OliviaBurgin

Once Upon A Time has always been problematic, and its creators rely on the excuse that it is based in fairytales and folklore that they are modernising. I don’t think they understand that in order to modernise something, you have to…well…modernise it. Perhaps in order to avoid being called anti-feminist, the writers believed that they must create “strong female characters” which are so often absent in classic fairytales, and it seems the only way they can think to do this is by giving them positions of power and making them cold, ruthless and therefore villains.

There’s a lot wrong with this show, and as much as it could be brushed off as something just a bit fun and quirky for young audiences, the themes within are certainly not always child-friendly, and even if it was just for family viewing, all the more reason to be conveying a better message about “strong women”. This show has a glaring absence of LGBT representation, and the people of colour in the cast almost always end up miserable, dead, or evil. The creators have been given numerous opportunities to change these things about their show and yet are clear on the direction they wish to take it in. I say that’s fair; it’s their show, but the viewing figures will continue to go down unless they do something, and there’s only so much of Lana Parrilla that you can show before you run out of ideas.

As the world becomes more tolerant I think the media has to adapt to keep up with its audience’s views, however I’d still count most popular TV as slightly behind the people they’re trying to reach. Transgender representation is not hugely abundant, but it’s there, and it’s a start. Things are clearly getting better a little bit at a time.

I agree with the general conclusion, as artistic license must be exercised when adapting. FIlm and literature are two entirely different, although not incompatible, modes of expression, and there is a world of difference between visual depiction on a screen and the abstract, non-linear and unrestricted world of the imagination. There is no way of making the two forms translate completely into one another because that isn’t how the human brain works. Filmmakers have to do their best with the raw plot material that a novel provides.

I also think that occasionally, taking license and not only distilling but also altering the exact detail and plot of a novel can often improve on the content. This is approaching the hazardous territory of “which is better: the film or the book”, which I am trying to avoid. However, I would like to say on behalf of film adaptations that, despite the common answer being “the book is always better”, I have seen adaptations where basic plot ideas and 2D characters have been taken and expanded upon, thus creating a film that gives more than its source material. Neil Gaiman’s “Stardust” is a short and thought-provoking (but not particularly serious) example of magic realism. The 2007 film adaptation directed by Matthew Vaughn stayed true to the characters and general plot, but expanded and worked the material into a fantasy epic that, although not a recognised masterpiece of cinematic prowess, is a huge-scale, imaginative, enchanting fairytale that I firmly believe should become a family classic. There are other examples of a filmmaker realising a novel’s sometimes unfulfilled potential and expanding and elaborating on it to create something wonderful.