MovieChat Forums > The Canterville Ghost Discussion > Worst adaptation?

Worst adaptation?

posted 17 years ago by CountVladDracula
18 replies | jump to latest

Ugh, I have to say the 1944 version of The Cantreville ghost is awful. It's nothing like the book it's based on. Why is it the version starring Neve Campbelle can be true to the book but not this? It's terrible. Sir Simon's own father has him sealed in a room to starve to death for not fighting in a duel that wasn't even his to fight and now someone has to figth a duel in his honour or some such nonsense. It's far from the actual book where a teenage girl pleads with the angel of death for Sir Simon because he had caused his wife's death. An the 1944 version is listed as a comedy! It's much darker than Oscar Wilde's original story and it's awful.

The version with Patrick Stewart is much better and true to the book even though it's set in the nineties.

[–] gayspiritwarrior 17 years ago

Well, I guess we know what you think of it now, don't we. Thanks for sharing.

If you value a movie in direct proportion to how faithful it is to its source material, you must not enjoy very many of them. The most important thing about a movie is that it's true to itself, and that it accomplishes what it set out to do. In both of these areas, the 1944 version is just as successful as any of the later ones. Forget about the source, and enjoy the movie for what it is, on its own merits. Laughton's Sir Simon is an unforgettable character, a worthy addition to his canon.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

I'm just very fond of the original story. And it seems having to have the oen who saves the ghost be a man promotes only the sexism of the era. Also a great deal of it seems to be World War two propaganda. I don't hate it but I think I could enjoy it more if they changed the ghost's name and the title. Then I wouldn't even know it was supposed to be The Canterville ghost and I could aprpeciate it on it's own.

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

That was messed up. Why did he want to be forgiven by those who walled him up to die a slow death of starvation just for not wanting to fight in a duel that wasn't really his to begin with? It made a lot more sense when he felt accountable for the death of his wife and that was his guilt.

[–] xylonian-1 17 years ago

I'll bet they sold a lot of war bonds though....

I like the original story as well, and was a little surprised at this adaptation. This version worked though IMO, and fit into the war/etc.

Have seen another version with Richard Kiley & Mary Wickes, from 1985 or so, which was based more on the original, but was a little disappointed at it somehow.

I just saw "Mask of the Red Death" with Vincent Price....IMO that strayed too far from the origial story for me.

Read My Lips!!!!

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

Masque of the red death really strayed but realistically on it's own it couldn't have made a movie. the story was too short. Like The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.

The Canterville Ghost though would have worked fine with a faithful adaptaiton. The version with Patrick Stewart though is very faithful even though it's set in the nineties.

[–] xylonian-1 17 years ago

Not to be augumentive, but I liked what they did to parts of "Masque", with the villiage and etc, but thought they could have strayed less.

Thanks will look for that, I loved this story. Read it for the first time a few months ago, and was thinking...."This would make a great movie"....

I was figuing this specific movie would be the closest to the book for some reason....

Read My Lips!!!!

[–] CountVladDracula 17 years ago

Usually the first adaptation is more faithful but with The Canterville ghost it was certainly not the case. I wouldn't have recognized this if not for the ghost's name. The version with Neve Campbelle and Patrick Stewart is very faithful to the book. It was made for TV in 1996 but it's available on DVD.

[–] xylonian-1 17 years ago

I will look for that, and thanks....!!!!

Read My Lips!!!!

[–] Rinn13 (167) 2 years ago

I only half-agree with you. I do agree that a movie should accomplish what it sets out to do. And all art should be "true to itself". However, while I enjoy many films that are NOT terribly accurate to their source material, as a writer (and fan) myself, I am also something of a purist. I think that if you're going to bother doing an adaptation of source material, unless you're merely claiming to be "inspired by", then you should do the source actual justice, and STICK to what the source material actually is.

I love Total Recall with Arnold, and I probably prefer it to the original story. But I DO see the point, however, if fans of the story don't like how far it deviates, or perhaps does not fully match the spirit of the source. For as many Total Recalls that I've enjoyed over my life, that AREN'T true to their sources, I've also seen many that stray from the source and suffer because of it, are, in my view, awful, because of it.

I would not agree in this case. I haven't read the short story, and in point of fact I only JUST watched this 1944 film. But I like the film, and think it told a good story. On the OTHER hand, for instance, I think the Hobbit "trilogy" is hot garbage, largely because Jackson and Co. decided to make what should have been ONE film, into a needless trilogy, stuffed to the gills with completely made up crap, for padding. One of the biggest cinematic disappointments of all time, and that comes from a lifelong Tolkien fan.

[–] skiddoo 14 years ago

This version of the story is designed to teach a moral and that is that no matter how fearful you are, no matter what horrors you face, no matter what family you came from, no matter how old or young you are, courage is an act of will. That was a message a US or UK audience in 1944 would appreciate far more than the original light-hearted romp about a wife killer. Both soldiers and the homefront needed a good upper lip stiffening by 1944. I guess you had to have been there to understand that. :)

[–] CountVladDracula 14 years ago

I wouldn't call this a 'version' of Wilde's story. That was not the moral of the original story. The original story was written long before World War 2 and it's moral was much sweeter and more ponient. It was about the meaning of life and death and how love is stronger than both.

I understand the need to over come fear in a time of war but they should not have used this story to teach it. It's like trying to use Frankenstein to teach that drinking and driving is wrong. It just doesn't fit and there already was a moral attached to the story that was kind of the entire point.

[–] idcook 12 years ago

HEY!

Just thank your lucky stars that we have both the Wilde original AND this movie, as well as others, to enjoy.

“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)

[–] ABetterDay 12 years ago

I see that you posted originally almost 6 years ago. With any luck, your view of the world has matured since then.

You seem overly pre-occupied with the film's adherence to the novel. Who gives a damn? The film is wonderful on its own.

Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?

[–] CountVladDracula 12 years ago

How dare you! How dare you, you immature child! You tell me I need to mature simply for disliking a World War 2 propaganda film that used the title of a famous and beautiful story. To dislike a poorly made pro-war film that brutally dedicates on a classic and beautiful story means I'm immature?

The film is not wonderful. The main character was walled up (Haha, funny "comedy" for the whole family, right?) for not fighting a duel that was not his. How does it even make sense that his punishment is justified in this version?

And then he could only find peace when a descendant showed bravery. It makes no sense. STILL acting as if he is the one who did something wrong when his own father had him starved to death!

And you have no room to talk about maturity when you think that disagreeing with you automatically makes someone else immature. I shouldn't even dignify such a childish view with a response. But that degree of idiocy, to assume that a taste in a film will change with age just because YOU like. To automatically dismiss another opinion as the result of immaturity just because it clashes with your own is the very personification of the pot calling the kettle black.

Also the age of a film does not automatically give it quality. Please note I like the version of The Picture of Dorian Gray from the same decade. And I feel the message of the Oscar Wilde story is a lot more beautiful and sane than "Well, I didn't fight someone else's battle for him so that makes me a coward. Mind killing a nazi for me?"

Yeah, I kind of think liking that version and imposing that view on others based on a warped sense of maturity is kind of... hmm... Oh, yes, demented.

[–] MySummerJob 12 years ago

I have to respectively disagree.

This adaptation of the story was great. While the original felt like one of Disney's weaker works. (I saw the original in cartoon format so this might be why). I could honestly relate more to this version more than I did with the original.

I also want to address a few of your points:

1) "Comedies aren't allowed to have murder" - Isn't that something the orignal story had in it too, and it was marketed towards children/marked a comedic? Plus I first watched this film when I was under 10 years old, and I had no problem with the realistic aproach (wall scene was not trying to be funny, it was a plot device).

2) "The main character was walled up for not fighting a duel that was not his" - Have you not heard of something called "Honor"? To some families/cultures it means a lot. As shown in different culture, and history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_honor

His father was a lord, and he didn't want to look weak for having a son that wouldn't fight. Also who cares if it wasn't his son's fight? The king didn't know. Besides, people get dragged into fights that they weren't part of originally doesn't matter if the repercussions are justifiable, or not.

3) "And then he could only find peace when a descendant showed bravery" - Have you not heard things of family curses, or how descendants can carry the weight of the ancestor... Besides, how is it better than some little girl somehow talking a "poor wittle ol' ghostie" out of his own forced depression?

I will give you one thing though. The original story is easy to turn into a modern film. You can make it based on anything you want. The same can't be said for the remake though. The 1944 movie is not possible to recreate without placing it exactly either in warzone, or just remaking the 1994 film.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MySummerJob 12 years ago

Again, I have to disagree.

1) "By worst adaptation I mean it's nothing at all like the story by Oscar Wilde" - Which is a good thing. I've seen the original story in a cartoon format when I was 12 years old, and it was horrible. It was slow, unwitty, and felt juvenile. Now I'm sorry if you don't feel this way, but that's how it was.

2) I didn't lie, that's how family honor has always been.

3) "Cruel, slow, sadistic, unforgiving murder of a son kind of spoils it" - Again, it is a plot device.

4) "Comedy" So are all comedies supposed to be with out plot? I don't even want to address this stupid point even further.

3) "No sane person would punish his son for backing out of a duel that wasn't his to begin with" - Well no sane person would go on a crusade to wipe out a culture of people, but have you heard about Hitler, and his attack on Jewish people? Maybe his father was very strict, and this was one of his worst moments.

4) Besides, maybe his father didn't mean to curse him, or make his son a ghost. For all he knew, he was just insulting his son before he went to die. I doubt he believed in that... Although we wouldn't know because they skimmed over the values, and beliefs in this film. For all we know they all could have been devil worshipers.

5) "If we went by that era's definition of honor than the father's spirit would have been forced to apologize for what he did to him" That would have been a horrible ending.

[–] CountVladDracula 12 years ago

I didn't lie, that's how family honor has always been.

Honor is different from culture to culture. The fifteenth and sixteenth century Western definition of honor was based on chivalry and coupled with the law. Chivalry forbid forcing someone to take another man's place in a duel simply because he was a relation.

As you clearly did not actually read what I said or even bother Googling it to see if it was accurate (or ye old fashioned check a book) I see no point in replying to you anymore.

An unwiling second in a duel, forcing someone into that role, in and of itself was considered dishonor, unless you were in the far east which had a drastically different definition of honor. Also those sort of duels in England in that era were a C-R-I-M-E punishable by death if you won and killed your opponent, no matter what your station was, this was also true in Italy and Germany as confirmed by Goethe's Faust and Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. Read some actual literature from that era instead of the romanticized American made dribble.

Next time, before replying, actually read what I say and fact check. Otherwise you become nothing more than another Internet troll arguing for the sake of arguing.