Well, once again there's proof that the book is always better than the movie. Pudd'nhead Wilson was much more enjoyable to read than to watch. Movies frequently cut whole sections of a novel/novella in an attempt to keep the movie short. This does not work with Pudd'nhead Wilson because whole subplots were omitted, leaving a shallow and predictable storyline.
The movie failed to acknowledge Ton Driskoll's use of costumes to commit his thefts. Also, the book indicated that Tom and Roxy worked as a team to commit the thefts, as the movie merely hinted of the crime spree that Tom planned and executed, and played down Roxy's role.
Dave Wilson (aka Pudd'nhead Wilson) was presented as a veritable Sherlock Holmes in the movie, and the origin of his nickname was never even addressed. Wilson had respect throughout the movie, but in the book he is portrayed as a bumbling fool that earns the town's respect at the end.
There was no duel in the movie, and Judge Driskoll's murder was only briefly addressed in the movie. The book gives details of the planning and execution of the robbery/murder committed by Tom. Tom's persona in the movie was one of a spoiled adult/child who fell on hard times. The book shows Tom's sinister side, and how calculated he could be when breaking the law.
The movie was an insult to an educated person's intelligence. It accomplished only one thing: enjoyment with no thought required.
However, the book was fascinating in the way it paid such close attention to detail and kept the reader's mind racing.
What really bothered me about the film was that they switched around events, such as where in the story that Roxy tells Tom that she's his mother. That in conjunction with Tom calling her "mamie" all the time, I was really confused. and I disagree, I didn't find it entertaining at all. Just mindless and predictable dribble with a sub par plot rendering that could have once been a phenomenal Mark Twain story.
ReplyDeleteUgh it really bothered me that Dave Wilson was portrayed in a way that made him seem like another Sherlock Holmes. But not only in the movie was his nickname ever fully addressed, but he plays a background role in a book that was named after him. I just don't get it. Why didn't Twain pick a more relevant title? I don't know if that's the correct word to use, but you get what I am trying to say.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of you guys. After doing a close reading and a project on the book, one is able to find a lot of important themes running through the text with which most human beings can relate. The movie on the other hand didn't seem to uphold any of these ideas (and even when they were portrayed--they lacked the necessary weight that the text provided).
ReplyDeleteFrom seeing what you all have to say about the movie, I am glad I did not see it. I hate when movies ruin books. I think it is impossible to take an author who possesses the subtlety and need for context that Twain does and have those things transition into a good, accurate film.
ReplyDelete