...
Show More
After watching Wes Anderson’s brilliant film version a couple nights ago, I wanted to return to the book, which I haven’t read for some years. I was surprised by how closely the film follows the book, and also interested to see the many ways that the film Wes Andersonified the source material to fit his oeuvre.
Roald Dahl’s original story is short, funny, and endearing. It was one of his earlier children’s books (preceded only by James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and The Magic Finger). His trademark style is there, but it feels a little restrained. Anderson in some ways magnified the Dahl-ness of it for the film version.
The main distinction between book and film is each creator’s concept of fatherhood. Dahl loves a caring, engaged, “sparky” father, and Anderson almost always features an arrogant, self-absorbed father (though in this case, Mr. Fox learns his lesson and becomes that kind of father—we hope!—by the end of the film). Both versions of this story work perfectly.
Roald Dahl’s original story is short, funny, and endearing. It was one of his earlier children’s books (preceded only by James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and The Magic Finger). His trademark style is there, but it feels a little restrained. Anderson in some ways magnified the Dahl-ness of it for the film version.
The main distinction between book and film is each creator’s concept of fatherhood. Dahl loves a caring, engaged, “sparky” father, and Anderson almost always features an arrogant, self-absorbed father (though in this case, Mr. Fox learns his lesson and becomes that kind of father—we hope!—by the end of the film). Both versions of this story work perfectly.