Books on screen

A Wrinkle In Time

 

I wrote previously about my less than pleasant viewing of the first movie version of A Wrinkle in Time. It wasn't terribly long after that experience that I heard another movie was in the works. I had some hope, given it's bigger name cast and big budget, but had managed expectations.

Let's start by pointing out the obvious: A Wrinkle in Time is a complex, theoretical story. It takes the reader through multiple dimensions, talks about physics and time travel, dips into philosophy, and has heavy religious and moral overtones. This makes it difficult to represent on film, especially for the mass market. Necessarily, changes get made. Some have little bearing on the overall tone of the story, even if they are startling or disappointing (like removing Aunt Beast - I love the character but she can be removed without harming the plot). I want to take a look at three changes and their impact on the movie.

1) The nature of Mrs. Who, Mrs. Which, and Mrs. Whatsit. In the book, they are described as looking like crones, our standard idea of witches. They are craggy, wispy, and a bit disconcerting. The movie version of the Mrs is more spritely. They're like fairies, but more substantial. This is primarily a cosmetic change but also impacts their general perception. 

2) Camazotz. In the book, the planet Camazotz is eerie. It's disturbingly uniform. This is it's menace. The scenes on Camazotz are meant to make us uneasy. The movie makes Camazotz a little "off" but more enticing. Meg, Calvin, and Charles Wallace are seduced  by IT rather than being beaten down by the sameness.

3) The religious elements. L'Engle's writing isn't Christian, per se, but has definite religious overtone. Various religious texts are quoted throughout the novel and religious figures are pointed to as the heroes of the light. The movie quotes, instead, artists and scientists and the light bringers. While this makes it more accessible to the general public it does take away from L'Engle's message.

Here's the thing about A Wrinkle In Time: it's complex. It is intentionally opaque. We're not supposed to understand it in a single reading. L'Engle believes in the importance of asking questions that we can't answer. She values asking questions, thinking about them. I  think that's the main point of the book, to get us thinking about big questions. As such, it makes it difficult to film. Movies are generally built on clear answers, solid conclusions. Two people may read the book and take completely different things from it, conclusions that are different from the one in the movie. And for the viewer who hasn't read the book, there's a lot of weird, unexplained occurrences that are hard to understand without the book for context. It's a much stronger effort than the last version but it simply can't hold a candle to the novel. Give this movie a view, but always go back to the book if you really want to understand the story.