Can a good movie adaptation of Huckleberry Finn be made? That's a serious question. I think the answer is probably yes, but I'll need to keep looking, because this one isn't it.
Huckleberry Finn is not a children's story, but because the protagonist of the story is a boy, I have a feeling that most movie versions treat it as such. And maybe that could work, but I think I would prefer the movie to find a way to treat it as a serious story with adult themes. I want to see Huck realize that he needs to "grow up," even as he tries to escape "being civilized."
Michael Curtiz directed this film, and he's capable of doing a much better job (see Casablanca as Exhibit A). Maybe by this point, his best work was long behind him, I don't know. Maybe the budget for this one wasn't that much, or maybe he didn't know what audience to make it for. Maybe he didn't know what the heart of the story should be. Maybe he just needed a better child actor in the role of Huckleberry Finn. I guess Eddie Hodges was okay in the part, but he's not a household name, and he only made a handful of films, none of which anyone remembers.
Archie Moore is a little better as Jim, but you get the feeling that this version didn't want to go too deeply into the Jim/Huckleberry relationship, and it didn't want to really address the topic of slavery.
Beyond that, this version isn't true to the novel. It changes some of the plot and deletes other parts. None of what it changes or deletes makes the story stronger, in my opinion.
Some of the camera shots are odd. Curtiz seems to like to set the camera on the ground and then aim up, mostly close-ups. I wonder if there was a purpose behind the technique, or if he was simply trying to shoot in a way to hide surrounding background. Not sure. I was also not satisfied with the blending of "real location" and "studio" shots. The river itself also felt puny a lot of the time, and they're supposed to be on the Mississippi, not some minor creek.
Finally, the technicolor just didn't pop the way it's supposed to. I'm not sure if that means the film needs a restoration, or if it just wasn't good to begin with.
This is an important novel to me, but unfortunately, this adaptation doesn't live up to the original material. The film. released in 1960, oddly felt like it could have been made a decade or two earlier...
Rating 1/5 stars

Comments
Post a Comment