, there is usually an emphasis on either an important teacher or an influential school assignment. But that wasn’t the case for The Trouble with Angels. Instead, the story focused on the character development of Mary and Rachel. There were moments that showed these characters in the middle of a school lesson, such as when Mary and Rachel were trying to avoid their swim tests. But these moments didn’t last long enough to have a large impact on the narrative.
We interrupt this movie review to give you a moment to appreciate Rachel’s hat. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.This is, honestly, the coolest pill-box hat I’ve ever seen in my life! Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.As soon as I saw this hat, I knew I had to have it in my life. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
My overall impression:
The Trouble with Angels is a fine film. This story had more heart and soul than I expected, especially due to the sense of humanity found within the narrative. While this movie could have been stronger, there were elements about it that made the project enjoyable. Rosalind and Hayley definitely helped carry the film! Though these actresses were at different places in their careers, their acting abilities complimented each other. When it comes to films about teenagers, The Trouble with Angels is one of the better ones. The story primarily focused on Mary and Rachel. But, with the incorporation of the teachers and Mother Superior, the best intentions for the students could be seen throughout the story. That’s how I would define this movie; the creative team making this film with the best of intentions.
Overall score: 7.4-7.5 out of 10
Have you seen The Trouble with Angels? Which movie of Rosalind Russell’s would like me to watch next? Please tell me in the comment section!
![20190904_161300[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/20190904_1613001-e1567629333829.jpg?w=427&h=674)
![20190906_190444[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/20190906_1904441-e1567813868962.jpg?w=443)
![20190906_190452[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/20190906_1904521-e1567814077703.jpg?w=441&h=597)
![20190904_161300[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/20190904_1613001-e1567629333829.jpg?w=406&h=641)
![20190605_185743[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20190605_1857431-e1559873358749.jpg?w=398)
18 Cinema Lane 