Before I can get to David Farland, I need to touch on anothe life-changing literary event. Mrs. Cassidy read "A Sound of Thunder" to my class from a collected volume of science fiction stories called Wide Angle Lens, edited by Phyllis R. Fenner. (Read my earlier review of the book here.) I waited until Mrs. Cassidy was done reading the book to all the other classes and was the first student to check out the book. I got it, re-read "A Sound of Thunder" and every other story in the book. I was in love. Worlds near and far had been shown to me, and the magnificent book, the vehicle to get me there, had been opened to me. I read everything I could get my hands on. And the next major book I discovered became the next, major milestone in my literary reading career.
I believe in about early 1986, when I was nine, I discovered a really cool-looking paperback book my dad brought home, called Ender's Game.
I read the book from cover to cover and fell in absolute love with the book. It was the first time I read the book. Indeed, I believe my second time was not long after. I have read the book, as of this writing, 22 times; I used to read it annually. And to add to this, my son recently repeated my nine-year-old feat and read the book for his first time. One day, when he was in the next-to-last chapter, I went outside to find him on our porch in September, as the summer heat was waning for the year, deep into that chapter. When I came out on the porch to tell him his half-hour of required daily reading was finished, he told me to go away, he wanted to read.
I re-read the book now in the hopes of figuring out how to write a story with a similar technique. And without fail, every time I get going in the book, the story wraps me back in and engulfs me in the magic of the tale.
I even went to Ender Con in 2002, where I actually got to meet Orson Scott Card. (I congratulate myself on keeping my stuff together; it helped that I was friends with one of his dear college friends and with his bibliographer.)
As for seeing the movie on 1 November 2013, I wrote the following review. (I took my nine-year-old son to see this movie opening day.)
The Good Points:
I liked the tweak to the exterior of the Battle Room, showing stars and the earthscape out the window. I liked some of the portrayal of the interiors of the physical school itself, although I wish it had felt more curved. I liked a lot of the look and feel elements of the show. I think Asa Butterfield, Hailee Steinfeld, and Abigail Breslin did good jobs portraying the children at a specific range of the lives (a hard feat when you look at the book and the time period it covers). Even more controversial casting choices worked for me: Harrison Ford as Graff and casting Viola Davis as Anderson worked. I especially thought that Moisés Arias NAILED the little-man that Card described in the book as Bonzo (except that he was supposed to be physically bigger than Ender, but the portrayal was spot on). I also thought it an interesting choice to turn Bernard into a friend/acolyte in the end. I also liked the near-weightlessness they achieved for the battle room. Using some of Card's dialogue directly from the novel, that was good too. I applaud Hood for not Michael Baying the film, no fart jokes or other potty humor, no humping animals (or peeing or other bodily functions), no skin on the teenage girls, no foul-mouthed teen on the team, and no fart jokes. The film actually made the audience think.
Also, I applaud Hood for giving the sense of pseudo-military realism and for taking many of Card's ideas to fruition. I really liked the theme that Hood brought out: it's not the winning, it's how you win that counts. There was good wisdom that actually required the audience to pay attention.
The Compromise Points:
I understand some of the timing decisions, though I didn't agree with putting Dink in Salamander. But, almost all the major points of the story are there. I understand why, with the exception of the lake scene, Peter and Valentine were written almost completely out of the story, though Ender leaving without Valentine at the end of the movie was kind of a bummer. And eliminating Locke and Demosthenes was an understandable decision. Combining Eros and the unnamed colony planet at the end of the film was understandable, but still probably not the best we could hope for. I understand removal of the idea that SOME of our ships would be newer and at newer battle sites where as older, slower ships would be the ones arriving at the planet.
The Cringe Things:
Only one bugger attack? That's all it took to unify humanity (to the degree it unifies in the book and film) and develop all the scientific technologies and military ideologies that are portrayed in the film? Nothing moves THAT fast in this world, especially not governments. AND incorporating all that technology in 50 years? Never would happen. That's one place where no pacing of the film would have been lost if we had mentioned that Mazer beat the buggers out in space. I didn't like reducing the Little Doctor to one gunship that could get from battle one to the final battle, it implies that the buggers weren't far off from the human race, in distance, as implied in the book. That would have given us the time to develop as a race and technological advancements off captured bugger equipment.
I also didn't like the omission of Petra's breakdown. It made her less real and more cut-out. It was a very human moment in the story. (Also, there was a bit of a teenage love interest between Petra and Dink that could have been added in without loss of timing.) I also, despite my love of Sir Ben Kingsly as Mazer Rackham (a choice I agree with, on the whole) I think it would have made the story better for him to explain to Ender that he got accelerated to relativistic speed and brought back (this would solve my first problem about the difference in time jumping from F-35 jets to hyperspace technology in 50 years instead of possibly hundreds). I did not like that Hood was afraid to have Ender outright, and inadvertently (I might emphasize) kill the two boys he kills in the book. Not saying I'm a warmonger or want children killing each other, but I don't want . But, seeing the way Ender later reacts when he finds out that he accidentally It made the moral burden on Ender for the deaths of Stilson and Bonzo the more powerful and shadows of his upcoming war with the buggers. And I liked that Ender found the hidden queen egg on a new colony planet. I think his becoming Speaker for the Dead is a very important part of how he views his own redemption, if you will. AND one of my biggest let-downs was the lack of characterization with Bean. Having him be a younger than Ender and just as smart and less empathetic was kind of important for the story. (At least they did not deny the farewell of Alai from the launch group, though it almost felt superficial and trite.) I wish we could have seen Bean point out why Bonzo lost (not in the battle of two armies) which would have fueled Bonzo's murderous rage.
But...
These things being said, I enjoyed the film well-enough to give it four out of five stars. I will purchase it. I will hold it up there as a well-told story, on the whole. My son, loved the film. And I keep reminding myself to look at it as a film, not a book. It is a film INSPIRED by and BASED on Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card, not a line-by-line faithful recreation in visual format. I agree with Scott Card when he said that, in his opinion, the best way in which this book could be presented is the audio book format. Films are not the end-all-be-all of entertainment, many Americans just think they are. But, part of what makes Card's book so great is the richness of the language and dialogue he uses. Ender's Game becomes better with the addition of Ender's Shadow. The two, together make a great whole.
The movie was good. I will pay to see it again in the theaters. And, ultimately, the moral quandary presented through Ender to us as viewers is still there. Get this movie. Watch it. Watch it with your kids. Help them understand that more than one side exists for every story. This film does what every good SF film (and story) does: it leaves you with just enough answers for some satisfaction but not enough to leave a person with no questions. In short, it makes the receiver of the story think for their own self, which is something I've loved about SF all along.
On the whole, well done Hood, Card, Orci, Kurtzman and team.
No comments:
Post a Comment