A few weeks back, I wrote here about the new BBC production of Around the World in 80 Days running on PBS. I explained my love for the Jules Verne novel and the Oscar-winning Best Picture, and my wariness about this new adaptation which appeared to have little to do with the source material, other than the title and the names of a few of the characters (even if they changed who those characters were, like making Inspector Fix – who’s tracking Phileas Fogg, mistaking him for a bank robber – into “Miss Fix,” a newspaper reporter who joins the expedition to write about it).
It was all written before I’d seen one second of footage, and so my opinion was absolutely premature. That didn’t make it wrong, though it didn’t make it right. Just an early "This is what my perception is" kind of thing. I got into some discussion with others about this. They were defending the series – again, not having seen it either – making the point that it’s fair to adapt stories in their own unique ways, and this sounded interesting to them. And in part, I completely agreed with them. It is fair to adapt stories in their own unique ways. But when doing so, you still have to keep the foundation of what the story is, who its characters are at their foundation (it would be fine, for instance, to make Inspector Fix a women, as long as she's someone, not even necessarily a detective, tracking Phileas Fogg) and the underlying point of it all. Otherwise, why adapt that story and why call it that same title. If you want to tell a story with a similar starting premise but then goes off in a totally different direction and tells a separate story that overlaps the original in various ways – that’s fine. And it can even be a wonderful, rich tale of its own. For instance, the classic movie Western Red River is loosely based on Mutiny on the Bounty. (This isn’t my opinion, in the book The Screenwriter Looks at the Screenwriter by my grad school professor Bill Froug, one of the interviews quotes the writer of the film saying that.) They changed to the story and the characters completely, but the foundation of it all is the same – a cruel boss of a cattle drive gets so out of hand that his young second-in-command leads an uprising, and they throw the boss off. At which point he vows revenge. And all that is fair – and the resulting film is brilliant. But they didn’t call it Mutiny on the Bounty. The science-fiction thriller Outland with Sean Connery is about a Federal Marshall at a prison colony on one of Jupiter's moon, he uncovers an uprising but no one will help him. It's obviously based on High Noon. But called Outland. The movie Notting Hill is very-inspired by Roman Holiday. But they went off in their own direction and made a very different movie. Which wasn’t called Roman Holiday. Because – it wasn’t Roman Holiday. There are a great many other examples, but you get the point. I have no problem with adapting a story differently and making it your own. I just have a problem with telling a different story and calling it the same as the original, just to cash in on the fame of the original title. I thought that might be the case with this new eight-part Around the World in 80 Days – but didn’t know. And to be fair, I did check it out. It’s an absolutely beautifully-made production. Rich, vibrant and expansive. And the acting is very good, especially David Tennant in the lead as Phileas Fogg. And it tells a perfectly interesting story. It just isn’t Around the World in 80 Days. It has different characters and tells its own story, focusing more on the personal problems each of the main three characters have – Phileas Fogg, his manservant Passepartout (who here seems to be the brother of a black revolutionary) and “Miss Fix,” the reporter. And the story appears to be about how they each deal with their personal demons to get past them. And that’s perfectly legitimate and can be interesting (and is, in parts). It’s just not Around the World in 80 Days. By the way, having said this, they actually have a moderately-interesting storyline with the new “Miss Fix” character and her participation on the journey writing about it for the newspaper. Her character is clearly based – not on anything in Jules Verne – but the real-life reporter Nellie Bly. In the 19th century, not long after the Verne novel was published, she set out to see if she could beat the fictional “record” of Phileas Fogg and travel around the world herself in fewer than 80 days -- all the while filing newspaper reports back home. And she succeeded, though I forget how long it took her (I read a fascinating biography of her years ago), but I think it was about 76 days. At the time that I read the biography, I thought her life would make a wonderful film and even considered adapting her life story and various remarkable adventures into a film. I couldn’t get a handle on it to my satisfaction, so didn’t go forward. But I’ve still always thought that her story should be a wonderful. And there’s a touch of that here, although she’s not the driving character. But a movie or mini-series about Nellie Bly in full – or about her effort to go around the world in 79 days would be an absolutely valid, wonderful thing to try. But it wouldn’t be called Around the World in 80 Days. In fairness, amid my reaction to all this, I’ve recorded the weekly episodes, and find myself fast-forwarding through much of them. That means I’m not seeing the full thing, of course. But the reason I’m not seeing the full thing is because I find it a bit tedious and annoying. And that’s the other thing – why I find it somewhat tedious. If they want to tell a different story, that’s one thing. But you still have to tell it well. In the novel and movie (and other filmed adaptations I’ve seen), the core of the story is always the ticking clock. Those 80 days. Phileas Fogg has to get around the world in 80 days to win his bet and to prove it can be done, that science has actually progressed to that point. So, everything that happens in the story is pulling you on, relentlessly. Even when they have to make a tangent side adventure – like to save Princess Aouda, or they get separated and need to somehow find each other again – it’s always with the awareness that the clock is ticking. Always. Always. And it’s what gets the reader anxiously turning the page, or watching with excitement, caught up in "Will he make it??!". So, every action has a meaning, even when it gets them off the track. In this new “adaptation,” the trip around the world is secondary. Occasionally they mention how many days they’re in. And that, oh, we have to make our connection up ahead. But it’s almost off-handed, not what’s driving them. In episode four, we even find out that Fogg doesn’t even especially care about the bet or to prove it can be done, he has a different motivation. And Passepartout is always thinking of leaving because he has other, more important revolutionary interests. And “Miss Fix” just wants to write a story, whatever happens – and even that later changes directions. So, if the main characters don’t care much if they make it “around the world in 80 days” – why should the viewer? And if we don’t care about that, the only thing left to care about are these characters, who – while I’m sure they’ll grow and change and get over their angsts – for the longest time are pretty annoying. And without a clock ticking, driving it all, they’re just meandering. I mention this all here because I recorded yesterday's fifth episode – out of eight – and later that night, I realized that I just don’t care about what’s going on. And so right now I have no expectation of watching it. I’ll tune back in for the final episode, to see how they finish the series. And maybe, possibly might watch the penultimate episode to see how they set up the finale – though maybe not, we’ll see. But even that that, I’m wary. Because I read that they’re planning a Season Two. Wait, hunh? A Season Two? That either means they don’t finish the trip around the world this year – which if that’s the case, would have been seriously bothered to have watched eight hours only to find out it won’t conclude for another year – or they do finish (which I expect) but then have another adventure. But…another adventure? What else will they do?? Clearly they have an idea, and it may be a great one...or not. But the main characters just did what was thought “impossible” – traveled around the world in 80 days? What other adventure will they take to expand that? Perhaps, because the next series will not have the 80-day ticking clock, but will focus instead on the characters, they’ll just have a new story that has the characters building on that. Which is..whatever, fine. But it will hardly be Around the World in 80 Days II. It’ll be…something else completely. (Oddly, if I do decide to tune in, I can surprisingly see myself enjoying a Second Season, weird as that may seem, more than this current production – since a continuation, despite the galling title, will clearly have absolutely nothing to do with Jules Verne and no pretense that it does.) As I said, this series is beautifully produced, well-acted and has an interesting perspective that sometimes works very well – and sometimes falls flat. What I also find, beyond being bothered that they call this Around the World in 80 Days when it’s instead telling its own story with different characters separate from Jules Verne, is that overall how they’re telling their story is too tedious for my taste. I can see some people enjoying this production for what it is and not being bothered that it is not actually Around the World in 80 Days and purloined that title to grab their eyeballs. But that is not me.
2 Comments
Douglass Abramson
1/31/2022 11:28:55 pm
You don't only have to circumnavigate the world in the general direction of the equator. There is the polar route and crossing Antarctica in the 1880s would be very Verne like, if a second season with this cast happens. There is an, at this point, unsubstantiated rumor going around that keeps getting repeated by reputable outlets; that if it actually turns out to be true, would tie Tennent up for at least the next twelve to eighteen months. Maybe longer. All that speculation aside...skip the Hong Kong episode. Anything of import will be in the "previously on" in the next episode.
Reply
Robert Elisberg
2/1/2022 08:16:50 am
Without question, and ultimately there are many journeys that *could* be taken. But when you've told the story of the *main* one -- main, in terms of "this is how people generally travel to get between places" and "this shows as many countries and cultures to the audience as possible" -- getting viewers to care enough is the far-greater challenge than what the characters have to do. (Personally, I think that an entire series about traveling around the tundra for 8 weeks would be pretty limiting.) But yes, finding another story could be done. Whether it's one that can attract and hold an audience is the challenge.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|