I first learned about this news on the blog, Annlyel Online. After that, other people starting talking about the story. Since I haven’t written a follow-up Word on the Street post in quite a while, I decided to discuss the latest news about the world’s neighborhood Marvel hero. Yesterday, on September 27th, both The Hollywood Reporter and Variety broke the news that Spider-Man was, indeed, staying put in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Variety provided details about the new deal between Disney and Sony, stating that it “was signed late on Thursday night”. This new deal reveals that “Disney will receive roughly 25% of the profits”. This sounds like an increase from the 5% that I talked about in my Word on the Street story last month. Also revealed was how “Disney will retain its merchandising rights and will put up roughly a quarter of the financing”. In both articles from The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, a new Spider-Man movie was announced, with the project given a release date of July 16th, 2021. Because of this deal, Spider-Man is also scheduled for one additional movie within the MCU. I’m not as educated about the business-side of the movie industry as I am with other aspects of it. But, to me, I find myself feeling skeptical about how quickly this issue was resolved. Legitimizing business transactions, creating negotiations that are suitable for all parties involved, and greenlighting a movie takes time. However, all of these things were able to be taken care of in only a month.
When this story was first published, I listened to several perspectives on this particular topic. One of them belonged to Kneon from Clownfish TV, who I mentioned in one of my Word on the Street stories last month. He brought up some points about the story that I find myself agreeing with. In his video, “Spider-Man STAYS in the MCU…for now”, Kneon says that he feels Spider-Man “has been relegated to sidekick status” during his existence in the MCU. This I agree with, as it seems like Peter Parker has become a sort of “little brother” to the other heroes. The character’s youth doesn’t help his case. In Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers:Endgame, Spider-Man was only given a limited amount of screen-time and was one of the heroes who became “dusted”. Kneon also expressed his concerns about Spider-Man’s future in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, stating that he feels the studio’s new phase “does not seem to be very, um, hospitable to Marvel’s old school heroes”. This is yet another point that I agree with. If you read my spoiler-zone review of Avengers:Endgame, you would know how disappointed I was when Bucky didn’t have anything new or interesting added to his story in preparation for the show, The Falcon & the Winter Soldier. In that review, I said that “In the scene where Steve gives Sam the shield, it almost seemed like Bucky was an afterthought, as he was standing in the distance and watching everything going on in front of him”. Since then, it seems like the studio sees Bucky and his fans as afterthoughts, as Marvel and Disney haven’t really made a strong effort to get the fans excited for the show. Something that I’ve been thinking about because of this story is how no new “faces” of the MCU have been officially established. From Phases 1 through 3, the three “faces” of the Marvel Cinematic Universe were Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor. In Avengers:Endgame and beyond, these new “faces” were not named. Some people have speculated that it could be Spider-Man. But, after hearing Disney and Sony’s new deal, that idea may be in question.
How do you feel about Spider-Man remaining in the MCU? Which movie do you think he’ll appear in? Let me know in the comment section!
Have fun at the movies!
Sally Silverscreen
If you want to check out the references I mentioned in this story, you can type “Spider-Man STAYS in the MCU…for now” in Youtube’s search bar or visit Clownfish TV’s official Youtube channel. You can also visit these links:
September has been a weird month for 18 Cinema Lane. The movies that I’ve reviewed have either been period films or films with a release date from the 1940s. In October, I will try to review movies that are outside of these cinematic realms. But for this blog follower dedication review, I have chosen a movie that was released in September of 1946. According to Wikipedia, Caesar and Cleopatra was released in September of 1946 in both the United States and the United Kingdom. So, this is the film I have chosen for this review. When it comes to this particular cinematic story, I have heard of the version starring Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. But I had never heard of the 1946 film until I was researching movies for this specific post. The only film of Vivien Leigh’s that I’ve seen is Gone with the Wind. Despite the fact that I was not a fan of that movie, I wanted to give other movies starring Vivien a chance.
The acting: The acting performances in Caesar and Cleopatra were pretty good! Claude Rains did a great job at bringing his character to life! Creating a character that appears both likable and unlikable is not an easy feat. By adopting a persona that was both charming and cunning, Claude was able to present Caesar as being likable enough to form relationships and alliances, but unlikable enough to show how self-centered this character truly is. Despite having a limited amount of screen-time, Apollodorus quickly became my favorite character in this movie! This is because Stewart Granger, the actor who portrayed this character, was so expressive and animated. Because of applying these elements to his performance, Stewart’s portrayal of Apollodorus was such a joy to watch.
The set designs: I really liked seeing the sets throughout this movie! They made this cinematic world feel larger-than-life and epic because of how grand they were in size. These sets appeared historically accurate, showing the level of detail that the film’s creative team applied to this part of the project. The craftsmanship of the sets was truly remarkable, with Cleopatra’s palace being a good example of this. All of these factors helped make the scenery feel immersive, like the audience can see themselves entering that world. The sets were so impressive, that they were visually appealing!
The costumes: Caesar and Cleopatra was presented in Technicolor, so the costumes were showcased in the way they were meant to be seen. These costumes were as stunning as the cinematic world where they resided in! The characters were clothed in bright colors, helping to make the costumes eye-catching and vibrant. Even outfits that were mostly white had a splash of color incorporated into them. The use of metals was also interesting, as it ended up complimenting the outfits. One example was Apollodorus’ blue outfit that had gold embroidery. There was one scene where Britannus explains to Cleopatra why he wears the color blue. This explanation provided some interesting insight that isn’t always found when it comes to a film’s costume designs.
Cleopatra’s character development: When I think of Cleopatra, I think of a woman who has the skills and intelligence to lead a kingdom. While watching Vivien’s performance, there were times when she brought my idea of this historical figure to life. But there were also times when it felt like Vivien was trying to recreate her portrayal of Scarlett O’Hara. I recognize that she was making the best of the material she was given. However, I think the film’s creative team was attempting to take advantage of the popularity and success of Gone with the Wind. If this was their intention, the decision caused Cleopatra’s character development to come across as inconsistent.
The run-time: Caesar and Cleopatra is a film that is over two hours. Because of this, it caused the movie to feel longer than it might have been intended. The run-time also made some scenes feel drawn out for the sake of satisfying the film’s run-time. One example was when the Roman army met the King of Egypt. The conversations featured in this script also seemed longer than they needed to be. If Caesar and Cleopatra was under two hours, maybe an hour and fifty minutes, then the story would have moved at a faster pace.
Lots of dialogue-heavy scenes: In this movie, there’s a war taking place between Rome and other countries, including Egypt. However, the majority of the story focuses on the characters having conversations with one another. As I’ve already mentioned, these conversations felt longer than they needed to be. Because of the number of dialogue-heavy scenes, it created an imbalance between these scenes and any scenes that were action-heavy. The scenes that involved action were far and few between. Moments of suspense were also subdued. A perfect example of this is when Alexandria’s library was on fire. I understand that this film was created during the Breen Code era. But it doesn’t mean that project shouldn’t have action, especially if the story calls for it.
Chariot statue from the Roman Empire image created by Michel Meynsbrughen at freeimages.com. “FreeImages.com/Michel Meynsbrughen.”
My overall impression:
As I mentioned in my review, Gone with the Wind became a very successful and popular movie. When this happens, other studios will try to recreate that success. But not every movie can recapture that accomplishment that the previous title had reached. Caesar and Cleopatra is a perfect example of this situation. While the movie was just ok, it feels like it tried to take advantage of Gone with the Wind’s popularity. From Vivien’s reenactment of Scarlett O’Hara to the story being more dialogue-heavy, this film wasn’t able to be its own project. Despite this, there were factors within the film that I liked. Some of them were the costumes and the sets. Because this is the only cinematic version of this story that I’ve seen, I don’t have anything to compare this project to. But I’m glad that I chose this film for my 140 blog follower dedication review. To each and every one of my followers, thank you for choosing to support 18 Cinema Lane! Your interest in this blog means a lot to me.
Overall score: 6 out of 10
What are your thoughts on this review? Do you like films that feature a historical approach to the story? Share your thoughts in the comment section!
Earlier this month, MovieRob, from the blog, MovieRob, invited me to join the monthly blogathon called Genre Grandeur. This is a monthly blogathon where different themes are chosen by various bloggers. Since I’ve never participated in Genre Grandeur before, I decided to give it a try. September’s theme, as chosen by Carl, from Listening to Film, is Ensemble Movies. Like with any blogathon, I take the time to pick a film that is the right option for me and that could bring something unique to the table of the blogathon. While searching through lists of the “best” ensemble movies, I discovered that I Remember Mama would be classified as an “ensemble film”. Because I already had this movie on my DVR, I figured this would be the perfect movie for me to review for Genre Grandeur! The goal of this blogathon is to share your favorite film from the chosen genre. This was my first time watching the movie, so my review is meant to determine if I Remember Mama could be a favorite ensemble project.
The acting: In any ensemble film, every actor and actress is expected to bring the best of their acting talents to the screen. That’s exactly what happened in I Remember Mama! In this film, all the cast members pulled off an excellent performance! Irene Dunne may be the lead actress, but she never overshadows anyone. Instead, her performance compliments the other performers. Irene was very expressive, sometimes relying on expressions more than actual dialogue. However, this aspect helped make the performance appear more emotional and realistic. Fans of The Waltons would recognize Ellen Corby as Esther “Grandma” Walton. Her portrayal of Aunt Trina highlights how versatile her acting abilities are. She effectively brings a personality that stands out from the other aunts in this cinematic family. Ellen also did a good job at carrying a Norwegian accent. Her performance is an example of how great an ensemble film can be, as it celebrates the cast as a whole instead of a select few.
The cinematography: I Remember Mama is a film that I was not expecting to see interesting cinematography in. But, as I watched the film, I was pleasantly surprised by how creative and visually appealing it really was. One common trick was how mirrors were used in a given scene. A perfect example is when Katrin begins to narrate her story. As the story starts, the mirror that is in Katrin’s room turns into a window as the audience enters the first flashback. Close-ups of people’s faces were also commonly used throughout this film. In one scene, Uncle Chris’ face is presented as a close-up when he tells his nieces to move out of his way. Because of the use of this cinematography trick, it reinforces the idea that this character is “scary”, a description that other family members gave him.
The messages and themes: Throughout this story, I found several messages and themes that resonated beyond the screen. Selflessness is just one example of an overarching theme that is relatable for a variety of audience members. Whether it’s Mama/Marta putting the needs of her family before her own or Uncle Chris looking after his grand-nephew while he’s in the hospital, it goes to show just how far this on-screen family will go to provide happiness and well-being for each other. The effects of one’s actions is a very important message in I Remember Mama. An example that really highlights this point is when the family has to deal with an injured cat. I’m not going to spoil this point of the film, in case you haven’t seen this movie yet. But all I’ll say is that it has a profound effect on one of the characters.
Some characters get under-utilized more than others: While having an ensemble cast does have its advantages, it also has its flaws. A flaw in I Remember Mama’s cast is how some characters are under-utilized more than others. Even though most of the story revolves around Mama and Aunt Trina gets her own subplot, Aunt Jenny and Aunt Sigrid aren’t given much to do within the story. Throughout the film, each daughter in the Hanson family shares a teachable moment with their mother. Nels, the only son in the family, is never shown sharing one of these moments. Arne, one of Uncle Chris’ grand-nephews, isn’t seen interacting with many of the characters. While he does spend time with this uncle, during a stay in the hospital, he doesn’t receive a subplot.
Having difficulty understanding the accents: In I Remember Mama, most of the older characters speak with a Norwegian accent. That’s because some of them immigrated to the United States prior to the events that take place in the movie. All of the actors did a great job at pulling off this accent! However, there were times when I found it difficult to understand what they were trying to say. This is because I’m not used to hearing Norwegian accents in film, so this flaw is my fault as a viewer.
Before I share my final thoughts on I Remember Mama, I want to thank MovieRob for inviting me to join Genre Grandeur! When I first discovered genre grandeurs, I thought it was an overwhelmingly analytical process. But the more I learned about it, the more I realized how simple the process really was. I’m glad that I was able to provide my insight to the blogathon’s overarching topic. Speaking of this topic, I’m now going to talk about my thoughts on I Remember Mama! This film was better than I expected it to be! It’s a movie I’ve heard about before, but had never taken the time to see. Because of this Genre Grandeur, I was given a good excuse to finally watch it! I Remember Mama is a story that is engaging and relatable. What helps make this movie memorable is the cast and the cinematography. Since I found this movie to be so good, it definitely has become a favorite when it comes to “ensemble films”!
Overall score: 8 out of 10
Do you like genre guesstimations? Would you like me to participate in the next one? Please tell me in the comment section!
Thank you to all of my followers that helped 18 Cinema Lane reach this milestone! If it weren’t for you, this blog would have never reached 135 followers in only one year! So, like before, it’s time for another blog follower dedication review! This time, I’m going to talk about a film that was released in September of 1943. The Sky’s the Limit is the only film from this time period that I was able to rent, so that’s the film that I have chosen. I have a confession to make: up until this point, I have never seen a movie where Fred Astaire made an on-screen appearance. I am familiar with who Fred is as a performer, so it’s hard to believe that this is the first of his films that I’ve seen. Choosing this film seems fitting for this particular review.
The acting: Like I mentioned in the introduction, this was the first film of Fred Astaire’s that I’ve seen. Despite this, I was very impressed with his performance! His presentation was very natural and believable, helping him bring a certain amount of charm to his character. Before watching The Sky’s the Limit, I had no idea that Fred could sing. His singing and dancing talents added uniqueness to his on-screen presence. Another performance that I was impressed by was Joan Leslie’s! Joan made her character well-rounded because of the various emotions and behaviors she adopted. I was also pleasantly surprised by her singing and dancing abilities! By incorporating those elements to her role, it made her performance that much more enjoyable!
The on-screen chemistry: Not only did Fred and Joan deliver good performances individually, they also presented good performances as an on-screen pair! Throughout the film, their characters appeared to truly like each other. Moments where Fred and Joan spent time together represent the sweeter parts of the movie. While the relationship of the characters gradually developed, this aspect was portrayed in a way that felt believable. The fact that Fred and Joan’s acting talents were similar worked in their favor. It made their performances complement one another!
The dance numbers: Whenever Fred Astaire is cast in a movie, it’s almost guaranteed that there will be, at least, one dance number. In The Sky’s the Limit, Fred performed one dance solo and two dance duets with Joan Leslie. These performances were very well choreographed, appearing flawless and captivating. All of those hours of practice seemed to pay off. Fred and Joan also looked like they having fun during their performances! When a dancer looks like they’re enjoying what they’re doing, it helps the enjoyment factor of the dance number!
The plot: You’re probably thinking, “If you didn’t like the plot, then why did you watch this movie?” The plot itself wasn’t bad, but it was too straight-forward for my liking. Before watching The Sky’s the Limit, I assumed that the protagonist would face one hilarious situation after another in order to resolve the conflict. However, no efforts were made to find a solution to the conflict. There were very few humorous moments in the film as well. This story took itself more seriously than I think it should have. It seemed to forget that “comedy” was a part of its identity.
The limited amount of dance numbers: When I found out that Fred Astaire would be starring in the film and that it was classified as a “musical”, I was expecting the movie to be filled with singing and dancing. In this hour and thirty-minute picture, there were only three dance numbers, with the first one appearing about forty minutes into the film. When a movie’s creative team hires an actor with more than one talent, they should help that actor use their talents to the fullest extent. This is especially true when the movie is labeled as a “musical”. If this doesn’t happen, it makes the actor appear under-utilized.
No consequences: As I said in the introduction, The Sky’s the Limit was released in 1943. This means that the film premiered during the Breen Code era. But when Fred Astaire’s character never faced any consequences for his actions and choices, I was shocked that the people behind the Breen Code would find this part of the story to be acceptable. One example is when Fred’s character is upset over a break-up. This causes him to destroy a restaurant’s bar by breaking drinking glasses and throwing a bar stool at the mirrored background. All that happens is Fred paying for his drink and acting as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened. Because he never owned up to his mistakes, I found it difficult to root for his character.
I can’t believe that I hadn’t seen any of Fred Astaire’s movies until now! That’s a great thing about this blog, as it gives me an excuse to introduce myself to films that I might not have seen otherwise. Now that I’ve shared what I liked and didn’t like about the movie, I can now tell you my honest opinion about it. Personally, I found the film to be just ok. It’s definitely not one of the worst films I’ve seen this year. But, it’s not one of the best films I’ve seen this year either, as it hasn’t aged as well as other projects from that decade. Despite this, I’m still glad I gave this movie a chance! Something that I have said before was how you never know if a film will be good or bad unless you watch it. This is certainly the case for my experience seeing The Sky’s the Limit. Once again, thank you to all of my followers! If it weren’t for you, this review wouldn’t exist.
Overall score: 6.1 out of 10
What are your thoughts on my review? Are you looking forward to my next movie review? Please tell me in the comment section!
Welcome to my very first blogathon, Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon! For five days, blogathon participants will share a variety of topics related to Gene Siskel and/or Roger Ebert. All of those posts will be listed on this community post, separated by the categories that were established in the announcement post that was published back in May. Every participant worked very hard on their article, so be sure to check out as many posts as you’d like!
Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.
Found in cardboard boxes at garage sales. Seen on shelves at a used book store. Appearing on Amazon’s and Ebay’s pages. Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbooks, or sometimes known as Roger Ebert’s Movie Home/Video Companion, are records of years gone by. Showcasing movies that have already premiered, the books feature reviews and other movie related material from Roger Ebert himself. From the mid ‘80s to the early 2010s, these yearbooks provided an overview of any given movie year. They correlated with Roger and Gene Siskel’s show, At The Movies. But for the majority of the 2010s, a movie yearbook has not been published. Also, it seems like this concept is not as talked about as it once was. Is this idea that Roger created still relevant anymore? Does it still have a place in our current day and time? This editorial will explore the arguments for and against the revival of the movie yearbook. I will also share my thoughts on the argument as a whole. Since today is the first day of Siskel and Ebert at the Blogathon, let the blogathon begin!
Created by me, Sally Silverscreen, on Adobe Spark.
How Roger’s Movie Yearbooks Are Still Relevent
What do putting up Christmas trees, going trick or treating, and watching the ball drop in Times Square on New Year’s have in common? All of these activities are rooted in tradition. Because these activities have become cherished for many people, they are put into practice year after year. For approximately three decades, Roger Ebert shared his thoughts, opinions, and insight about movies and other subjects related to that topic through his movie yearbooks. Throughout his career and reputation, Roger gained the likeability and respect of his audience. Because he became a cherished figure in the movie community, the publication of his movie yearbooks turned into a tradition. What helped was having continuous segments on his shows with Gene Siskel, such as episodes dedicated to the best and worst movies in a given year. Because these segments took place every year, it helped the show’s audience associate tradition with Roger Ebert.
When I think of a “yearbook”, I picture a hardcover book given at the end of a school year, filled with pictures and short, but thorough explanations about those photos. As I conducted my research about Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks, I discovered that they did not fit my definition of a “yearbook”. These books are a collection of reviews, interviews, and essays. Despite this, a traditional “yearbook” and Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks do share one major similarity: they are a collection of records and reflections. A typical school yearbook focuses on the memories and events of a particular school year, reflecting on things such as various school subjects or graduating classes. This publication is usually more visual, where photos are used to tell the story and express ideas. In Roger Ebert’s case, he chose a more verbal approach when it came to the creation of his movie yearbooks. Since movies are a visual medium and images like movie stills and award winners can be found in other publications, pictures are not necessary for these particular books of Roger’s. All of these books discuss the movie year prior to the book’s release. For example, Roger Ebert’s movie yearbook from 1999 will talk about movies from 1998. Like a school yearbook, Roger’s movie yearbooks are a singular place where his collective story can be presented.
Another important component to a yearbook, whether it be a movie yearbook or one from school, is how it creates a shared experience amongst its audience. Because the subject of movies and school is so broad, readers are able to find something in the text that they can relate to. Within the movie yearbooks, Roger Ebert reviews a variety of films that were theatrically released. Different studios and genres are represented throughout the publication. Because of the yearbook’s broad range of movies, there’s a chance that the material is appealing to almost everyone. On his shows with Gene Siskel and in his movie yearbooks, Roger would talk about whether he liked or disliked a particular film. Since they talked about movies that were theatrically released, meaning they are easily accessible for the majority of their audience, a shared experience was allowed to talk place. Just one example is when both Gene and Siskel reviewed the movie, Jurassic Park. This is a movie that a large number of people have seen, so it feels like people watching or reading their review can join a shared conversation.
During the run of Siskel and Ebert’s television shows, as well as their careers, both Gene and Roger created a legacy that outlasted their lives. By reviewing films and making those thoughts accessible to their audience, who also happen to be potential movie-goers, they helped create the concept of movie related entertainment. Gene and Roger also showed that anyone could articulate their thoughts and opinions on film. This contribution has been appreciated by fans and members of the movie community, even encouraging them to become movie critics themselves. Roger’s movie yearbooks make up a part of his legacy, proving to be an essential piece of movie related literature. This concept of looking back on a given movie year through text is something that would continue to be beneficial to movie fans and fellow critics. It may even help make the movie community a better place.
The cover of Roger Ebert’s first movie yearbook, Robert Ebert’s Movie Home Companion. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
How Roger’s Movie Yearbooks Are Not Relevant Anymore
The last movie yearbook to be published was Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbook 2013, which covers the movie years of 2010 to mid-2012. This is because Roger Ebert passed away on April 4th, 2013. Because of this, the movie community lost one of the most unique perspectives in film critic history. It also means that new movie related content from Roger can never be created, since the work would not come directly from him. Making a book called “Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbook” and not having Roger involved in the project kind of defeats the purpose. Carrying on one of Roger’s long running book series without his consent also seems disrespectful. Sure, we could guess what Roger would think of movies released after April 2013. But it’s better to know than take a guess.
When Roger Ebert passed away six years ago, the world lost one of the faces of the movie community. The other face of the movie community, Gene Siskel, passed away twenty years ago. This means that the movie community currently does not have any one person that represents them. Gene and Roger earned their titles through their appearances on their television shows. Since their first show, Sneak Previews, premiered in 1975, there were not as many voices in the movie community as there are today. Because more people have joined this community, it would be difficult to choose a new representative. How would this person be chosen? What credentials would give this person the title? Who would nominate this person? So many factors would play a role when trying to make a decision like this. But the one question that should be asked is “Does the movie community really need a new representative”?
With the invention of the internet and social media, more people have been given the opportunity to share their thoughts on film. Blogs, websites, and even Youtube channels have provided platforms for more voices to be heard. These inventions helped the movie community grow, gaining more members now than when Gene and Roger first appeared on Sneak Previews. If the concept of the movie yearbook were to come back, it would be difficult to determine whose opinions get included. Do you choose the people who are associated with movie related companies or Youtubers with smaller channels? What about bloggers, would their thoughts be incorporated in the yearbook too? The website, rogerebert.com, is a place where multiple film critics can share their thoughts in one place. Would these people have a say in who’s cinematic thoughts are welcome? The very first movie yearbook from Roger Ebert, titled Roger Ebert’s Movie Home Companion, was released in 1985. Because the internet and social media weren’t big factors like they are today, the people associated with coordinating Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks didn’t have to think about these things. But the landscape of the movie community has expanded in the 21st century.
Not only has the internet and social media provided a platform for more members of the movie community, they’ve also presented information in a shorter amount of time. Today, movie reviews are uploaded to the internet days, sometimes even weeks, before a movie’s premiere. Some quick searching will lead any movie fan to a wide variety of reviews and other movie related content from multiple authors. Our digital age has produced e-books, making it easier for readers to download many different stories. With these new elements that the movie community has gained, the idea of putting a movie yearbook to print comes into question. Why not just create an e-book version of this project? Wouldn’t it be easier to put all this content on a website? Another concern that needs to be addressed is whether people would pay for a collection of information when they can receive it for free in places that have internet access. When Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks were published, most of his audience didn’t have the internet. They relied on his books, articles, and television programs when they wanted to hear what he had to say. Today there’s rogerebert.com, a website that provides reviews and movie related articles at a faster pace. They give this information straight to their audience, eliminating the process of company publishing and book binding.
The cover of Roger Ebert’s last movie yearbook, Robert Ebert’s Movie Yearbook 2013. Screenshot taken by me, Sally Silverscreen.
My Thoughts on Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbooks
There’s no denying that Roger Ebert played a huge role in the movie community’s foundation. His thoughts and opinions on film helped many people become film critics of their own, instead of simply accepting the role of movie consumer. Something that made this goal a reality was the publication of Roger Ebert’s movie yearbooks. These books allowed Roger’s audience to reminiscence over films they’ve seen or heard about, as well as reflect on the topics of the featured interviews and essays. After the publication of Roger Ebert’s Movie Yearbook 2013 and Roger Ebert’s death, the world stopped receiving the wise and knowledgeable insight that could have easily been taken for granted. The concept of the movie yearbook is an interesting one, beneficial for all members of the movie community. I, as a movie blogger and member of the movie community, would love to see this concept brought back into publication. However, before this idea could be executed again, several important questions would need to be answered. From selecting the people who would contribute to the yearbook to which medium would host the project, these factors could affect the return of Roger Ebert’s long running series. A series that became a tradition because of one cherished individual. But all traditions start somewhere, and if they’re worth it, should be put into practice for many years and generations to come.
Have fun at the blogathon!
Sally Silverscreen
If you would like to check out this editorial’s references, here are the links:
Last month, when I released my review of Swept from the Sea, it became my 250th published post! As I made that realization, I knew that I had to do something to commemorate the occasion. My most popular post on 18 Cinema Lane is my list of “The Top 10 Worst Hallmark Movies of All Time”, with 3,019 views and counting! Because this particular list brings readers and followers to my blog, I thought it would be fitting to create a similar post. While other people on the internet have talked about worst clichés from a variety of genres, I have never seen anyone discuss the worst clichés from Hallmark movies. That’s where this list comes in, as I talk about the clichés that I am not a fan of seeing in Hallmark’s films. These clichés are not the worst because the clichés themselves are bad, but because they are poorly or overly used. My list is in no way meant to be mean-spirited or negative. Also, this list will not include a Dishonorable Mentions section, unlike my aforementioned post. Before I begin, I just wanted to say that the clichés I’ve selected are based on my opinion.
This cliché has been found in movies from Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movies & Mysteries. Either the male and female protagonist tells someone that they’re not together after someone assumes that they’re dating or they try to convince people that they’re not in a relationship. The way these characters share their relationship status comes across like they’re embarrassed by the possibility of being mistaken for a couple. A recent example of this is one of the latest mystery films, Witness to Murder: A Darrow Mystery. I’m not as bothered by this cliché as I am with the other ones on this list, hence the reason why it’s featured at number ten. But, whenever this cliché is included, it seems like the characters are making a big deal over nothing. In real life, I’m pretty sure that these individuals would just tell others about the state of their relationship in the calmest and honest way possible.
The “moving out of the way for an oncoming vehicle” cliché
In most films on Hallmark Movies & Mysteries, the protagonist is in danger of getting hit by an oncoming vehicle. Fortunately, they are rescued just in time by being pushed out of the vehicle’s way. I understand that a moment like this is meant to create suspense for the story. But this cliché makes the protagonist look like they are willing to overlook simple and important safety precautions, such as looking both ways before crossing the street. Throughout the Aurora Teagarden series, the audience has come to know the titular character as an intelligent detective. But, when the “moving out of the way for an oncoming vehicle” cliché was incorporated into Aurora Teagarden Mysteries: An Inheritance to Die For, it makes it seem like her intelligence is being belittled to a certain extent.
The “it’s not what you think” cliché
This cliché can usually be found in Hallmark Channel movies. Either the male or female protagonist will overhear pieces of a conversation or discover small tidbits of information, causing them to assume the worst. Instead of having a civil and respectful conversation with the other person, they will accuse that person of something they didn’t do and distance themselves from them. More often than not, the person who became upset has those feelings for ridiculous reasons. Fortunately, there are Hallmark movies that try to use this cliché in a way that complements the story. Two good examples are Easter Under Wraps and Rome in Love, where the people who discover the information have a legitimate reason to be upset. It’s also understandable how someone could get upset by the information that the movie presents. While I’m still not a fan of this cliché, I’m always appreciative when a cliché is not just put in a movie for the sake of being there.
The “male and female protagonist always fall in love with each other” cliché
While I’m not bothered by this cliché like I am with others on the list, the idea of the male and female protagonist always falling in love with each other is kind of getting repetitive. As soon as you see the movie poster, you know how the relationship will turn out. One of my favorite Hallmark movies is This Magic Moment. In that film, the male protagonist falls in love with the main female supporting character, who happens to be his childhood best friend. Meanwhile, the female protagonist ends up becoming single at the end of the movie, a decision that she’s perfectly content with. I really wish that Hallmark would incorporate more surprises like that. Whether they tell a similar story to This Magic Moment or having the female protagonist fall in love with the main male supporting character, the story would be a breath of fresh air.
The “protagonist’s ex showing up unannounced” cliché
A Hallmark Channel movie that adopts this cliché is The Story of Us. In this film, the protagonist’s ex, portrayed by Sam Page, showed up unannounced in her life. That aspect of the story worked, especially since Sam Page’s character was the male protagonist. This allowed both of the protagonists to reconnect as a couple as well as giving the audience an opportunity to watch their relationship grow. But the protagonist’s other ex, a dentist who moved away to Texas, also shows up unannounced. For me, this part of the film didn’t work because it didn’t feel like it went anywhere. It was a waste of a character and subplot, especially since we knew that the female protagonist, portrayed by Maggie Lawson, had no intention of pursuing a relationship with him. This is not the first Hallmark movie to feature this cliché and it’s highly likely not going to be the last. But I still feel that if the male or female protagonist has no plans to get back together with their ex, then the cliché is pointless.
The “planning a wedding in an unrealistic time period” cliché
Throughout my one year of blogging, this cliché is the one that I’ve probably talked about the most. As the cliché’s title indicates, it’s when an engaged couple decides to plan a wedding in an unrealistic time period, just so they won’t have to wait so long to get married. I find this cliché to not only be unrealistic, but also unhealthy. Weddings have the ability to cause stress and anxiety, yet every time this cliché is incorporated into a film, these aspects of wedding planning never get talked about. I’d like to see a Hallmark movie address how not everyone can plan such a large-scale event in six months or less. But, until then, Hallmark has created movies that effectively use this cliché in a way that fits within that cinematic world. Two examples are Wedding of Dreams and The Good Witch’s Gift, where the engaged couple has the money and resources that allow them to plan a wedding in a short amount of time. What also works in these movies’ favor is how this cliché is not the primary focus of the story. They include other interesting subplots to help move the plot along.
The “business person is a jerk and/or out of touch” cliché
Whenever this cliché appears in a Hallmark film, I noticed that it’s mostly the businessmen who are dating the female protagonist that embody this cliché. Either they don’t act as nice as the male protagonist or they are “out of touch” with what’s important to the female protagonist. Because of this, the female protagonist ends up not falling in love with them. The reason why this cliché is placed higher than others on my list is how outdated it seems. After receiving films like the All of My Heart trilogy and Love Unleashed, the “business person is a jerk/out of touch” cliché doesn’t really feel like it has a purpose anymore. It also seems like this character’s sole purpose is to make the male protagonist look better in the eyes of the female protagonist. I’m surprised that Hallmark still adopts this cliché from time to time, especially since the Hallmark company is run by business people. I doubt that they would want to see their profession portrayed in a negative light.
The “building condos is bad” cliché
Despite the many years that I’ve spent watching Hallmark movies, I’ve never understood the purpose of this cliché. In films that incorporate this cliché, the people in a small town are mad because a beloved piece of land or business will be replaced by a series of condos. The person planning on building the condos is either the film’s villain or just an antagonist. When this cliché was placed in Aurora Teagarden Mysteries:A Very Foul Play, it felt out of place. While it only played a minor role in the movie, it didn’t have any significance on the plot. Why would anyone be against the building of condos? Condos would create homes, which would also create a place for someone to belong and spend time with family. These ideas have been promoted by Hallmark for years, so having a cliché that contradicts that seems strange. I am waiting for the day when Hallmark makes a movie where the protagonist or a member of the protagonist’s family happily lives in a condo.
The “royal movie” clichés
You’re probably wondering how I’m able to get away with putting so many clichés in one spot. Well, when it comes to Hallmark’s “royal” movies, these clichés usually come in a set. From the European prince with a British accent to the royal family not approving of the relationship between their family member and a “commoner”, these clichés make me discouraged by Hallmark’s lack of creativity. In an editorial called, “When Creativity is Squandered: The Wasted Potential on Hallmark’s Good Witch”, I talked about how these clichés prevented an episode of Good Witch from reaching its creative potential. The effects of these movies are now spilling into the television shows, holding the screenwriters back from exploring different methods of story-telling. My favorite movie from 2018 was Royally Ever After. One of the reasons is how this movie used as few “royal movie” clichés as possible. The creative team’s desire to move away from most of these clichés made the movie such a pleasant surprise for me. When Hallmark has created about twelve of these movies and about one or two of them actually try something new, that looks like a pretty bad track record.
The “woman from the city coming back to her small hometown” cliché
Out of all the clichés that Hallmark includes in their movies, this is the one that is probably used the most. It’s as predictable as it sounds; a woman who currently lives in the city goes back to her small hometown for a variety of reasons. Once there, she realizes that she’d rather stay in her small hometown than go back to the city. I’m guessing that this cliché was once an important plot component before it received its current status. Whenever it’s included in a film, it makes that picture ten times more predictable. Even though this cliché can be found in a variety of Hallmark’s films, I’ve mostly seen it within their Christmas movies, with Christmas Wonderland being a recent example. I doubt that the “woman from the city coming back to her small hometown” cliché will go away anytime soon. But it would be nice if Hallmark explored other stories from different perspectives.
Royally Ever After poster created by Crown Media Family Networks and Hallmark Channel. Image found at https://www.crownmediapress.com/Shows/PRShowDetail?SiteID=142&FeedBoxID=845&NodeID=302&ShowType=&ShowTitle=Royally%20Ever%20After&IsSeries=False.
What are your thoughts on my list? Which cliché from a Hallmark movie is your least favorite? Share your thoughts in the comment section!
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.
When it came to The Costume Drama Blogathon, I wanted to choose a movie that was already on my DVR. Out of the six movies that would have fit the requirements, I decided to review The Littlest Horse Thieves! This is a Disney film that I didn’t know existed until this year. Since I reviewed Swept from the Sea and Hallmark’s Hall of Fame’s In Love and War, I thought that I would change things up by selecting a children’s/family-friendly film. What made me want to watch the movie was the historical aspect of the story. Before even hearing about The Littlest Horse Thieves, I never knew that ponies were used in the mining industry. The only animal I knew that went into mines were small birds. I was looking forward to learning something new while being entertained.
The acting: When it comes to casting young actors in lead roles, those performances can be hit or miss. In The Littlest Horse Thieves, the performances of all three leads were really good! Chloe Franks, Andrew Harrison, and Benjie Bolgar portray the titular horse thieves. Throughout the film, their characters were endearing and likable. The emotions these actors displayed appeared very genuine, as if their characters were real people. It was really sweet to watch the characters’ friendship evolve over the course of the film. Because of these factors, it made it easy for me to root of Alice, Dave, and Tommy.
Historical accuracy: The Littlest Horse Thieves takes place in, I believe, the early 1900s. Every aspect of this movie reflected that particular time-period really well! The sets looked like the audience could step back in time, that this point in history was not too far away. Things like wardrobe, dialect, and even the artwork on the walls brought the early 1900s to life again. Even the issues surrounding mining and employee well-being seemed to come directly from that decade. What made the historical accuracy work in this film was the creative team’s attention to detail. It shows how much care was put into this project.
Not so perfect plans: In a lot of children’s/family-friendly films, the young protagonists’ plans always work out in their favor. This is not exactly the case for The Littlest Horse Thieves. I’m not going to spoil the movie in case you want to see it. But the children sometimes overlook important details relating to their plan to save the ponies. I liked how the protagonists’ efforts didn’t go according to plan. This made the characters and their situation seem realistic and relatable.
A drawn-out story: The Littlest Horse Thieves had a drawn-out story that seemed to last too long. The first half of the movie focused on the children finding out about the conflict and figuring out how to solve it. The act of rescuing/stealing the ponies didn’t happen until the film’s halfway point. It also only lasted for a few minutes. The second half of the movie shifted the focus from the children to the adults. The overall narrative talked about everything but the most exciting part of the movie.
The editing: During the first half of the film, I noticed how less-than-stellar the editing was. It made conversations feel cut-off and transitions between scenes less smooth. These two aspects made the overall flow of the film seem choppy.
The conflict between Dave and his stepdad: Within The Littlest Horse Thieves, there was a conflict between Dave and his stepdad. It’s not the conflict itself I didn’t like. How little time was devoted to it is my biggest issue. In the first half of the film, Dave and his stepdad dislike each other. While the stepdad’s reason is never explained, Dave feels his reasons can be justified. His dislike toward his stepdad also affects his younger brother, Tommy. After the ponies are rescued/stolen, Dave and Tommy’s stepdad automatically becomes supportive of the children and their cause. The aforementioned conflict was not fully explored and felt it was there for the sake of being there.
Every studio has those films that don’t always get talked about. Disney is no exception to this. That’s why I try to go out of my way to address these films on my blog. Some of them are better than others. But you never know what’s in store until you give the film a chance. For this particular blogathon, I chose to watch The Littlest Horse Thieves with an open mind. Now that I have seen it, I can honestly say that it was just ok. It’s not one of the worst things that the studio has ever made. But it’s not one of Disney’s strongest efforts. In fact, I could see children, especially younger ones, becoming bored by this movie. However, people who like British and/or historical fiction films will probably like it. Its historical accuracy is pretty satisfying and there are moments that I found educational. I could tell that the creative team behind this film tried their best to make something worthwhile. But it wasn’t as impressive as it could have been.
Overall score: 6 out of 10
Have you seen The Littlest Horse Thieves? Which film from a major studio do think is underrated? Please share your thoughts in the comment section!
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!
![20190919_173650[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/20190919_1736501-e1568930048753.jpg?w=423&h=685)
![20190919_173701[1]](https://18cinemalane.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/20190919_1737011-e1568930460914.jpg?w=413&h=597)
![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)
