|
I’m usually pretty good at keeping movie versions separate in my mind
from the books they’re based on. After all, they’re different art
forms, so I expect each to have a few differences that pull out the advantages of
each medium. Often, those changes are necessary—or at least interesting.
But in the case of the new Disney version of Tuck Everlasting, I was terribly
disappointed when I left the movie theater.
They took a simple yet profound coming-of-age story and changed nearly every
detail, sentimentalizing and overcomplicating it in the process. It would have
been one thing if the only changes had been associated with the two biggest
ones: making Winnie (the main character) five years older (15 instead of 10)
and moving the whole story from the 1870s to the 1910s. But they changed all
the other details, too, making a thoughtful, beautiful fairytale into a slightly
strange, somehow cheapened story.
With this number of major and minor changes, they definitely should have changed
the title, maybe to The New Tuck Everlasting or at least Tuck Everlasting:
The Disney-fied Version. For a basic explanation of the plot, I think you
could check out the summary in my book
review (they kept a few of the bare plot ideas—it was everything else
they changed).
Now, don’t think that I didn’t see any merits in the movie—the
scenery was beautifully filmed, evoking the golden woods in just the right way,
and the acting was quite well done, especially Alexis Bledel's Winnie. It was just unfortunate that by trying to
“enhance” the story so much, they weakened it.
Since the book is only 140 pages of largish type, I recommend picking up the
book instead of seeing the movie—it won’t take you much longer than
your movie excursion would, and is a much better use of time. If you do go see
the movie, please keep in mind that the cheesy overdone parts weren’t in
the book.
| 
