A perfectly good classic was needlessly “adapted” to Hollywood diversity and commercial suicide.
How can investors sink money into Hollywood diversity celebrations instead of entertaining stories?
Everyone who loved reading the classic children’s book, A Wrinkle in Time, knew that the movie would be horrible. They knew it as soon as they saw Oprah Winfrey in the movie trailer. The move is not doing well and Disney is pretending to be surprised.
Who “invests” in these kinds of movies? Who says, “I don’t want to get blockbuster returns for the money I sink into this movie because I want half the audience to be driven away by ‘diversity’ content because that makes me righteous”?
A fool and his money are soon parted.
James Dawson writes as The Federalist, “It’s Official. ‘A Wrinkle in Time’ Is A Disastrous Adaptation Of The Book.”
Although movies featuring original characters whose physical attributes have been unspecified elsewhere are legitimate equal-opportunity roles for any actors, deviating from already established characters turns a project into either a sort of alternative-reality racelifted remake (the black-cast versions of “Annie” and “Steel Magnolias”), a re-imagined novelty (“The Wiz”), comic exploitation (“Blacula”) or a display of randomly colorblind inclusiveness (a black Human Torch in the most recent “Fantastic Four”). All of those swaps are distracting enough to seem like gimmicks, even if an appearance-miscast actor gives an otherwise adequate performance.
Teenage Meg Murry and her mother, both white like the rest of their family in the 1962 “A Wrinkle in Time” novel, are portrayed in this film version by black actresses Storm Reid and Gugu Mbatha-Raw. Dad is played by Caucasian Chris Pine. Because Meg’s precocious younger brother Charles Wallace is played by Filipino-American Deric McCabe, this results in the absurdity of the character now being identified as adopted, presumably because it would be hard to believe he could be the product of Mbatha-Raw and Pine’s union. Two twin brothers from the book are missing entirely from the movie, which may be a blessing, considering that political correctness probably would have dictated they be played by a Native American dwarf and a disabled transsexual.
The irony of making changes like these to a book in which Meg herself states that “like and equal are not the same thing at all” apparently was lost on those responsible. (Then again, the line does not appear in the movie, possibly because the filmmakers knew they had sabotaged said theme.) Also, it’s unfortunate that the film eliminates the novel’s references to Christianity that resulted in it being banned from some libraries. Inclusion apparently has its limits.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com