Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): Not brave enough . An English Teacher's review.  To my fellow educators:    I have just finished spending the better part of an afternoon watching all three film versions of "Treasure Island."  I've seen the version with Charlton Heston, the one with Jack Palance and the 1950 Disney version.    It is my unpleasant duty to report that a proper film of "Treasure Island" has apparently not yet been made, as all three were so abysmally bad that I was unable to finish them.    What no director has yet come close to capturing, is the relentless grandeur with which the book itself unfolds, and the simple directness of Stevenson's 19th century morality tale.  Without exception, all three of these films seem to flounder in a sea of confusion about what this book should actually be; and none of them seem to have even the tiniest jot of the kind of vision displayed by classic illustrators such as Wythe.    Again and again with each film, someone seems to have made the decision that the story exactly as told by Stevenson apparently wouldn't be interesting enough or exciting enough for the big screen.  What I really want to know is if any of these directors actually READ the book, or had a personal relationship with it?  I find it hard to believe that they did, since the films all give the impression of slapdash commercialism or outright confusion about what the book actually is.    Jim Hawkins is living quietly with his parents in a seaside inn, when the Captain shows up with his sea chest and a mysterious fear of "a seafaring man with one leg."  The Captain should be tall, mysterious, powerful and terrifying.  In two of these films, he seems to be played by short wrinkled winos; and in the third by some middle-aged guy who is apparently married to the lighting director's sister.  It only gets worse from there.    The tragedy of the Captain is that he is still physically vigorous and imposing at the start of the book - but Stevenson is bringing a doom to him that will shatter even the English oak of his adamant constitution - the combined forces of rum, terror and stroke.    The Captain's fate - to fall dead of a "thundering apoplexy" on the floor of the inn, forshadows the essential purpose of Stevenson's novel - to illustrate that a life of bloodthirsty avarice and short-sighted greed leads only to an ignominious death.  In the guise of a boy's adventure story, Stevenson pursues this deeper moral with a terrible purpose and with great dignity and power.  His pirate characters are not comic or lighthearted.  They are not caricatures.  They are not the wax mannequins of a Disney ride; they are real men with fears and desires and second thoughts; even with regrets.  They do not dance or traipse merrily through this story - they grimace and battle through it, gritting their teeth against the death, (from violence, sickness, treachery or rum,) that is always staring them in their faces.  Jim Hawkins' innocence and youth is the perfect foil for the pirates' hard-bitten cynicism and gold-lust.  It is no accident that, despite the courage and resourcefulness of the cabin party, (led by Captain Smollett,) it is still only Jim Hawkins' youthful optimism and curious spirit that ultimately saves them from "death at the hands of the pirates."  Stevenson is alluding to the biblical command to "be like the little children in order to be saved."    To tell this story properly, it must be told absolutely straight, and with the same committed earnestness with which Stevenson tells it.  None of these films is that brave.    To make a film that is faithful to Stevenson's moral, the director will need more courage and simplicity of purpose than we find in all three of these films combined.  Those of us who love and understand the novel for what it is must continue to hope for a film that does it justice.
Output (English): NEG