lake and fell

I have lots of thoughts, as I promised I would...

(Spoilers ahead I guess, but nothing big that's not fairly obvious from trailers etc., I don't think.)

There were a lot of little nitpicky things that annoyed me, but I could probably have got past those (actually, no I couldn't, but never mind) if the whole thing had been good enough to carry me through. I'm obviously biased, and it did have its good points, probably fun enough as a kids' film, but I genuinely just think it was poor storytelling, which is extra disappointing as it was based on such a good story. Some of the bigger things that I had problems with:

The Spy Plot. I don't really have that much to say on this one because it's obvious that the second they decided to go with this idea, it stopped being Swallows and Amazons. The modern thing is to believe everything needs Super High Stakes and Lots Of Action or kids will be bored. I think they're wrong, but there we go. (Sorry, Andrew Scott, I'd watch you in anything, but you didn't belong here.) But even accepting that for what it is, I just don't think they did what they were trying to do particularly well, so on that note...

Character development and relationships. So much went wrong here, I don't know where to start. Obviously they butchered both John and Susan (presumably because they lazily read them as boring and, rather than read any deeper, just changed them entirely), as well as Mrs Walker and her relationship with the children. Genuinely, what's wrong with writing families who like and trust each other? Captain Flint was already ruined by the spy plot, but his eventual switch to being the nice fun uncle didn't work well even in the context they gave him - it felt like they just went "and actually he turned out to be nice, which you should just accept and not question because it's just a kids' story so it's not that deep". Which does such an injustice to the original writing. Then there are the Blacketts, who need a third point all to themselves:

The Blacketts. I was so disappointed with Nancy and Peggy. I feel bad criticising children, but I didn't think the actors playing them were good at all (compared to the Walkers, who could all act). But the real issue I had with them was their lack of screentime?? They barely appeared, we had no time to get to know them, to care about them, or to see any sign of genuine friendship between them and the Swallows. There was no spark to them at all, no sign of Nancy's charisma, or sense of them as the wild rule-breakers. Mrs Blackett was a non-character too, which is forgivable as she was sort of a non-character in the first book, but given that they did give her extra screentime, they could at least have given her some characterisation?

The Pacing. I feel like this point wraps the previous ones together, because the cause is the spy plot and the result (or one of them) is the bad/non-existent character-dev. There's no time for the characters to unfold, no time for them to sit and talk to each other, no time for extra scenes that show relationships, no time for fireworks on the cabin roof or parleys around the campfire or Vicky/Bridget's birthday or fishing trips or Octopus Lagoons or Nancy bullying policemen on John's behalf. Even the Black Spot gets delivered in a moment at the dining table, with no explanation of what it means. And it's mainly because most of the time is taken up by the Big Plot, but it's not only that - those small but important scenes are also replaced by things like losing the food hamper, and John shouting at Roger, and Roger falling in the lake. Things they obviously decided were more Dramatic and Exciting, but actually do nothing meaningful at all. It all just feels completely rushed, which is the opposite of Ransome's vibes. And not only that, but the piling on of difficulties, and problems, and fights, and things going wrong, just makes the whole island camping expedition seem entirely depressing, rather than a taste of joyful freedom.

The Aesthetic. Related to the last point, but I did think that the one thing we would get from this film, since they filmed on location, would be the feel of the Lakelands and the scenery and rural Northern England in the 20s. I got almost none of that. Again, probably because the only things they cared about were spies with guns and ramping up the sense of danger and difficulty at every turn.

It sounds like I hated the film, and I didn't hate it. It was fun to watch, I thought the kids playing Tatty (whose name change I do get) and Roger were particularly good, and I liked the Billies (although less so the fact that Susan and Roger didn't even meet them, and Tatty screaming the place down over the adder).

I just didn't think it was particularly good as a film, let alone an adaptation of Swallows and Amazons. Which, as a Swallows and Amazons fan, is just really sad.

ravenpuffheadcanons

I still haven’t seen it - I would be interested to hear your thoughts!

I probably will have a lot! I have Opinions on adaptations on children’s classics generally... (mainly that they are rarely done well, but that the few I like aren’t necessarily absolutely faithful reproductions, because it’s more nuanced than that.) I’ll let you know...

theoriginalsimonb

My conclusion was that it was a good enough kids action film, but the changes and additions meant it wasn’t Swallows and Amazons. If nothing else, they made it impossible to do the rest of the series.

‘70s or the new one?

Ahh hello, and thank you for following! Sorry for the delay in answering, I haven’t been the most active lately, but I totally agree - those characters are a huge part of my childhood. 

It’s so hard to pick favourites, but I think that as Dot’s one of my favourite characters in the series as a whole, I’d have to pick her. If we’re not including the Ds, though, I would say Pete - I always have a soft spot for the baby of a group, and I love him in Big Six.

Hey! Sorry, I’m not sure when this was sent, and I haven’t logged on for a while, so apologies if it’s been sitting here for ages.

I’m not totally sure how you mean ‘initiatory story’ here - do you mean the whole series, as a kind of childhood coming-of-age story? Because if so, then yes, I think you could take the books that way, in a very gentle sort of way. Their growing up is subtle, and they don’t contain a lot of the elements that that sort of story tends to have in the modern era - puberty, for example, is entirely unaddressed, and there’s not a whole lot of engagement with the wider world (except when the wider world comes into contact with their adventures). So, in some ways, the books act as a sort of bubble of childhood, unaffected by any of the annoyances of growing up. 

I would never want to ignore the ways they do grow up, and the little half-hidden ways their characters develop and change, because it’s part of the genius of the books for me. And there’s a lot to be said for books that show some of the magic of childhood surviving even while we’re technically ‘growing up’ (and also after we’re technically ‘grown up’). But I think to be really described as an initiatory story in that way, there would have to be more of a focus on the kids’ changing relationships with their world - by which I mean their real world, not the world of their imaginations. It’s there, but it’s very deliberately kept in the background the majority of the time. 

my childhood!