Tell It to Me Again...

I’m a little muddled on the concept of the “re-telling” of story.

From what I've seen lately, I think the term has become quite confused and ill-used.

Webster’s Dictionary defines it simply as: a new version of a story

Dictionary.com gives a little more info with this entry:

a new, and often updated or retranslated, version of a story.

I always took it to mean someone else is conveying a previously told/created story using their own flair, wit and words and possibly adding a new element here or there, or (as the online Dictionary suggests) updating it to meet current trends.

For instance, the story of Cinderella has been around since, for all intents and purposes, the dawn of time. One version or another of a tale of a bedraggled and abused person coming to happiness and fortune by the aid of a presence beyond the normal scope exists in every culture for century upon century.  Along the way, storytellers have put their own spin, so to speak, fleshing out the well-known facts of this rags-to-riches narrative in another light, changing a bit to give it their own pizazz or making it seem fresh.  Take Charles Perrault, who brought us the glass slipper as opposed to the golden footwear. Is it the spirit of her dead mother in a tree or is it a Fairy Godmother that comes to her aid?  In essence, it doesn't really matter... so long as she does have a “supernatural” helper to some degree. And so, Cinderella is “re-told.”

So my idea of a the reason/form of retelling would simply be for an author to “put it” as s/he would in her or his own style and way but ultimately following the original plot.

Where it gets complicated, it would seem, is when it's applied to a story that is not derived from an undiscernable source (a la fairy/folk tales passed down via oral tradition) but rather a tale conceived of and set down by a particular author.  Lately I have seen the word describing stories that use such an established tale as a springboard to send the characters and/or plot in a new direction.

For instance, let’s say one wants to retell Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. This new version starts off with her following the White Rabbit down the hole and meeting most of the same wacky bunch of characters but now Alice finds the cookbook to control the potent size-manipulation and uses her knowledge of the chessboard (as we can assume that the new storyteller wants to bring in elements of Through the Looking-Glass as well) to become the supreme ruler of the wondrous place and does so permanently, never leaving 'Wonder-Glass World.'

Okay... to me, that’s not a retelling. That’s something else...a... hmm... I’m not really sure. The word “reimagining” is often bantered around, but I don’t think that quite applies either.

As I see it, a reimagining would be something that takes the premise and tweaks it into another way of looking at it. For instance, the Alice tales reimagined: Alice is a quantum physicist who stumbles into another ‘string’ of reality and becomes increasinly more insane as she tries to apply her knowledge of how our universe functions in a place where the behavior of matter (and customs) are quite different and 'break down' from our own.  However, for all this imagined-differently, Alice still winds up at a banquet table, plays lawn darts with a Queen, is put on trial and then escapes...hence, recounting, more or less, the original events through this lens of our modern scientist Alice.  But then... since this "version" follows the semi-exact path of the stories by Lewis Carroll, does it then become a retelling rather than a reimaging?

 

Let’s take an example that actually HAS built upon Alice. The Looking-Glass Wars series by Frank Beddor has been labeled a retelling, so it's a prime candidate for this argument. For those who don’t know, heir to the throne Alyss escapes from another world (you know where) into ours and tells mathematician/deacon Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (Carroll) her harrowing tale of her aunt (the Red Queen) having taking over the throne and the land with a bloody and iron fist. The main characters are there, but in almost complete other forms. The ‘rub’ is that Dodgson/Carroll got her true stories all shuffled up, mistaking her plight for fantasy and "told it wrong" thus creating the wacky “children’s story" we know. And so, Beddor presents us with the "real" story of Alyss/Alice.  But that’s not a retelling... is it?  Again, the Alice stories aren’t quite being TOLD in it... they’re being used.

For another example, would Sarah Gray's Wuthering Bites be a retelling?  (See this post.)

I don’t mean to suggest that new elements cannot be brought in, nor that the events of the new version/vision must follow the sequence of events to the letter. Far from it... as evidenced by the Cinderella example. But when one takes the story itself FAR FROM IT, that’s, well, another story...

From the realm of the silver screen, I put up Sydney White as an example of what a completely overhauled story can be like and yet STILL be considered a re-telling.  Sydney White reconstitutes the story of Snow White but on a college campus.  Is it one-for-one with the fairy tale?  Okay, no, not exactly.  But then again, the SPINE of the story is there.  The major elements from the original tale exist in one form or another -- the magic mirror is a social networking website at the school showing student popularity, the poison apple [very easily yet smartly done (I won't reveal how!)], the seven dwarves become the 'seven dorks' [all wonderfully 'translated:' Sneezy has major allergies, Doc is a grad student, Bashful has social development issues, etc.] -- and the story takes serious turns from the original such as an election for Student Body President... yet it flows along, quite obviously parallel to the famous tale we all know.  It's marvelously done.  Bravo to writer Chad Gomez Creasey!

So I put this question out there:

What is a retelling?
Can something be a “retelling” if the original tale is not actually being told?

And if not, what DOES one call such a novel/story that borrows the locales, concepts, characters and a smattering of events from another author's  (whether specific or not) story? 

And if you’re wondering: No, in my mind the bold & marvelous Hook & Jill by fellow author and friend Andrea Jones is not a retelling.  Andrea's work is grounded in the adventures the Darling children are having in the midst of Barrie's tale, but then veers from his events into a brand new adventure for every character in it.  Thus it’s a... an alternate timeline, perhaps?  Yet this term does not cover many (or most?) of the other such adventures (ahem!) re-told.

Is the word we need for such storytelling re-envisioning? Or maybe reworking?

Is it just me?  Why are we labeling things a retelling when they are merely based on another tale?  Am I unclear on the meaning of "retelling" or has the world gone mad with a misnomer?

IN TO HIS HEAD!

Just wanted to say that Tim Burton's Alice has yet to leave me. I listen to the enchaunting* theme by Danny Elfman at least once a week, if not a dozen times. I still want the Cheshire Cat to live with me. Bart still quotes some of his favorite lines from the Queen of Hearts.  I keep hearing one of Alice's speeches in my head.  Not so long ago Buttercup said she wanted to watch it again. I last saw it two weekends ago when my best friend Laughter had been in town. He'd only seen it once and took his kids, so his attention had been divided. How mesmerized he sat! Being a set designer, he takes a special interest in the artistry. I have now seen it seven times.

I've taken to saying "Fairfarren" as a salutation. I'd been getting bored with my usual "goodbye" words anyway.  Screenwriter Linda Woolverton coined Fairfarren. It means "May you travel far under fair skies." It fits perfectly into the world(s) of Lewis Carroll.

Note the paranthesis around the S there. Carroll brought Alice to two distinct places. The movie combines Wonderland and the Looking-Glass World. It seems like something that should ruffle my feathers. But I find myself loving it. Of course, I'd been warmed up to the idea by the "Mad Hatter and March Hare Connection" derived from Carroll's words and Tenniel's drawings. Plus, American McGee's Alice video game exploited this "through-hole" with expert ease. But in the case of Woolverton/Burton's, there is ever so much more interaction and intermingling of both places that it ultimately becomes one place, different regions.

In my last post love letter to this film, I mentioned that I'd been disappointed that the Mock Turtle and the Griffin had not been in the movie.  Technically they are in it - as a grand portrait and part of mural respectively.  Their fates are easily detemined, too.  The Griffin is shown fighting the Jabberwock.  Fairfarren, Griffin.  The Mock Turtle must have ended up as stew as per the Red Queen's statement of loving caviar.  My only "Aw, shucks" that prevents it from being 103% perfect for me comes in the scene of the White Queen's kitchen.  It seems a shame to have the March Hare be the one cooking.  Why not the use the character of the Cook here?  Although I do see the importance of showing the Hare having fled to the Queen.  An addendum to this is Alice remarking that it needs more salt.  Perhaps this is a nod to the There's certainly too much pepper in that soup! line in the original.  But I would have preferred she say "Needs more pepper" to have another indication of her grown-up tastes.  Other than that, just the title.

I've spoken to three people recently who were a little put off or confused by the title of the movie. As I mentioned in the other post, it is mis-titled. It's not a direct adaptation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland nor even Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.  All three of them had thought it would to be.  See?  It needs a different title.  (Watching the film should make you aware of that title.)

* Enchaunting - at once haunting & enchanting

Fairfarren, all.

Gilliam's Arc - A Flood of Films Flowing into Fantasy

I have now seen all of Terry Gilliam’s films.

Last Friday night, Buttercup and I watched Jabberwocky.
I rather liked it. It’s not the best movie, but it’s not bad either.

How does it fare in terms of a Gilliam flick?

Well, given that it’s his first movie (Monty Python films not included) it serves as a missing link, even though it comes first. How so? Well, Jabberwocky is very straightforward. Sure, it veers a little here and there, but it’s nothing like the double-backflipping and turning reality inside out as per Gilliam’s later movies. What this shows, then, is a definite arc of his work. From single-streamed story to various streams of consciousness flowing in and out of each other. A progression (or degeneration, however one chooses to look at it) of storytelling technique, getting less and less linear as he goes along.

At this rate, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote will be a series of semi-related images.
I jest. But it is interesting that as projects came, he beefs up the surreal quality each time.

And for the record, Jabberwocky pretty much follows the Lewis Carroll poem. It’s not a direct adaptation, not by a longshot. But it does tell roughly that same story. In fact, it's quite Monty Python-like. From the humor to the look of it. And having the always great Michael Palin as the guy who falls into being the hero bolsters that feeling. Thus, it stands to reason that as time went on in his films, Gilliam steered farther away from the Pythonic influence. I'd also like to say that Deborah Fallender did a great job as the princess. She played it rather like a medieval Marcia Brady.

And how did the famed monster look? It’s the second best brought to the screen (of 3.) Burton’s takes the Unbirthday Cake, to be sure. But Gilliam’s is impressive for 1977, certainly. And it’s much better (in terms of design and action) than the one in the 1985 made-for-TV Alice in Wonderland.

I’ve also come to realize that I’d been looking at the works Gilliam had written. There is, of course, also The Fisher King, Twelve Monkeys and The Brothers Grimm. I've seen each of those, too. And on the whole, I liked them as well. But each of them is a linear tale... although the fantastic hand of Gilliam is definitely present in each!

Trying to Grok Gilliam

A-N O-Z

MGM’s The Wizard of OZ is coming out on Blu-Ray.
It is, of course, the umpteenth time the film has worked its way into home video.
So why bother to get this version, too?

Well, besides the enhancement into uber-quality that Blu-Ray provides, Bart tells me that it will include a made for TV series which, I’d venture to guess, very few have seen since its first broadcast:

The Dreamer of OZ
The late, great John Ritter starred as L. Frank Baum in a biopic of how Baum came to create the magical land of OZ. And as far as TV movies go, it’s one of the better ones. I cannot be certain of the absolute accuracy of the production, as I’m not a scholar of Baum as well. (Though in my youth I did a great deal of looking into the history and such of Charles Lutwidge Dodgson [Lewis Carroll].) But I can say with certainty that it is highly entertaining. And I do know that a good deal of it is true. The movie follows him through life, much of which is plagued with hard times, showing his unbreakable spirit in not just creating stories, but his life in general. It's just plain charming.

Apparently this video has been on many people's "demand" list over the years.
And now it will be a special feature on the Blu-Ray.

I had the good fortune to be able to see it more than once, as I recorded it (for private viewing) to VHS tape. It will be nice to see it again in pristine imagery.

So even if you don’t want the OZ film again, at least rent the Blu-Ray version to be able to see this wonderful wizardry of fact and fiction.

The London WE Saw...

Bart and are not exactly typical tourists. (Really?) Oh sure, we wound up looking for the Clock Tower (which harbors the bell Big Ben) at Parliament and gaped at the sheer magnificence of Westminster Abby and had a drink or two in Soho… but then again, we didn’t fall just for the tourist “traps,” either. Such as the Tower of London and Buckingham Palace. Nope. Didn’t see those.

We each had our own agenda driving our needs and wants during the visit. Bart, you see, relished in seeing the various locales of Edina Monsoon and Patsy Stone from the TV series Absolutely Fabulous. And me? Some of my fascination spots arose from songs of the Pet Shop Boys. Hey, it made us happy, all right? :)

However, we both shared a desire to visit “Literary London.” Besides being amazed by “Poet’s Corner” in Westminster Abby (where many of the greats are either buried or honored) we also sought out such places as Baker Street, an actual street that is the fictional home of Sherlock Holmes. In fact, it’s no longer fiction, sort of… For anyone going to London, I cannot recommend The Sherlock Holmes Museum highly enough. It’s delightful. It’s literally like walking into Holmes’s residence. You’ll find items from his various cases, his equipment and desk, portraits… all manner of decoration to pass as a believable and entertaining home and display. Dr. Watson even greets you and will chat with you, in character.


Like many who travel to London, I'm sure, we wound up at Paddington Station from Heathrow Airport. I bet you know who had been (and can be) found there!



I delighted in haunting Pan’s favorite places… Kensington Gardens, of course. Seeing the many places from the book. I’m quite happy I found the “gravestones.” But we also walked around Bloomsbury, where the Darlings lived. (And Barrie's house, as I described last post.)

We tromped up and down stairs in Charles Dickens’s boyhood home with many vintage genuine articles (quite actually, in fact, such as his papers, the periodicals [that became the novels]) and furniture, portraits and the like. A tremendous thrill.

We stared out at the Thames, thinking of Lewis Carroll entertaining Alice and her sisters in a boat. (Even though this would have happened outside of London proper.)

And what's England without the Bard? We attended As You Like It at Shakespeare's Globe.

We marveled at how easily Jack the Ripper (not fictional, mind you, but certainly legendary in many stories) could have stalked the streets. Such angles and small streets and corners… no one would know him coming.

We even found a Barber Shop on Fleet Street, where Sweeney Todd could have been. But we dared not hunt for Mrs. Lovett’s shop, lest we be tempted if we felt hungry. (Yes, I know it’s not really anywhere.)

So… there you have it. A good mix of places to see… at least for crazies like us.

A Rose By Any Other?

I’ve been struck with one of those ideas which is either vaguely brilliant or alarmingly dreadful. The kind that both wants to be seen and also never come to light. At least I think so. Before I tell you what it is, please note that I do not intend to tackle any such project. I’m just as much on the fence about it as I suspect you will be.

Let me begin with a terse rant about the Hollywood remakes. Yes, they exist. And yes, they always have existed. Lately they seem to be dominant. Love them or hate them (generally I hate them) they are here to stay. Some have been good, most bad. But I’m not going to pontificate on those. Point being they do exist, for better or for worse. If you want to hear me rant more on this subject, you can find it here.

Sometimes, however, a good reason or outcome is included with the re-do of films. I’ll give you two examples. Oddly (or not so oddly), they both deal with horror movies. Not surprising, I suppose, taking into consideration that horror movies, especially, are getting remade. (Now that’s an entirely different subject of exploration: why are we bent on remaking horror?)

Clive Barker had been approached to remake Hellraiser. For those of you who do not know, the Hellraiser series, as it pertains to Barker, is more than initially appears. I’m not trying to convince you it’s good nor that you should like it. I’m just relating that a great deal of thought and inventive mythology went into its creation. (As well as the comics it spawned.) When approached, Barker declined. Told that the remake would be done with or without him, Barker responded (paraphrasing): “Okay then, I guess I could stand to revisit my work and see what I can come up with now…” I love that…an author “invited” to rework their own work.

Sam Raimi, before Spider-Man, had a big hit with the Evil Dead series. This series has its own inherent oddities of creation, but perhaps I’ll discuss those another time. When the prospect of an Evil Dead remake came up, Raimi gave his blessing! I love the reason why. He wants to be able to watch his story through the eyes of another director and creative team. Curious how else it might be done, he allowed it gracefully. Very cool. I have to say I had not been charmed to remaking Evil Dead. Until I read Raimi’s reaction.

Now I’d like to turn your attention to the comic book world. I’m the peripheral sort of comic book guy. I like them a lot and a know quite a bit about a great much of it. In other words, enough to get by. But one of the things that anyone can see is: character design evolves. It may be obvious that it would…but that doesn’t make it any less important. New artists draw the character differently. Or perhaps new elements are introduced. All in all, fresh styles and visions come about. There may be exact guidelines touching upon it, but it’s a new perception all the same.

It also applies to characters from other than the comics. It might seem that they are static at first thought, but even icons Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse have undergone changes throughout time and artists.

Another area that has benefited from re-imagining is video games. From "re-inventing" 2-D to 3-D to upgrades in character desgins and the like, there is no denying that the world of video gaming has had many guises under the same umbrella.

Let us not forget the stage. Re-staging is a common term and practice, one that is even desired.

The music industry is no stranger to the idea either. Songs are "covered" all the time. To both sweet and sour results. And it's not just the "mainstream" music. We are always delighted to hear a different orchestra's rendition and/or a noted conductor's take on classical pieces.

Wondering what my point is? What is this "big, crazy-enough-to-work but please don’t try it" idea? Remakes of Novels. An author who writes the same story of another author into his or her own style. All of the same story elements, characters (and names) would exist and the sequence would be the same…but written anew, with different language and words to tell the story. For instance, what if Stephen King “rewrote” Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland? Re-read Peter and Wendy written afresh by Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Illusions).

I bet you can think of a great many “What Ifs?” along this vein. I’m trying not to…

(I’m sure someone will tell me that it’s already been done. If that is the case, then it’s mea culpa for not hearing about it. But it's just as well I not know.)

Losing Myself in Another Read...

LOST. No, not the television show.
Lost by Gregory Maguire of Wicked fame. He works with pre-existing stories here, too. This novel supposedly ties together Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, Lewis Carroll’s “Alice Adventures” and also, yes, Sir J.M. Barrie’s Peter Pan.

So far it’s clever in how they show up. As of right now, they are merely referenced by the character, a writer. Such as Pan having been brought to mind by something and then later, when she’s alone in a storm and freaked out, the window shade goes up and she wonders if Peter is trying to get in…as an amusing thought, not wondering in earnest. It also certainly seems like she is a descendant of the real Scrooge on whom Dickens based his story. It has the potential to be rather fun. Especially now, as it's ghost story in some capacity.

I have noticed, though, that he misspells the name of Barrie’s famous fairy. Frankly, this appalls me. Either Maguire or an editor should have checked on that, don’t you think? I believe Maguire should have, as he is the one referencing the character.

I’m not very far into it. I’ll give a report when I’m done. It will probably be a while. It’s a pretty good-sized book and as I’ve said, I primarily read in transit.