When adapting a novel for film, many filmmakers (nobly) feel obliged to retain some modicum of loyalty to the original text. Not so, the makers of the 1956 adaptation of Jules Verne’s classic Around the World in Eighty Days, or its 2004 Disney remake starring Jackie Chan.
Both take a free and easy approach to Verne’s original, adding a balloon flight here, a bullfight there, a few extra countries, a few less French protagonists, more things hitting people or people hitting things, more appearances by Arnold Schwarzenegger… you get the drift.
In some (dare I say, most) cases it’s safer to stick to the book. The film is less likely to provoke the mindless bloodlust of an aggrieved readership that way and hey, the book was successful for a reason, right? (Plus these days the author may be reluctant to relinquish their baby to the silver screen unless they are granted creative domination suitable input in the creative process.)
Aha! But Around the World in Eighty Days ain’t your average read. Be honest, now – does it really strike you as film material “as is”? The fact is, while the story of one man’s race to circumvent the globe sounds terribly exciting, in all of Jules Verne’s 300-page tale not that much actually happens. (Which, oddly enough doesn’t make for a boring read. See here for previous thoughts on this indiosyncrasy.)
Disney tackled this problem by changing Verne’s storyline almost completely.
Just like it did in 1989 when a mermaid’s physical and emotional torment and eventual death was transformed into an inter-species happy ending, complete with charismatic crustacean.
In the present case, I particularly like the conversion of English protagonist Phileas Fogg.
The trailer informs us (in that quintessential Disney voice. Do they use the same guy or do they train them all to sound the same?):
“Inventor Phileas Fogg was a dreamer.”
No he wasn’t. It says right here in the book his only pastimes were “reading the newspapers and playing whist”.
Ah but he was at least an inventor, surely?
Wait, what was that again? Ah yes. Only pastimes. Newspapers. Whist.
Well, they do say you should never ruin a good story with the truth. Although the Razzie nomination for Worst Remake suggests it didn’t pay off this time, for all Jackie Chan’s endearing on-screen bumbling.
Perhaps Disney should have copied more than the insertion of a hot air balloon ride from Michael Todd’s 1956 adaptation. (Not in the book at all, by the by.)
If the plethora of Oscars bestowed on that production is anything to go by, a film needn’t be overly faithful to the novel provided the audience is appeased by a shopping list of star cameos, plenty of footage from exotic locations and a comic bullfight.
Failing that, I hear a well-placed Colin-Firth-jumps-in-lake scene goes a long way…
– DF
Share this post:
