MovieChat Forums > The Adventures of Huck Finn (1993) Discussion > Why can't some great director just do it...

Why can't some great director just do it?

posted 17 years ago by kennycbjr
18 replies | jump to latest

What is the deal? Why can't some great director tackle this novel--with all of its complexities and controversies--and make a serious, thoughtful, faithful, detailed rendering of this novel?

Regardless of whether many like the novel, regardless of the controversies surrounding the "n word," regardless of the seemingly muddled ending, this is a great novel, profound novel, influential novel. It seems that there is always some Jane Austin, Shakespeare, Dickins novel on tap for a movie, update, or whatever, why is this novel ignored?

Right now I am watching the Elijah Woods version with my English class (juniors). It just makes me so sad this version. Okay, it is a good movie, but as a rendering of the novel it is a weak, disney-fied, children's version. We need some serious director to tackle this, now!

Any thoughts?

[–] chaseredbat 17 years ago

have you read the opening note by mark twain in the book? i dont think he'd appreciate a "serious and thoughtful" version of his fun adventure novel. if you havent read it, he pretty much says to not take the book seriously (in a funny way)

[–] kennycbjr 16 years ago

Yes, I have read the opening, and a book can be both "serious and thoughful" and fun. And, by the way, I don't take his warning about taking his novel seriously seriously. It is by far one of the most serious and thoughtful novels ever written and deserves a serious and thoughtful movie

[–] wimdall 16 years ago

Mark Twain has actually said himself he didn't care for the book's ending. Personally, I didn't either. I didn't like how Tom Sawyer shows up at the end and basically solves everyone's problems for them.

That's why I think this version is the best because it changes the ending around to make Huck the hero. Its also a tad dark at times but captures the fun and adventure of the novel. And its not like it completely ignores the relevant issues of slavery and racism.

I think Mark Twain would approve.

[–] Ricochet84 15 years ago

I don't think an adaption would get much better.

Wave goodbye to the real world, for you have just entered The Twilight Zone!

[–] jgould9 13 years ago

The problem with the Huck Finn movies is that they are aimed at children. I would have loved to see Robert Altman do Huck Finn. Altman would have gone to the source material and made a gritty but still funny story that would have shown a more realistic view of life in the 1800s. He was great and taking a common movie theme and turning it inside out. Just look at his take on Phillip Marlow or the Western in McCabe and Mrs. Miller or the under appreciated Popeye.

[–] IceboxMovies 13 years ago

I was about to come here and start a thread like this. I agree: why can't some director just freaking DO it? It shouldn't be hard. It shouldn't be hard to make a movie that captures this book's commentary on racism, class and literature. I swear, I think I have to laugh whenever the "Walter Scott" steampship appears in a movie and the implications behind the name of the ship always goes unacknowledged. Or the irony behind Huck, the Duke and the King's attempting of Shakespeare.

One of the posters addressed it here perfectly: the problem is that these movies keep getting marketed towards children. Just as Disney molested and bought the rights to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, so have they done it with Huck Finn.

I don't mind if kids come to see these movies, but Disney ought to do the decent thing and sell the rights to a more mature studio. These tories were not written solely for children. And no matter which director attempts the project--whether it be Michael Curtiz or Stephen Sommers--he or she will never do a decent job as long as this story keeps getting PC'd to death by the Disney corporate monster that Twain himself would have lambasted were he alive today.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] Felixthecat34213 9 years ago

The problem with the Huck Finn movies is that they are aimed at children. I would have loved to see Robert Altman do Huck Finn. Altman would have gone to the source material and made a gritty but still funny story that would have shown a more realistic view of life in the 1800s. He was great and taking a common movie theme and turning it inside out. Just look at his take on Phillip Marlow or the Western in McCabe and Mrs. Miller or the under appreciated Popeye.

I have never considered Robert Altman funny...but ok.

Gritty maybe. Funny, well not to me. I did love Popeye though.

[–] Newski_the_Hippie 13 years ago

One thing that I think is missing from every version of Huck Finn is the imagery Twain put into his book. When i see Huck Finn, I always see these beautiful landscapes, this idealized south, but Huck Finn was not a Romantic book. Twain filled the book with odd, often grotesque imagery. Perhaps a look similar to a (very) scaled back Tim Burton. I say scaled back, because there needs to be a sense of realism.

Though perhaps that's just a motif for Huck and Jim, others might see a much more wonderful world around them. Tom Sawyer, for example, is the southern romantic.

I'd also like to see them tone down the language, in order for a PG or PG-13 rating, but not shy away from proper, historical usage. It's a matter of controversy while putting the source material to the screen, and I can sympathize with those who want the word *beep* removed. Which is why I'd definitely cut it down from the book, but we can't ignore the historical reality.

The book tears at alot of the ideals and beliefs of the people around them. It's a subversive work. That's why Twain wrote the intro. It's very OBVIOUSLY a thoughtful, serious story. Everything he says is contrary to what is in the text. Twain was a bitter man, an Angry man, but he was also a man who did not like offending others around him, no matter how much he would want to. So, in other words, he was saying "No, no, this isn't about you" just to avoid trouble.

A good script would probably take several key moments, motifs, and ideas from the book, and stay faithful, but not be afraid to adapt the material. Mark Twain's ending is the weakest point of the book. I don't mind seeing it change, or scenes re ordered. The key is to stay true to Twain's ideas more than the source.

That being said, why in so many versions does Huck's father kidnap him? The Judge deciding that the best person to raise a boy is his father, despite Pap Finn more or less walking in with a big sign that says "EVIL" stapled to his foreheard is probably one of the biggest, overlooked statements Twain made, and still on that is applicable today.

[–] IceboxMovies 12 years ago

I'd also like to see them tone down the language, in order for a PG or PG-13 rating, but not shy away from proper, historical usage. It's a matter of controversy while putting the source material to the screen, and I can sympathize with those who want the word *beep* removed. Which is why I'd definitely cut it down from the book, but we can't ignore the historical reality.

Huh? You can use the "N" word in a PG-13 movie as many times as you want.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] zigfried-2 12 years ago

There is the PBS version which is relatively faithful to Twain's book. THe video available to the general public is severely cut down from the original broadcast, which was more like a mini-series, so be careful that you get the full 240 min. version.

http://www.amazon.com/Adventures-Huckleberry-Finn-Patrick-Day/dp/B0000 649JT/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&qid=1330104435&sr=8-11

It is a bit too serious IMHO and loses a lot of the fun and humor in the book. But if a more "faithful" adaption is what you are looking for, this is probably as good as it gets right now.

I would love to see a great American film maker tackle this story. Steven Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, or Joel and Ethan Cohen would be some names who could do it.

[–] IceboxMovies 12 years ago

Steven Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, or Joel and Ethan Cohen would be some names who could do it.

I concur wholeheartedly.

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] masterthes 11 years ago

I think we're due for a new adaptation

[–] Felixthecat34213 9 years ago

It's actually pretty truthful to the novel imo, the only thing they leave out is the ending, which I think would have been redundant. The "n-gger Jim" thing is something I kind of didn't even miss to be honest. They didn't do it in a very obvious way, but it also wasn't PC or anything. It got the "slavery is wrong, black people are thought of as inferior" message across without overdoing it.

That being said, I think the novel needs to be retained as it was originally written. But I don't really care if a film chooses to leave it out.

Also...this film was from Disney...so yeah it's going to be Disney-fied. It was still the darkest film Disney has done, a kid gets killed, Huck's father nearly murders him, it deals with slavery in an articulate manner.

Here's the problem with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn...it's not a children's story. We keep giving it to kids to read...for some reason we keep associating it with children. Realistically it is an adult story written about a child. Maybe it's a young adult novel, but it isn't for kids. So the idea of adapting it for children seems very strange.

As for why a "serious" director won't make the film, well...most tend to stay away from the classics. Mark Twain is difficult to adapt seriously because most of his work is a mixture of humor, childhood nostalgia, with pockets of drama and melancholy. The Adventures of Huck Finn is one of his most serious books.

Also, I would hate to see a bit time famous, aka "Great" director make this film. I consider most of these "great" directors quite awful. I mean when was the last time Spielberg made a decent film? The guy has lost whatever made him great.

[–] IceboxMovies 9 years ago

The "n-gger Jim" thing is something I kind of didn't even miss to be honest. They didn't do it in a very obvious way, but it also wasn't PC or anything. It got the "slavery is wrong, black people are thought of as inferior" message across without overdoing it.

Except, without the N-word, there is no context. "Slavery is wrong" was not the message of the book. Anyone can be a slave. Without the N-word, one misses the discrimination that made black people enslaved in the first place.

As for why a "serious" director won't make the film, well...most tend to stay away from the classics. Mark Twain is difficult to adapt seriously because most of his work is a mixture of humor, childhood nostalgia, with pockets of drama and melancholy. The Adventures of Huck Finn is one of his most serious books.

Also, I would hate to see a bit time famous, aka "Great" director make this film. I consider most of these "great" directors quite awful. I mean when was the last time Spielberg made a decent film? The guy has lost whatever made him great.

Spielberg once hinted (during a press tour for A.I.) that he'd be open to adapting Huckleberry Finn someday. He has already adapted H.G. Wells; I think Twain would be right up his alley.

Also: Lincoln, War Horse and The Adventures of Tintin were all great movies. And check out the new trailer for Bridge of Spies, which looks terrific.

[–] Felixthecat34213 9 years ago

Except, without the N-word, there is no context.

I don't need it, I get the context and having a 13 year old shout n-gger every five seconds is weird.

"Slavery is wrong" was not the message of the book. Anyone can be a slave. Without the N-word, one misses the discrimination that made black people enslaved in the first place.

It's still in the movie

Spielberg once hinted (during a press tour for A.I.) that he'd be open to adapting Huckleberry Finn someday. He has already adapted H.G. Wells; I think Twain would be right up his alley.

He would make it pretty awful, I can't stand his overly saccharine, manipulative style of film making. Crane shots galore, intense close ups of weeping children.

Also: Lincoln, War Horse and The Adventures of Tintin were all great movies. And check out the new trailer for Bridge of Spies, which looks terrific.

Funny, I thought they were awful saccharine messes.

[–] IceboxMovies 9 years ago

It's still in the movie

What is? The N-word? No, it isn't. I don't recall it ever being uttered once in this movie.

He would make it pretty awful, I can't stand his overly saccharine, manipulative style of film making. Crane shots galore, intense close ups of weeping children.

Funny, I thought they were awful saccharine messes.

First of all: I love how you're criticizing "saccharine, manipulative" filmmaking and yet you're defending Stephen Sommers' sanitized, Disney-distributed, PG-rated The Adventures of Huck Finn.

Second of all -- and this has to do with your comments about Spielberg's recent work -- how was Lincoln "saccharine"? It did not have a happy ending, after all. It was a film about politics. Spielberg and Kushner also were not afraid to use the N-word in their screenplay to rub the racism of the time in the audiences' faces.

"Manipulative"? I hate to break it to you, but all movies are manipulative in some form or another. If it makes you feel something, it's manipulative. That's what makes movies great.

The Adventures of Tintin was a fun roller-coaster ride, and I don't recall it being "saccharine", ever... which leads me to wonder if you even saw it.

Granted, War Horse had its sentimental moments, but in a way that made it desirably old-fashioned, and -- come to think of it -- a lot like what Mark Twain did with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: it was another story about a character who goes on an odyssey through wartime and encounters all the hypocrisies of a historical time period, all leading to a bittersweet conclusion.

Check out this 2001 interview with Spielberg in which he says:

"I would rather flash a warning than be a Pollyanna piece of cotton candy saying ‘go to the future.’ It’s not that I’m cynical but just a little more realistic about the world and it doesn’t preclude me from making a Mark Twain movie someday of Huckleberry Finn, because I have that in me."

http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?Article_ID=5231&p=y

[–] Felixthecat34213 9 years ago

First of all: I love how you're criticizing "saccharine, manipulative" filmmaking and yet you're defending Stephen Sommers' sanitized, Disney-distributed, PG-rated The Adventures of Huck Finn.

No I'm not, I never defended this version at all. It was a cheesy, Disney-fied version of a dark mark Twain novel. I do, however, respect its honesty. It never tries to be anything other than what it is.

I don't respect Steven Spielberg for trying to be more than he is. Steven Spielberg is like fcking Disney on crack. Everything you've seen in this Disney film, you'll get 100 percent intensified in a Spielberg film. So I am completely baffled as to why someone, who obviously can't stand this film, would want to see Spielberg do the same thing times a thousand.

Second of all -- and this has to do with your comments about Spielberg's recent work -- how was Lincoln "saccharine"? It did not have a happy ending, after all.

You don't need a sad or tragic ending to be saccharine. And really?? Really...a film about Lincoln doesn't have a happy ending...my god who would have thought? (Just want to point out that Pollyanna is actually kind of a sad story, the term Pollyanna refers to the character's undefeated optimism rather than the story itself).

It was a film about politics. Spielberg and Kushner also were not afraid to use the N-word in their screenplay to rub the racism of the time in the audiences' faces.

I thought it rubbed a lot of things in our faces...but that's my viewpoint of Spielberg, he just can't tone it down to save his life. Of course, we're reaching the point where Spielberg does not even touch the camera anymore. he has assistants for that. If he even watches the entire film before its released, I'd be surprised.

"Manipulative"? I hate to break it to you, but all movies are manipulative in some form or another.

Exactly. I don't need to be manipulated even more, especially with goey sentimentalism. There's nothing worse than maudlin melodrama.

If it makes you feel something, it's manipulative. That's what makes movies great.

If it makes me feel sick, it's too manipulative.

The Adventures of Tintin was a fun roller-coaster ride, and I don't recall it being "saccharine", ever... which leads me to wonder if you even saw it.

This is an animated movie. It's a totally different animal. I don't think you can compare live action to animation ever.

Granted, War Horse had its sentimental moments, but in a way that made it desirably old-fashioned, and -- come to think of it -- a lot like what Mark Twain did with The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: it was another story about a character who goes on an odyssey through wartime and encounters all the hypocrisies of a historical time period, all leading to a bittersweet conclusion.

Nope. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is nothing like that in my opinion. I don't want to see that in what is supposed to be a serious and professional film. I'd rather watch a cheap Disney film or a cheesy made for tv movie.

"I would rather flash a warning than be a Pollyanna piece of cotton candy saying ‘go to the future.’

Wow that's funny because he basically is a Pollyana piece of cotton candy. And the sad part, is that those are his good films. I don't begrudge Spielberg for choosing that highly formalized way of direction. It worked for his early films and I enjoyed it when I was 10 years old, but I can't stand it now. I don't want to see it anymore. I've grown out of that style of film making. I don't feel like he can convey the melancholy of Mark Twain with his style. Steven Spielberg just can't do that. I don't expect him to.

It’s not that I’m cynical but just a little more realistic about the world and it doesn’t preclude me from making a Mark Twain movie someday of Huckleberry Finn, because I have that in me."

Realistic? LOL! He has never done anything realistic in his entire career, the closest he ever got to real human anguish was Schindler's List, which I didn't even think was that good. Especially when there's so much on the subject already. (And much better material as well.)

There was a time when Spielberg was synonymous for the emotional, nostalgic, magical fiction one looks for in entertainment. By the 80s people had thought those days of Hollywood were long gone. Then Spielberg came along and brought it back. The idea of him trying to do anything "serious" just sounds ridiculous. When Spielberg tries to be serious he's just awful.

And trying to make the Adventures of Huck Finn like Lincoln is kind of laughable to me...and weird. Who the hell would want to see that? is it for kids? ...is it for adults? Marketing is a very important part of film making and I don't think anyone would even know how to market something like that.

In my opinion, we should just stop trying to make this story into films. It's just not a story that translates onto the silver screen. Better yet, why don't people go and read the damn book. Must everything have a movie? Are we so incapable of reading anything beyond Mary Higgins Clark and Twilight, that we can peruse classic literature every once in awhile?

[–] IceboxMovies 8 years ago

Steven Spielberg is like fcking Disney on crack. Everything you've seen in this Disney film, you'll get 100 percent intensified in a Spielberg film. So I am completely baffled as to why someone, who obviously can't stand this film, would want to see Spielberg do the same thing times a thousand.

Explain how movies like The Sugarland Express, Empire of the Sun, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, Munich and Lincoln are "like Disney on crack".

You don't need a sad or tragic ending to be saccharine. And really?? Really...a film about Lincoln doesn't have a happy ending...my god who would have thought?

So, uh... how was Lincoln "saccharine"?

(Just want to point out that Pollyanna is actually kind of a sad story, the term Pollyanna refers to the character's undefeated optimism rather than the story itself).

I agree.

I thought it rubbed a lot of things in our faces...but that's my viewpoint of Spielberg, he just can't tone it down to save his life.

Again: you're going to have to explain this. You keep throwing out petty little criticisms without backing them up.

Of course, we're reaching the point where Spielberg does not even touch the camera anymore. he has assistants for that.

Uh... what are you talking about? In Hollywood, the director doesn't touch the camera -- that's not his job. That's the job of the director of photography and his camera operators.

Nope. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is nothing like that in my opinion. I don't want to see that in what is supposed to be a serious and professional film. I'd rather watch a cheap Disney film or a cheesy made for tv movie.

Then I guess it's been awhile since you've read the book.

In the book, Twain makes Jim a human being by giving him emotional moments when he talks about how much he misses his family, and how angry he is at Huck for tricking him on the raft. Also: when Huck decides he'd rather go to hell than sign away Jim's freedom in exchange for his own personal amnesty.

It's an incredibly emotional book, one where Twain's message is that folks with different colored skin miss their loved ones just as much as white people. It's a fiercely anti-racist book, which certainly makes it manipulative. If you disagree, then please explain.

Realistic? LOL! He has never done anything realistic in his entire career, the closest he ever got to real human anguish was Schindler's List, which I didn't even think was that good. Especially when there's so much on the subject already.

Again: I have no idea what you're talking about. Schindler's List was the first film to make you truly feel what it was like to be in a concentration camp. There wasn't "so much on the subject already" until the film. None of the Holocaust films before it showed you how truly horrific of an atrocity the Holocaust was.

Anyway, the rest of your post is just opinions without strong arguments and examples to back them up, so I won't respond to the rest of your points. I believe I've provided sufficient enough evidence as to why, if Spielberg still wanted to adapt this book into a film, he would be our best option.