Wednesday, June 30, 2004
I couldn't let another month go by without a post. For one thing, I archive by month, and two empty months in a row are tantamount to blog abandonment.
I was at real.com the other day to get a RealPlayer update, and I saw among their movie previews one for a movie titled "Lemony Snicket and the Series of Unfortunate Events." The still shot was reminiscent of "The Adamms Family" or some similar creepy family film. The preview seems to hard-sell the presence of Jim Carey, an actor I don't usually associate with kid's films, "The Grinch" not withstanding (in fact, "The Grinch" being exhibit A). Targeted for Christmas 2004, it would appear the producers are taking advantage of the vacancy left by the "Harry Potter" series' move to Labor Day.
I was caught flat-footed by Potter-mania, so I figured this time I would get a head start, and I hurried off to the public library to see what I could find. A little preparatory reading at Amazon.com indicated the books in the series, thirteen so far and all significantly smaller than the "Harry Potter" books, revolve around three orphaned siblings, Violet, Klaus, and Bunny Baudelaire. The books are portrayed as being a bit dark. The kid's legal rep is named Poe, which is a sure sign of who the author is seeking to emulate. He is tasked with finding the children a suitable guardian following the death of their parents in an unfortunate house fire. This proves exceedingly difficult, given the quirky and questionable quality of the Baudelaire relatives. Count Olaf, a Baudelaire relative, I gather, and of very low character, is the central complicating factor in the narratives, as he pursues the children from home to home in an effort to kidnap them and collect their inheritance.
The writing style of the books is simpler and more artful than the "Harry Potter" books, much more quickly paced and irreverent, and far less self-indulgent than Rowling. The size and style of the books I think makes them more accessible to a younger audience, say third grade or so, than the Potter books, while at the same time I think limiting them to a strictly childish audience, as opposed to Potter's appeal to adults in a second childhood.
The author periodically interjects himself in some pointless way at the opening of a chapter (he has no role in the books, but he mentions his travails in discovering facts or in typing his report: "I am wondering if the future will hold something that will enable me to saw through these handcuffs..., but... they were wondering if the future would hold knowledge of the trouble they felt closing in around them.") I could do without it, but it doesn't subtract, and is always short. (On double-checking the quote, I have to say that may be the worst piece of writing in the book, even after I've edited it.)
As to the alleged sinisterness of the books, it is of the most subtle sort, low key, but suffusing the entirety of the book. The children are always on the lookout for Count Olaf, but it is clear they can never be in any immediate danger, since Count Olaf's scheme is to marry 14 year old Violet when she comes of age to inherit the family fortune. Nonetheless, the scheme alone is the sort of thing that makes adults' skin crawl. Probably, it's not so viscerally distasteful for children, in as much as it seems as fantastic as quidditch.
Children are constantly in danger -- kidnapped, locked in cages, or dangled by ropes -- but these are the sorts of precarious situations one would have found in "The Borrowers" and other children's literature of a half-century ago (although, it made more sense to inoculate your kids against a sinister world in 1950 than today, perhaps). Amazon reviewers took some pleasure in pointing out that there are no happy endings to Lemony Snicket books. While this is true, the endings are more in the line of cliff-hangers: If everything worked out, there would be no next book. The driving force of the Baudelaire children is the "series of unfortunate events" that prevents them from finding a happy home. There is nothing particularly unhappy about the endings, except the children are no better off than when they started. The siblings always have each other to count on, and that seems to be enough.
The adults are uniformly as cartoonish as the Dursleys. In fact, there seem to be no realistically drawn characters; all are types, even the protagonist children. Violet, the big sister, is an inventor; Klaus, the brother, is bookish, and Bunny, the baby is the baby. The older siblings are fairly indistinguishable, except if you want a word defined ask the brother, and if you want to know how an elevator works, ask the sister. In conversation, their quotes could be interchanged, and this includes the baby, who participates in all conversations as an equal, in baby talk, which is translated for the reader. All are risk takers, with a touch of apprehension, and apparently equally physically equipped.
In short, the books are highly readable, if more childish than Harry Potter. The movie is likely to be a small hit, but it may be a hard sell as a family movie. The visual style makes the film appear inappropriate for small children, and the books are clearly aimed at the fourth to sixth grade set, which isn't a large enough potential audience to recover Jim Carey's paycheck.
The movie may find the same audience as "Edward Scissorhands", which isn't promising much. Edward was big with brooding teenagers, but not so much a kid's film, and was a flop with adults. Edward made it's money back, but it is hardly a blockbuster. In short, "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events" might be hoping for Harry Potter's audience, but I don't think it has the same broad appeal, in part because of the books, in part because of the style. It has the potential to be this year's "Cat in the Hat", a movie that had family potential, but tried to straddle too many fences (and illustrated how out of touch with family values Hollywood has become). The Lemony film director, Brad Silberling, also directed "Casper", so there is some hope, although as I recall, flatulence was very important to the humor or "Casper," so in matters of taste, his judgment is questionable.
I was at real.com the other day to get a RealPlayer update, and I saw among their movie previews one for a movie titled "Lemony Snicket and the Series of Unfortunate Events." The still shot was reminiscent of "The Adamms Family" or some similar creepy family film. The preview seems to hard-sell the presence of Jim Carey, an actor I don't usually associate with kid's films, "The Grinch" not withstanding (in fact, "The Grinch" being exhibit A). Targeted for Christmas 2004, it would appear the producers are taking advantage of the vacancy left by the "Harry Potter" series' move to Labor Day.
I was caught flat-footed by Potter-mania, so I figured this time I would get a head start, and I hurried off to the public library to see what I could find. A little preparatory reading at Amazon.com indicated the books in the series, thirteen so far and all significantly smaller than the "Harry Potter" books, revolve around three orphaned siblings, Violet, Klaus, and Bunny Baudelaire. The books are portrayed as being a bit dark. The kid's legal rep is named Poe, which is a sure sign of who the author is seeking to emulate. He is tasked with finding the children a suitable guardian following the death of their parents in an unfortunate house fire. This proves exceedingly difficult, given the quirky and questionable quality of the Baudelaire relatives. Count Olaf, a Baudelaire relative, I gather, and of very low character, is the central complicating factor in the narratives, as he pursues the children from home to home in an effort to kidnap them and collect their inheritance.
The writing style of the books is simpler and more artful than the "Harry Potter" books, much more quickly paced and irreverent, and far less self-indulgent than Rowling. The size and style of the books I think makes them more accessible to a younger audience, say third grade or so, than the Potter books, while at the same time I think limiting them to a strictly childish audience, as opposed to Potter's appeal to adults in a second childhood.
The author periodically interjects himself in some pointless way at the opening of a chapter (he has no role in the books, but he mentions his travails in discovering facts or in typing his report: "I am wondering if the future will hold something that will enable me to saw through these handcuffs..., but... they were wondering if the future would hold knowledge of the trouble they felt closing in around them.") I could do without it, but it doesn't subtract, and is always short. (On double-checking the quote, I have to say that may be the worst piece of writing in the book, even after I've edited it.)
As to the alleged sinisterness of the books, it is of the most subtle sort, low key, but suffusing the entirety of the book. The children are always on the lookout for Count Olaf, but it is clear they can never be in any immediate danger, since Count Olaf's scheme is to marry 14 year old Violet when she comes of age to inherit the family fortune. Nonetheless, the scheme alone is the sort of thing that makes adults' skin crawl. Probably, it's not so viscerally distasteful for children, in as much as it seems as fantastic as quidditch.
Children are constantly in danger -- kidnapped, locked in cages, or dangled by ropes -- but these are the sorts of precarious situations one would have found in "The Borrowers" and other children's literature of a half-century ago (although, it made more sense to inoculate your kids against a sinister world in 1950 than today, perhaps). Amazon reviewers took some pleasure in pointing out that there are no happy endings to Lemony Snicket books. While this is true, the endings are more in the line of cliff-hangers: If everything worked out, there would be no next book. The driving force of the Baudelaire children is the "series of unfortunate events" that prevents them from finding a happy home. There is nothing particularly unhappy about the endings, except the children are no better off than when they started. The siblings always have each other to count on, and that seems to be enough.
The adults are uniformly as cartoonish as the Dursleys. In fact, there seem to be no realistically drawn characters; all are types, even the protagonist children. Violet, the big sister, is an inventor; Klaus, the brother, is bookish, and Bunny, the baby is the baby. The older siblings are fairly indistinguishable, except if you want a word defined ask the brother, and if you want to know how an elevator works, ask the sister. In conversation, their quotes could be interchanged, and this includes the baby, who participates in all conversations as an equal, in baby talk, which is translated for the reader. All are risk takers, with a touch of apprehension, and apparently equally physically equipped.
In short, the books are highly readable, if more childish than Harry Potter. The movie is likely to be a small hit, but it may be a hard sell as a family movie. The visual style makes the film appear inappropriate for small children, and the books are clearly aimed at the fourth to sixth grade set, which isn't a large enough potential audience to recover Jim Carey's paycheck.
The movie may find the same audience as "Edward Scissorhands", which isn't promising much. Edward was big with brooding teenagers, but not so much a kid's film, and was a flop with adults. Edward made it's money back, but it is hardly a blockbuster. In short, "Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events" might be hoping for Harry Potter's audience, but I don't think it has the same broad appeal, in part because of the books, in part because of the style. It has the potential to be this year's "Cat in the Hat", a movie that had family potential, but tried to straddle too many fences (and illustrated how out of touch with family values Hollywood has become). The Lemony film director, Brad Silberling, also directed "Casper", so there is some hope, although as I recall, flatulence was very important to the humor or "Casper," so in matters of taste, his judgment is questionable.
