10 Apr 2006
I've had Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (H2G2) on my list at Lovefilm for quite a while, and have been simultaneously looking forward to and dreading its arrival. I've heard some people rave (in a good way) about it, and others hate it, so I wasn't quite sure what I was going to make of it. I watched it this weekend1 and you'll know which camp I fall into when I say that I'm still thinking to myself, "...and another thing I hated about it was...". I don't think I've seen a film that I've disliked so much in a long time.
I am, of course, a huge fan of the original BBC radio series, the book, the BBC TV series and the new Tertiary Phase radio recordings (featuring most of the cast of the original radio series). I think that I'd have to say that I preferred the book and the radio series, but the TV adaptation was also pretty good, despite mostly dire special effects. So the film had a lot to live up to, but I'm not pathologically averse to Hollywood adaptations of books---the Lord of the Rings trilogy being an excellent example of an adaptation made with skill and respect. I read the books (twice) before seeing the films, and of course there were bits that got left out or cut down that were regrettable, but on the whole, it kept very closely to the _spirit_ of the books, and provided a different but fully compatible experience of the story. So while I understand that some things must be cut for pacing and to fit within the different limitations of the feature film format, I don't buy the argument that it's impossible to render a book faithfully on film.
Warning: the rest contains spoilers
My first problem with the H2G2 film was the dialogue and jokes, or rather the fact that the best ones in the book were missing in action. It wasn't simply that they cut some out totally (I could understand that with time constraints), but they butchered the jokes, leaving only a bleeding stump to puzzle those who aren't familiar with the book/radio/TV series and infuriate those who are. So, in the first few minutes of the film, when Arthur Dent is lying in front of a bulldozer, arguing with the foreman, Mr. Prosser, who is trying to demolish Arthur's house to make way for a bypass, we get this delicious bit of dialogue referring to the plans for the bypass:
Arthur: I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them. Mr. Prosser: That's the Display Department. Arthur: With a torch. Mr. Prosser: The lights had probably gone. Arthur: So had the stairs. Mr. Prosser: But you found the plans, didn't you? Arthur: Oh yes, they were 'on display' in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the leopard.'
That jewel of Douglas Adams' ability to heap absurdity upon absurdity---and which is quite important in character terms for introducing us to Arthur's mentality and his International standard ranting ability---was reduced to Arthur saying something like, "I had to go down to the cellar to find them". I could give many examples (like the Book's long discussion of the enormity of space being elided to "...etc."), but it would just depress me to Marvin-like levels. I wouldn't have minded these cuts if they made way for better material. But the film contains huge chunks of a rather pointless sub-plot that wasn't in the book in which Trillian is captured by the Vogons, and the others have to go to the planet 'Vogosphere' to rescue her. The only good bits in that whole section were Arthur's joke about queueing, the cameo appearance by the original Marvin from the TV series and Trillian's joke about the Point Of View gun. The rest? Mostly Pointless.
There was a lot of rather lame slapstick (the face-slapping thought mines on Vogosphere) rather than wit, and pointless action sequences instead of dialogue. I can't even bring myself to talk about the sappy love story that was soldered on to the plot, except to say that in the original(s), Arthur's main feelings about Zaphod stealing Trillian away from him seemed to be wounded pride, and if offered a choice between Trillian and a really good cup of tea, he probably would have chosen the latter. There were also problems with the casting (and acting). I thought that Martin Freeman was more or less OK as Arthur (though a little too likeable), Sam Rockwell was too manic as Zaphod (he should be a cool dude, or at least think he is), and Mos Def was just very flat as Ford. I've always thought that Ford should be a bit like a kid---enthusiastic, insatiably curious and with a rather cruel sense of humour. I didn't get any of that from Mos.
I hate being so negative about anything, but I'm really struggling to come up with even a few positive points from the film. Stephen Fry was very good as The Book (though shamefully under-used), Bill Bailey had a wonderful cameo as the whale (perfect casting), and Bill Nighy was excellent as Slartibartfast. Thank goodness that his line "...it scares the willies out of me" survived the Editor's guillotine. Some of the effects were very good (particularly the factory floor on Magrathea), but good effects don't make a good film. There was also some smart updating of one of the old jokes, when the Heart of Gold receives a recorded hologram2 when visiting Magrathea:
It is most gratifying that your enthusiasm for our planet continues unabated. As a token of our appreciation, we hope you will enjoy the two thermonuclear missiles we've just sent to converge with your craft. To ensure ongoing quality of service, your death may be monitored for training purposes. Thank you.
But these few moments of enjoyment were very few and far between. I wonder what people who don't know the book/radio series/TV series made of it. It seemed to me that because big sections of original plot (along with explanations of why things were the way they were) were clumsily chopped out and replaced with bits of new plot which replaced the explanations with new non-sequiturs, they'd be pretty puzzled by what the hell was going on. And by removing the best jokes and dialogue, they did nothing to endear themselves to hardcore fans, either. If I could understand the decisions they made, I wouldn't mind so much. If I could see that they were trying to make more of an action film, or more of a plot-driven film set in the H2G2 universe, I might not like the results, but I could see why they'd done it. My problem is that I can't understand what the heck they thought they were trying to do.
1 I say "I" because Mr. Bsag gave up after about 15 minutes. In the interests of journalistic integrity, misguided optimism and masochism, I stayed until the end. ↑
2 In another nice cameo, the head and voice in the hologram was Simon Jones: Arthur Dent in the radio series and TV show. ↑
2
The film is very different from the book. But it does allow for new fans, who will eventually read the book and love it more than the film ![]()
And to compensate for your negative experience, go see "V for Vendetta", now!
3
A comment from a friend who had not read the book(s) (despite copious prodding and suggesting): "is that really what all the fuss is about?"
Which sums up my feelings. The books are almost peerless in my opinion, although that's mainly because they float between genres (in the same way bricks don't). The movie, even if you take it as NOT being an adaptation but that old Hollywood favourite of being "based on", is still bitty and incomplete. It's a great shame indeed.
Alan Rickman wasn't as good as I thought he'd be... the love story thing was cringeworthy at best. As you say, I'm all for adaptations that maintain the 'feel' of the books (LOTR and even HP do this well) but this was just... awful.
4
I am about to be xenophobic - Americans can't do H2G2, The Office and comedy of that ilk, just as we can't do Friends, Spin City or Frasier. Can you imagine trying to pitch, the oh so gentle, "As Time Goes By" to an American TV company with their concomitant collection of suited sponsors? "Judi Dench? Is it a Queen Victoria or Queen Elizabeth thing?"
For our foreign listeners, H2G2 can be listened to at "BBC Online" - go on; treat yourselves!
by Jonathan Briggs @ 11/04/2006 5:05 pm • Permalink •
5
Ingrid, Milan, Jeroen: Perhaps it does make a difference whether you're already a fan of the radio series etc. or not. As I said, I hate writing negative reviews (I usually subscribe to the 'If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all' thing, but I just couldn't keep quiet), but I just really didn't see any merit in the film.
Gordon: Phew. I was beginning to think it was just me
To be fair, I think Alan Rickman did the best he could with the material, but Marvin's best lines were cut, and he got some really lame replacements (that one about not being a fridge was a real turkey). But certainly Stephen Moore was better.
6
Too bad you were disappointed.
I'm a huge fan of the book. My wife is not. (She has not read it, even though she probably have heard me refer to every single letter in it.) We both liked the movie. I would guess that was what they tried to achieve - making a good movie for both fans and "ordinary people".
And I believe Douglas Adams himself had little interest in telling the same jokes once again, so his contributions to the manus might actually be one of the biggest reasons that it is so loosely tied to the book.
by Daniel @ 11/04/2006 9:05 pm • Permalink •
7
While I would agree that books can be adapted successfully, I'd say this one (even though it was derived from the radio scripts) is nigh impossible. Douglas Adams's prose and the jokes have a swiss watch like precision, which must make it extremely hard to adapt or cut, and the whole thing is verbal, not visual, and so not really appropriate to film as a medium, even before you factor in the cultural problems of Americans trying to do something so very English.
by ThoughtBadger @ 12/04/2006 2:05 am • Permalink •
8
My wife is a big fan of both the radio and book versions of H2G2, but I have to admit that I only got round to see a greater part of the TV series. However, even I missed the essential English humour for which the Original is so well known. I found the movie lack-lustre, with large vital chunks missing – like a heart transplant gone wrong because the surgeon only had a donor-kidney to use as a replacement. If they cant do a job well, they should either do it better, or not at all. Ditto Jonathan’s comments. The movie was lame, I believe I nodded off.
9
Ah - I was going to get round to borrowing the DVD from the library. I'd seen the book "The Making of" and thought that the design looked great but some films look better on paper.
by pete @ 15/04/2006 1:05 pm • Permalink •
10
i agree with you. i also found Marvin to be much too 'cutesy', though Alan Rickman was one of the few perfectly casted actors. The whole thing was spoiled from the beginning, but it's still part of my collection of h2g2 stuff. its a shame that even if somebody comes up with a better interperetation of the book/radio series, it probably won't get very far because of the majority of movie-goers labeling it a 'remake'.. we all know what happens to them. well that's my two cents.. have a lovely day!
11
I have to agree with everything you have said. I saw it in the cinema and was very disappointed. The makers don't seem to realise that if you take a comedy and remove the jokes, much of the humour is lost. (No, really).
More recently, I was at my brother's place when the family sat down to watch it on DVD. After about 20mins my sister-in-law said "Does anybody mind if we stop watching this?" Nobody, not even my neice and nephew, who must be bang inside the target demographic, could be bothered to carry on watching. Actually, we were relieved to turn it off. (God, it's a dull film).
Aside from one or two good performances, and some of the special effects, everybody involved should be more than a bit ashamed of themselves. They performed the filmic equivalent of reverse alchemy - they turned gold into lead.
12
Goodness. I had forgotten all about the silly subplot about rescuing Trillian. Which goes to show that most of this film is eminently forgettable.
1
Oh no, only one star for this film ! I agree with you that the book is, lets say different, but I loved the film too. And casting Bill Nighy as Slartibartfast, is at least worth 3 stars already. I admit that I have never seen the tv series (I am not born in the UK), nor have I heard the radioseries. I read the book just before the film, and maybe that gave me another kind of perspective. I am actually reading the book for the second time now, and love it more and more. And having recently moved to London, I can recognize more and more of the typical english humour the book contains, it's briliiant and Douglas Adams was a genious.----- This film could have been much worse.
That said, both me and my date were heavily fined by police on the way there, so the film itself probably seemed better by contrast.
by Milan @ 10/04/2006 10:05 pm • Permalink •