Skip to main content

My concerns for the adaptation of The Goldfinch

An editorial by Brooks Rich

September is the start of Oscar season. All those high profile films that will be vying for the big prize of best picture, (it's never the true best picture of the year, but I won't get into that here,) are released starting in September. The first major contender will be the adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Goldfinch, releasing on September 13 and directed by John Crowley, who gave us the film Brooklyn in 2015, which was very good. Roger Deakins is the cinematographer and the cast is stacked, maybe the most stacked cast of the year. All signs point to a major Oscar contender. 

Personally I don't think the film is going to work. Now I do have some amount of bias because this is one of my favorite novels. I adore this book and have read it a ridiculous amount of times. The plot, in the very basic of terms, centers on thirteen-year-old Theodore "Theo" Decker, an adolescent growing up in New York City who loses his mother to a terrorist bombing at an art museum. While escaping the museum, Theo is given a painting his mother was admiring earlier. A painting of a gold finch. The rest of the novel is a startling, in-depth coming of age tale as Theo travels from New York to Las Vegas and back to New York, all the while holding onto this painting. It's an impressive and staggering piece of literature and if I ever create a book blog, that'll be the first book I cover. 

So why do I think this film won't work? There's two main concerns I have with adapting this film to the screen. The first could possibly be fixed if it was a series on Netflix or HBO. The novel is so large and intense and there's so much to dive into that I find it hard to believe it can be justified in two and a half hours. Even if this film is three and a half hours, it'll have a hard time establishing the characters and situations. Boris in Las Vegas alone should get his own film for God's sake. 

My second reason is not a slam on any of the actors. This is an impressive cast and they all have their merits as actors. But I don't see how anyone can properly portray Theo. He's the narrator and his growth and development in the novel is the main driving force...... the establishment of his moral code and his love for art. He's a character we spend a lot of time listening to as he goes inside his own mind. How does any visual adaptation of that work? Boris is another character which I have a hard time believing can be justifiably performed. He's a very complex character in the novel, arguably the most important person in Theo's life, and relegating him to a supporting actor in a film doesn't seem right. 

Maybe I'm wrong. I could come on this blog after seeing this film and call it the best film of the year and say the Academy is crazy if they don't reward it Best Picture. Or I call it an unworthy piece of pretentious crap that bit off more than it could chew. Or it falls somewhere in the middle. Who knows? But I feel somewhat protective of a novel I have loved and cherished and gotten absorbed in time and time again. I don't want to see Hollywood come and just water it down and yet I am getting those vibes from the trailer. 



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forgotten Film Friday: Absolute Power

Clint Eastwood stars as Luther Whitney, a jewel thief who works in the Washington DC area. One night while he is stealing from a mansion he is forced to hide in a secret compartment with a two way mirror. From there he observes a sexual rezendevous with the wife of a powerful man and the President of the United States Alan Richmond (Gene Hackman) Suddenly the president gets aggressive and while defending herself the woman is shot to death by two Secret Service agents. Luther manages to get away with a letter opener the woman stabbed the president with. At first Luther plans to flee the country. But when he is disgusted by a statement the president makes, Luther decides to expose the crime. I miss these kind of films. The nineties was a great time for thrillers exactly like this. They are not the flashiest films but they are also not obsessed with big action scenes. It's all plot and character with them. Sure this plot might be a little out there but Eastwood makes it work. He's...

John Candy month

 What can you say about John Candy? He was a comic genius who was taken from us too soon. There were a lot of comedic heavyweights of the eighties and nineties but Candy stood above most of them. If there is a Mount Rushmore of comedy I imagine John Candy would be on it. For the month of July we are honoring this comic genius. 

Oscar bait month

 The Academy Awards. That time of the year when everyone debates what movies are truly the best and there is never a consensus and no one is ever happy. A movie can be incredibly popular and then it wins a bunch of Oscars and suddenly it's overrated and not very good or downright bad. It happens every year. But for the month of April let's take a look at those films that had Oscars on their mind and instead fell flat on their faces. Now Oscar Bait is a term that can also be applied to winners or films that did score a bunch of nominations. For example Bradley Cooper's film Maestro is very much an Oscar Bait movie even though it had a decent awards season. I want to talk about the films that did nothing. That were early contenders then either faded away eventually or just plain crashed and burned. Oscar Bait's biggest failures. What wrong here with these? Was the movie poor? Did something else just have a dominant run? Or were politics involved? Maybe all of the above. S...