We went to a fire work party last night at a friends house, the house had been done up semi Halloween and part Guy Fawkes so all very well. He also had some items from Alice in Wonderland/Looking glass on display. Which brought about a discussion on the Caterpillar in Wonderland.
Everyone there insisted the Caterpillar was called Absolem (or similar) while my wife, my friends mother in law and me insisted the caterpillar was never named in the book.
As we were outvoted we agreed to disagree.
On looking it up this morning on the web we were right the caterpillar was never named, it was the Tim Burton film of a couple of years ago that gave the caterpillar a name.
Then thinking about it I wonder if any of them have ever read the original book?
Films have a lot to answer for in misleading and misinforming our youth by their blatant alterations and falsehoods. Another film came to ming The Enigma files, in the film the Americans found the enigma machine, in real life it was the British and not a yank in sight.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Interesting. I would imagine that most of the people would have read the book at some distant point in their lives, but having seen the film more recently the layering effect of new ‘information’ would mean that this would come to the memory if asked to name the caterpillar. I know when I watched the film I was certain he hadn’t had a name in the book, but probably assumed that was my failing memory, rather than going back to the book to check!
I am very fond of the book – it was one of the first books my son ever read to himself once he had mastered ‘silient reading’ – when he was just 6.
Rick – A subject very dear to my heart!
I wouldn’t go to war over whether the Caterpillar in the Alice books had a name or not, but I’m really fed up with TV and Hollywood spreading inaccuracies about real events such as the Enigma files.
I read some comments on a Telegraph article a few days ago – were you aware that Britain did nothing in WWII – it was America and Russia who combined to fight Germany and that Britain just ‘tagged along’? No? Neither was I, and, fortunately, neither did some other bloggers. *** Hollywood has much to answer for… !
I’ve given up looking at historical films – my blood pressure won’t stand the strain!
And I’m wary of looking at ‘interpretations’ of books that I’ve read and enjoyed. We saw ‘The Lord of the Rings’ Part I and I was appalled. We went to Part II and I gave up. I got some rather odd looks when I commented (rather more loudly than I intended!) that I was pleased to see that the credits said that it was only based on Tolkein’s work since it bore little resemblance to his books.
A fair and relevant point. However, anyone who believes films and TV to be correct is sadly gullible anyway, surely? Even, apparently, the BBC gets it wrong sometimes! š
The world of film and the like is designed to be escapism and so I never really concern myself with its accuracy.
If the fantasy of a film is based on the fantasy of a book, it is still merely a fantasy anyway!
When true stories are turned into film, the onus should be on the watcher to accept that artistic licence requires a suspension of disbelief anyway. I, for example, watched with the teenagers last night a film based on a true story called “Unstoppable”. I enjoyed it on a simple level, but I will have a little bit of interest in looking it up later to see how accurate it was as clearly, some things that happened on screen was ridiculous. I don’t curse the film makers for being wrong!
For the record, for some strange reason I never read Alice or Lord of the Rings – but there again it haven’t watched the films either!
I went to a spectacular Bonfire night with the kids beforehand – and was delighted that they knew quite a lot about the reason why we celebrate it every year. I was tempted to encourage them to burn more catholics, but I resisted š
Oh dear, so many typos, sorry. Must go slower……
Cuprum
You expect rather a lot from Joe Blogs. If a film is called “Alice in Wonderland:” or “The Enigma Files” or is publicised as being the story of William Wallace (Braveheart) then surely Joe Blogs might reasonably expect that the film is a a faithful reproduction of the book or events…
The qualifying clause stating that it has been ‘based’ on a specific book or ‘does not represent real events or people’ and which is displayed for a few seconds at the end of the film, as people are leaving the cinema, is quite inadequate.
Oh I agree Boadicea, it is asking a lot. And I agree the qualifying clauses are usually inadequate. But the general population being stupid is their problem, not Hollywood’s! When I watched “Raise the Titanic” at the cinema (the first film I saw without parents), I didn’t for a moment believe it was true. Even as 10 year old or whatever I was, I know what was shown on the screen was simply not possible. It didn’t ruin the film (although it was a rubbish film with hindsight) for me as I had a brain cell or two, even at that age.
The Lion, Witch and Wardrobe films are beautiful films, but do go off the books’ plot lines and aren’t even close to the wonderful imaginary world my brain pictured when I read the books, but they are still beautifully made films and it doesn’t detract from them by not being close to the original words on the page. Tolkien was all about the imagination – no person could ever made the film as he saw it apart from the great man himself, or every individual who read the books. And as for Braveheart, anyone who thought that was accurate probably believes Kevin Costner was Robin Hood and that the Sheriff of Nottingham cancelled Christmas! Let them live in their ignorant world, it leaves us sensible people a source of amusement. (er…smiley for extreme tongue in cheek please?)
Cinema is pure escapism, nothing more, nothing less. Sometimes it has other positive attributes, but it is entertainment in a very simple form. Even Michael Moore would agree with me I’m sure. (er, not that I agree with him….oh crap, I’ve tied myself up nicely here…. š )
I went to see “Tinker, Tailor”, the new film version and was sadly disappointed. The original TV adaptation stuck very closely to Le CarrĆ©’s book and had that wonderful music as well as excellent actors. As for the film, well I can understand why they moved some of the action from Prague to Budapest, the latter being cheaper to film in, but why they decided to make the Peter Guillam character a homosexual when in the book he is definitely a ladies’ man, I have no idea. Was it to let the Yanks think that their weird preconceptions of English civil servants was correct? I realise that a TV adaptation over several episodes has more opportunity to develop characters.
Apparently either BBC3 or BBC4 is currently showing a TV adaptation of “The Slap”, which I am not watching. I thought the book was dreadful, so will be unable to comment on how faithful the adaptation is to the original. Perhaps antipodean Charioteers have some opinions? Daughter invited me to go with her to see “We need to talk about Kevin” this afternoon, but since that is another book I did not enjoy, I declined.
It is now well-known that the Americans won the war singlehandedly, fighting on dozens of fronts simultaneously. Hollywood does not understand the damage it does to the image of the USA.
TV features and films are entertainment and reflect the views of the creative people behind the programmes. Anyone who thinks otherwise is gullible. However, TV SHOULD also be informative in documentary and news reporting, but rarely is, completely truthful, reflecting the prejudices of the producers!
I tend to agree with all here. No we never went to war over the name, but it did have us all thinking. I did see the Tim Burton adaptation and thoroughly enjoyed it, I never picked up the name maybe because I knew he was not named in the book. I normally avoid films of books I have read, but things like Alice and other fantasy/fairy tales are different.
On TV recently they made a series of Mark Billinghams boo Sleepy Head, the series was a bit weak I thought and no where near as riveting as the book. I know Mark and told him so, and yes we still chat.
It is history that gets corrupted beyond belief that gets me, okay maybe poetic licence in places but rewrites??
Like many I too am fed up of seeing the US as the war winners and the UK having a bit part, with very little mention of the help we got from the colonies.
Perhaps the USA just doesn’t want to mention the other colonies, RR. Might detract from its own glory.
I gather that ‘Anonymous’ has not been released in the UK/Australia yet?
If you think that the yanks winning WWII singlehanded is bad news, wait till you see that Shakespeare never wrote a word! The Earl of Oxford did it all!!!!
Strangely enough the exactly the same discussion was being held last night on the BBC World service.
The general thoughts were that the young were so undereducated that they were likely to believe any trash they are peddled as they would not have read the book.
As I’m sure we all know the Americans invented the printing press, gunpowder, the automobile, and was the first country to industrialise. We should all be equally aware that the USA single-handedly turned the tide in favour of the victors in the Punic Wars, the Kalinga War, and the Battle of Dan-no-Ura. It must also not be forgotten that every single one of these battles was fought by people who spoke either with a Californian accent or, on occasion, Irish Brogue.
There are a lot of people in the US, some more confused than others. Educated conservatives are generally Anglophile and have a grasp on the impact that the United Kingdom and its empire had on world history. There are a few who are convinced of their innate superiority, but it isn’t quite as universal as it seems. I’ll leave the leftists alone as they tend to be so isolated in their own little enclaves that they really cannot be held to account for their comments or actions, they’re simply not like the rest of us.
As for Enigma, let us not forget the Poles. They were, after all, the ones who did the most. The British were simply fortunate to have received it from them and made proper use of it.
Cuprum – the Lord of the Rings may have been ‘beautifully’ filmed – but the story was changed beyond recognition. There is no excuse for that.
FEEG – Historical documentaries have become little more than a fairy story told in a sepulchral voice. I watch them for the pictures since the producers take me to places I will never visit.
RR – I watched the first of the Billingham dramatisations – it wasn’t weak it was dreadful!
Christina – Anonymous is about to open here. I intend to give it a miss.
Christopher – many years ago I visited Disney in Florida. Amazing place… as you say, the US invented just about everything!
Oh I really want to see Anonymous, but as ever, am having to pester people in work to go, since other half and friends are not interested…
Your comment, Boa, reminds me of something that Hilary Mantell once said; she called a lot of modern historical fiction ‘chick lit with wimples.’
I love it – “Chick lit with wimples”. Thanks Bleuebelle. š
That is quite alright. My bog standard education did not, unfortunately, include English history; kings and queens and the like, so I have learned about history via the distorted prism of chick lit wiv wimples..
Can you restore me on here…?
I don’t know how I managed to delete myself…
Bleuebelle – I was idly trying to come up with an adequately colloquial translation of that lovely little phrase into French, when I stumbled across Verlan, a slang form I had never encountered before. My goodness, it’s difficult for a foreigner, innit?
mais si. Une meuf est une meuf š
Boa read Billinghams books, they are good and all take place in the neighbourhood I grew up in. Finchley, Archway, Highgate.
As for Lord of the Rings I have to say I disliked the book and the Hobbit as I disliked Harry Potter. But I did enjoy the films even if they were not true to the books.
Which is uncomfortably close to milf. š
You should be restored now, but things have changed at WordPress, so you may have to click on something in the e-mail that has been sent. Let me know if you have problems. š
Hello Rick,
Don’t get me started on Last of the Mohicans. I watched the film a few years ago. Stunned by the cinematography, music, acting and plot then I read the book. Fenimore Cooper should be scalped for writing such drivel. Hollywood wins this round.
š
Je t’en remercie… š
BB
Hilary Mantel is the author of that dreadful distortion “Wolf Hall”…. get a real history book š
RR – the problem with the Beeb’s production was because I have read and enjoyed all of Billingham’s books!
I did enjoy the Lord of the Rings – I have a BBC radio production of them. It is good and an accurate if somewhat abbreviated, dramatisation of the books.
De rien. š
Thank you…
Boa, did you really hate Wolf Hall? Do you think historical fiction has any value at all, then?
BB
I really, really hated Wolf Hall!
I think historical fiction can be excellent… it was reading historical fiction that made me want to find out the ‘facts’ behind the stories. There are some good authors around. I especially like reading different fictional interpretations of historical people.
Historical films drive me crazy – especially films like Braveheart which have Isabella, the wife of Prince Edward going to bed with William Wallace. For starters, Edward wasn’t even married to Isabella when Wallace was executed (OK Scots! – murdered!) in 1305. She was only about ten years old at that time and still living in France…
As I said earlier – these sort of films should make a disclaimer right at the beginning that they are they are NOT historically accurate.
Good historical fiction will usually carry a list of books consulted, and tell the reader where the author has deviated from historical fact.
What was it you disliked about it? Was it the style, the tone, the unconventional use of minor sentences/Non Standard English, or simply a sense that it was not historically accurate?
I disliked the style – it was, in my view, written more with an eye to winning a prize (which it did) for unconventional (and obscure) English than for the story it was trying to tell.
Much as I admire Thomas Cromwell for his brains and ability, no one in the world could ever describe him in the way that Mantell does. He was utterly ruthless…
Try Alison Weir “The Lady in the Tower” to see just how quickly and ruthlessly Cromwell could and did act when he found himself threatened… š
Oh, will do, then…thanks for the tip.
I daresay that historians are an entirely different breed to writers/literary buffs, and I have only just discovered that fact.
I have joined a local historical society because of my interest in the civil war in Lancs. I have been somewhat taken aback by the amount of nitpicking and bickering over all kinds of bits of historical trivia; I have suddenly found myself surrounded by fierce prescriptivists rowing about RIchard lll and the type of cannon fodder used in the Lancashire civil war – as opposed to the vague, semi hysterical flouncing and bouncing of the literary kind. It is terrifying – almost hilarious as well – to someone from a sort of dribbling literary background…
Boadicea – your #13 – I can’t comment – I watched the first half an hour of the first LOR film and fell asleep – it is the only film I have ever fallen asleep to – it was that boring. Living in NZ as I was at the time, I was considered to be the son of the devil for not liking it! I couldn’t get into the books either, despite loving The Hobbit.
However, whether it followed the book or not, it is still a fantasy about a fantasy and as FEEG said, open to the interpretation of the film makers.
Not that I’m a film maker, but it must be very difficult, even with CGI, to recreate on screen what is on a page. May I be so bold as to suggest that any one of us would struggle to recreate our favourite book onto the silver screen? I’m dreading the filming of the “Reacher” series by Lee Child – they’ve cast bloody Tom “I believe in Aliens” Cruise as the lead when he’s clearly 14 inches too short! Outrageous!
As for historical films, I again repeat myself, the watcher should expect the big screen film to be inaccurate, not the other way round! Especially if Hollywood is involved. Unfortunately the disclaimer, even if there, wouldn’t be in large capitals at the beginning with a fanfare because cinema is about entertainment, not education.
However, I do agree it is irritating! But not so when you expect it by default! š
By the way – having researched the “Unstoppable” film (don’t bother unless you are a die hard Denzel Washington fan), the true story is far more interesting but not as dramatic. But, the fact remains, it interested me enough to look it up, which can only be a good thing!
I too fell asleep in Lord of the Rings….
never lived it down.
Lord of the Rings bored me stiff, both the book and film.
The only bit I thoroughly enjoyed were the trees going to war, I always used to imagine trees walking when I was a child, I used to sit up them for hours in our wood, heavens knows why retrospectively. I must have been well on 40 before I stopped climbing trees.
Agree with Bo about Wolf Hall, terribly dragged out to allow for a sequel, got bored and didn’t bother to finish it.
It took me an age to read Wolf Hall, I absolutely hated the style to begin with. Strangely, I enjoyed it in the end. It was a novel, and anyone who could transform Thomas Cromwell into a vaguely likeable human being deserves a medal, or indeed, a prize. š
I’m delighted that it wasn’t just Bearsy and me who disliked Wolf Hall!