Passing the Screen Test

By Valerie J. Nelson

July 12, 1998 12 AM PT

Valerie J. Nelson is an occasional contributor to Calendar

Turning a classic children’s book into a motion picture weighed heavily on producer Allyn Stewart. With “Madeline,” she would be toying with the memories of generations of children as well as trying to remain faithful to a story that would end up being culled from four books.

It’s a burden that also could be considered a boon, since author Ludwig Bemelmans’ ode to independence and Paris comes with a built-in audience--since 1939, “Madeline” has sold 10 million copies. The movie, which opened Friday, has received an “uncommon amount of attention,” she says, but staying true to the spirit of the book while making the movie was central to her vision.

“We were very aware of the dual responsibility of taking a classic piece of children’s literature, which has some magical reason for why it’s a classic,” Stewart says. “We spent a lot of time asking ourselves, ‘Why has this book been a classic for 60 years?’ Not many books achieve the status of ‘Madeline.’ ”

Maybe not, but that’s not stopping Hollywood from turning them into movies. About a third of more than 70 family films in development or ready for release are based on books written for children or young adults. For a family movie to make it at the box office, it must appeal to parents as well, which is why many of those being made today are based on books, says Robert Bucksbaum, president of Reel Source, a Los Angeles firm that tracks the industry.

“It doesn’t have to be recent,” he says. “It’s better that these are books that parents recognize when they were kids. ‘The Cat in the Hat’ [coming from DreamWorks] is a perfect example.”

Among the popular children’s books making their way to the movies are such perennial favorites as “Curious George,” “Stuart Little,” “Babar” and the current mega-selling “Goosebumps” series.

Just as in movies made mainly for grown-ups, a good book doesn’t automatically translate into a great movie. Yet filmmakers say certain common elements appear in films based on children’s books that strike a chord with the audience. They have strong central characters with whom viewers can identify--think of “Harriet the Spy” or Jo in “Little Women”--and a universal theme, usually the kid (or sometimes an animal, say a pig named Babe) against the world. The best ones often are mythic, such as “The Wizard of Oz.”

The box-office returns on movies based on children’s books have been mixed, from the current Eddie Murphy hit, “Dr. Dolittle,” a loose retelling of the Hugh Lofting story, to the disappointing audience response to “A Little Princess,” based on the Frances Hodgson Burnett novel.

To succeed, films based on children’s books must work on a number of levels, says Fonda Snyder, president of Storyopolis Productions. The company is currently in pre-production on a movie based on “Red Ranger Came Calling,” cartoonist Berkeley Breathed’s Christmas book about a 10-year-old’s encounter with a crusty hermit who may be the retired Santa Claus.

Humor and intelligence help, as does strong storytelling. Many contemporary movies pulled from children’s books have missed the mark because they make the mistake of being “too mean-spirited,” she says.

“There’s a mistaken sense of desire for buyers to equate commercial value with a mean spirit,” Snyder says. “They forget that children are knowing, and appreciate humor and a great story. When there’s heart in the material, it works for us.”

Storyopolis, established in 1995, is particularly well-placed to know what books are popular with children because it also has a Los Angeles bookstore and art gallery that showcases the work of children’s book illustrators. Producers and directors are always dropping in to find out what’s selling, says Dawn Heinrichs, Snyder’s sister and co-founder of the company.

Movie-makers who pay more attention to the value of the title than the message of the story are missing the point. “The thinking is, just because it’s a huge-selling title, it’s going to be a huge, successful movie,” Heinrichs says. “There are so many potholes along the way that can take away charm and value.”

The books in which Storyopolis is involved--such as “Red Ranger” and “The Iguana Brothers,” an animated buddy movie starring two iguanas--don’t have huge sales but “an incredible world that can be intimated in the visuals,” Snyder says.

It’s hard to judge the success of family films through their domestic box-office grosses, because many make their money through merchandising, or more often, videos, Bucksbaum says.

Michael Shamberg, one of the producers of the 1996 film “Matilda,” argues that a movie is a success if it becomes a part of popular culture, not just because it finally makes a fair amount of money when it gets to video. By that measure, “Matilda,” which grossed about $35 million and sold another $6 million in videos, is a success because of its “hugely successful afterlife,” Shamberg says.

It’s also important for the main character to be empowered, Shamberg and others say. Kids responded to “Harriet the Spy,” says Douglas Petrie, a screenwriter on the film, because they identified with its “me against the world message. Some of the producers wanted to lighten up ‘Harriet’s’ message, but the child audience isn’t being dragged back to some horrible childhood memory. They are being dragged back to last Tuesday.”

The producers of “Harriet” also didn’t want kids to think it was a story about their parents as kids--a very uncool move--so they made a conscious effort to set the film in a contemporary yet timeless setting, says Julia Pistor, vice president of production and development for Nickelodeon Movies (“Harriet” was the first movie to be produced by Nickelodeon, the popular children’s cable TV network.) “Harriet” was heavy on fresh dialogue and light on any brand names or technology that might quickly date the film.

Because children’s books dredge up sacred memories, the films based on them are fraught with inherent danger. Not only is there the question “Will the movie be as good as the book?” but also “Will it do justice to what we remember?” Pistor says.

Therese Bigelow, a past president of the Assn. for Library Service to Children, which gives out the Newbery Medal for children’s literature--sort of a Pulitzer Prize for children’s books and a stamp of approval many parents look for--says the books that have worked especially well as movies have a common thread: They don’t deviate dramatically from the book.

“Harriet” worked because it kept the wonderment of a child’s-eye view, she says, as did “Matilda” because it stayed true to Roald Dahl’s dark vision of the world.

For “Madeline,” the production team “went to great effort to create the palette of color and images used in the books,” Stewart says. “When audiences leave, they talk about how amazing Paris is,” which is where the movie was filmed.

For many filmmakers, the road to telling a children’s story is rooted in their own childhood. “Stuart Little,” E.B. White’s 1945 story about a heroic boy who is as small as a mouse, was one of producer Doug Wick’s favorite books when he was a child. The book also shares a common theme with other classics such as “The Wizard of Oz,” his favorite, in that it has a mythic element.

And “Stuart Little” has the me-against-the-world message working full tilt. “The idea of being 3 inches high and facing all kinds of obstacles in the adult world speaks to me as a child and an adult,” Wick says.

Petrie also has fond memories of “Harriet the Spy.” Because he had two older sisters, he was introduced to the book in the 1960s when he was a young child. It made being a writer seem like “the coolest thing in the world,” he says.

“In the case of ‘Harriet,’ the bedrock was such a good story,” Petrie says. “The themes were eternal. Every kid feels alone. Everyone feels the world is out to get them. The difference between a good kid’s movie and a bad one is respecting their emotional intelligence.”

“The Mighty,” based on Rodman Philbrick’s novel “Freak the Mighty,” about two disabled junior high boys who find they make a powerful team when they combine forces, will succeed because it “captures its audience,” Reel Source’s Bucksbaum predicts. The Miramax film, which opens Oct. 30, got a rave review from Variety when it was shown in Cannes this spring.

The best movies are those that stand alone, just as they stood alone as children’s books, says Bigelow, who is now a deputy director at the Kansas City Public Library. For instance, children still read Dahl’s “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” while the 1971 movie based on it, “Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory,” has “taken on a life of its own,” she says.

In general, movies based on the classics have a harder time finding an audience these days because parents aren’t making their children go to them, says Renee Missel, artistic director of the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, which is spotlighting children’s films from around the world Oct. 3-5.

The success doesn’t necessarily depend on how well-liked the book is or how well-marketed the movie is, but on whether parents will push the value of the classics, Missel contends. “If you let your child see any movie, why would that child go see an innocent film?” she asks. “Kids are seeing things made for an older audience.”

In addition, a classic, such as “A Little Princess,” requires a “thoughtful pace,” which doesn’t work on a young TV generation used to “three-second cuts,” says Missel, who is turning to other countries for the majority of children’s films that will be shown at the October festival.

The “Madeline” team was aware of the need for brisk storytelling, since the absence of it seemed to fell “a number of children’s films” of late, Stewart says. By pulling dramatic elements from the different books and hanging them on a larger framework--the imminent closing of the school covered with vines--they tried to come up with “a really strong, entertaining narrative in its own right.”

Still, to be a box-office success, “Madeline” will have to pull in the boys as well, which could be a daunting task for a film that features a dozen little girls. As a little insurance, the movie does have Pepito, the bad-hat boy who lives next-door, who saves the day on his Vespa and who ends up being “kind of a very cool dude,” Stewart says.

Just because an adaptation stars a boy doesn’t automatically mean it will be a hit, either. “James and the Giant Peach,” from the Dahl book, and “The Indian in the Cupboard,” based on the popular series by Lynne Reid Banks, weren’t as successful as they were expected to be. Some filmmakers blamed it on poor marketing, or an overestimation of a book title’s popularity.

When trying to deduce what makes such films work, Stewart says she doesn’t believe in trying to find a common thread. “The onus is on making a good movie, to arrive at the target. I think where the studios get into trouble, they try to play it safe. They’ll say, ‘Let’s follow this pattern,’ and unless you make a good movie, it doesn’t matter. A good story works for children and adults.”

Perhaps. But librarian Bigelow has another take on a child’s wish to see a favorite book turned into a movie. “For children, the characters take on a life of their own. They don’t want to let go of the characters in a story. Adults don’t read that way. Children do. Their enjoyment of the film is a carry-over of that.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Booked for Theaters

More than 20 movies based on children’s books are in the works. Here are some of those in the production hopper.

TITLE: “Babar”

AUTHOR: Jean De Brunhoff

PRODUCTION CO.: Nelvana

TITLE: “The Cat in the Hat”

AUTHOR: Dr. Seuss

PRODUCTION CO.: DreamWorks

TITLE: “Curious George”

AUTHOR: Margret & H.A. Rey

PRODUCTION CO.: Universal