Tolerable translation

Rating: 8/10 (24 October 2007)

Adapting a much-loved book for the screen is always a risky affair. On the rare occasion when it is done with a slavish regard for accuracy (Harry Potter 1, for example) the result can end up a little on the sterile side. On the other hand, a cavalier approach (Starship Troopers, Kubrick's The Shining) leads to part of the audience wondering how the point of the book could be missed. Even when an adaptation is regarded as successful, there can still be valid reservations (Gimli as light relief in Lord of the Rings, for example).
I realise two things - one, it is often the case that changes have to be made because what works on the page doesn't work on screen and, two, the primary motivation of those who put up the not-inconsiderable funding to produce a mainstream feature film is to make profits. That means bums on seats. And that may mean you don't always cater to the sentiments of those who hold the source property particularly dear.
I'm a big Neil Gaiman fan. The Charles Vess-illustrated version of Stardust sits proudly on my shelves and I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It tells a fairy story in fairly traditional terms, but tells it with adult sensibilities. I'll confess that I haven't read it for a number of years, and I never did memorise it (although I do recollect that it had the single most effective use of profanity on the printed page which I have ever seen), so it follows that much of the detail is vague in my memory. I was therefore able to approach the film without excessive preconceptions.
I saw it in a fairly full cinema with a friend and his young son. I don't recall ever being among an audience which contained so many women in their 30s before, which surprised me.
This film satisfied that audience. It satisfied my friend and his son, and it satisfied me. I was surprised at the amount of humour - Gaiman recounts the story in the book in fairly straight-faced manner - and the humour all worked, and worked well: it didn't prevent the story being taken seriously, but it did lighten the tone. This was necessary, I think, because there is a need to maximise audiences, and this fairy story (the tale, as opposed to the telling) pitches as well towards children as it does towards adults. So why exclude a big chunk of audience from the cinema and DVD sales demographic? No, it's not a faithful adaptation. But, with the exception of the inclusion of humour - not necessarily a bad thing - it captured the flavour of the book, and was entertaining in its own right.