Richard Radcliff Trice Reviews: A Wrinkle In Time
As a bibliophile, Richard Radcliffe Trice is one of the millions who have read Madeleine L’Engle’s novel A Wrinkle In Time. This much-beloved classic is a journey in fantasy steeped in religious metaphor. It captured the imagination of a young adult genre that voraciously absorbed works of magic and science fiction.
The Premise “A Wrinkle in Time” is the story of Meg Murry, a thirteen-year-old who, with the company of Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which, goes through time and space to different dimensions. She seeks out the tesseract, and with it, her father. Along the way, she tries to overcome the forces of evil.
Like other fans of the book version, Richard Radcliffe Trice has looked forward to the movie adaptation developed by Disney. There are some notable departures he’d noticed between the book and the movie.
(Be warned: beyond this point are spoilers.)
1. Meg’s twin brothers do not appear in this film, and Charles Wallace is adopted There are some changes to Meg’s family in the movie. Sandy and Dennys, the twins, did not feature much in the book, so Disney may have considered them inconsequential to the plot. Charles Wallace (aged six in the movie) has been explicitly described as adopted, though no such indication appeared in the book.
2. The movie eliminates some magic Richard Radcliffe Trice thinks that some magical concepts are another book element that was removed in the film. Disney has likely opted to take away the centaur transformations and witchy descriptions, among others, to focus on a more science fiction approach. However, it feels as though something is lacking in the film without them. With the fantasy elements gone, everything seems to lean more into science.
3. Christian symbols and features are no longer there This omission may be one of the movie’s most significant points of contention. The treatment of the book was somewhat heavy-handed on Christian references. However, all of them do not appear in the movie. Is this due to Disney or the director trying to make the film more secular to appeal to a broader audience? Perhaps. But fans of the book will undoubtedly feel jarred by the removal.
Ultimately, the movie can stand by itself as what it's called: an adaptation. The differences between the book and the movie are striking. In the end, it’s a matter of what appeals the most to you as the viewer. It is depicting the same story in a new language. Whether it is one that you will accept and understand is mainly dependent on your preferences.
The Premise “A Wrinkle in Time” is the story of Meg Murry, a thirteen-year-old who, with the company of Mrs. Whatsit, Mrs. Who, and Mrs. Which, goes through time and space to different dimensions. She seeks out the tesseract, and with it, her father. Along the way, she tries to overcome the forces of evil.
Like other fans of the book version, Richard Radcliffe Trice has looked forward to the movie adaptation developed by Disney. There are some notable departures he’d noticed between the book and the movie.
(Be warned: beyond this point are spoilers.)
1. Meg’s twin brothers do not appear in this film, and Charles Wallace is adopted There are some changes to Meg’s family in the movie. Sandy and Dennys, the twins, did not feature much in the book, so Disney may have considered them inconsequential to the plot. Charles Wallace (aged six in the movie) has been explicitly described as adopted, though no such indication appeared in the book.
2. The movie eliminates some magic Richard Radcliffe Trice thinks that some magical concepts are another book element that was removed in the film. Disney has likely opted to take away the centaur transformations and witchy descriptions, among others, to focus on a more science fiction approach. However, it feels as though something is lacking in the film without them. With the fantasy elements gone, everything seems to lean more into science.
3. Christian symbols and features are no longer there This omission may be one of the movie’s most significant points of contention. The treatment of the book was somewhat heavy-handed on Christian references. However, all of them do not appear in the movie. Is this due to Disney or the director trying to make the film more secular to appeal to a broader audience? Perhaps. But fans of the book will undoubtedly feel jarred by the removal.
Ultimately, the movie can stand by itself as what it's called: an adaptation. The differences between the book and the movie are striking. In the end, it’s a matter of what appeals the most to you as the viewer. It is depicting the same story in a new language. Whether it is one that you will accept and understand is mainly dependent on your preferences.
Comments
Post a Comment