Illumination, and the loose Seuss Adaptation
There’s a gigantic company called Illumination
who are one of the biggest in animation.
Back in the day they adapted a book
from Dr. Seuss was the story they took.
The novel of choice? The Lorax, of course,
but regrettably, they failed to respect the source.
The Lorax after all, was a cautionary tale
of the rampant danger of unrestrained sale
Warning how we justify our habits of greed
To convince someone’s want is the same as their “thneed”
So it’s awkward when The Lorax, who speaks for the trees
Is found in a commercial that sells SUV’s.
Oh how we justify our habits of greed.
Now, I wouldn’t hold that against the film on its own
But the movie still didn't yield much more than a groan.
And the film did quite well, last that I heard
but that’s likely due to brand than from greatness deserved.
Six years have passed, and now it hardly says a word.
Now, Illumination is back in 2018
with another Seuss work fit for the big screen.
Released in November for the holiday season
when movies are great for families to ease in.
So what story to grab? That one’s a cinch.
Of course they decided to pull out The Grinch.
It’s been long enough, 18 years just about
since that awful Jim Carrey thing came out
But The Grinch still generates plenty of clicks
since Chuck Jones made that special back in ‘66.
So The Grinch now exists in a theater near you
And your family probably wants to see it too.
The ultimate question: is it worth it to view?
Well, maybe, I guess. But the film reeks of less.
Harmless, toothless, and largely useless.
It came without edge, and it came without flaw;
in fact, it came with practically nothing at all.
Which brings me here, with plenty to write
about all the issues that clutter my sight.
Illumination, the company that summons the Seuss
and the several adaptations that all turn out… too loose.
Illumination, the giant cartoon company
A brief bit of lore for the Santa Monica shop
They’ve made nine feature films and not a single one flopped
(Except possibly that Easter film known only as Hop)
Illumination has mastered the feature film spree
with roughly one film a year since Despicable Me.
In fact, Minions of 2015 still sits
at the number 3 spot on the highest grossing list
of all animated films made worldwide.
Quite a shame since their films are pretty empty inside.
Out of nine films, only four are original,
three others are sequels or stories dirigible,
and among their slate of future releases
are another three sequels with no sign of ceases.
The last two films are the topic of today,
adaptations of stories in the Dr. Seuss way.
The Lorax and Grinch books are roughly 70 pages
each a paragraph surrounded in picturesque cages
and the earliest versions adapted visually
came to 25 minutes and aired on TV.
And these versions weren’t butchered or cut
but were actually embellished with layers of fluff.
Not the useless kind, mind you, for they added to the story
and altogether supported the intended allegory.
But while 25 minutes worked well for TV
Some expansion is needed to fill a movie.
So how do grow a story to round out the time
when all you have is 70 paragraphs in rhyme?
Well, you add characters, add beats, add tangents and events
you pump up minor roles until the run time makes sense.
And all of that is fine, I even understand why
"book to film” doesn’t always meet eye to eye,
but when you grab works as short as Dr. Seuss
your changes can’t help but be incredibly loose.
Loose adaptation isn’t quite bad or good
So long as choices made are the ones that you should.
This can be done well, as I’ve been convinced
In works like Hilda or The Little Prince (2015),
and in other cases, possibly not
with things like Transformers (2007) or I, Robot.
It can also lead to works radically bizarre,
in which narrative and subtext are cast awfully far.
(Starship Troopers, you know who you are.)
But when tasked with loose adaptation,
no one should be well equipped like Illumination.
As storytellers go, these guys should be enough
since they’re one of the best at making stuff up.
(What exactly is Despicable Me 3 about?
That film is so random I can’t figure it out.)
I don’t want to say they aren’t capable of improvement,
they’re still one of the best at fluidity of movement
and they have a wonderful sense of setup and priming
their scenes to expose great comedic timing
and as storytellers go, I want them to bring
more of the talent that helped create Sing!
But perhaps they weren’t a nominal choice
since Dr. Seuss works have a particular voice.
Sure, his writing is silly and is loaded with Whos
but also carries anti-consumerist views.
This makes the prospect of feature a bit sketchy at best
and Illumination failed when put to the test.
The Lorax (2012): Completely missing the point
The Lorax was written in ‘71
and philosophically speaking weighed quite a ton
as Dr. Seuss used the story mostly to vent
how we destroy our world for a little more cent.
In fact, let me drop the rhyming note
to bring you the author’s most direct quote:
““In The Lorax I was out to attack what I think are evil things and let the chips fall where they might.””
It’s really not surprising that the book would see
a fair amount of controversy
(including an ill-timed line about one Lake Erie).
Still, I would say The Lorax left a great mark
on showing a future that was looking quite dark
and revealing that a world that was feeling so bare
could maybe get better if all of us cared.
It was adapted first in ‘72
as a 24 minute animated cartoon
the story remained, the idea unharmed
the Once-ler expanded, the audience charmed.
There was ambiguity to remove a notion quite blunt
that the Once-ler was terrible right from the front.
Instead by making his conscience unclear,
he becomes more human, more relatable and near.
That the Once-let could be anyone was a strong point of fear.
One of my favorite lines for his chopping of wood:
"If I didn’t do it, someone else would.”
So, the story wasn’t quite word for word,
but the parts that they added were viciously heard.
Now the book and special, we must regrettably shelve
as we pry open this bomb from 2012.
It takes place in “Thneedville”, a city of plastic
all of the grass and the trees are elastic,
and the big bad businessman, a Mr. O’Hare
controls the whole city by selling fresh air.
For whatever reason, probably a corporate shove
The Lorax (2012) is about a teenager in love.
Ted has the hots for a girl named Audrey,
who wants to view a real Truffula Tree
(which could be hard since they’re extinct, supposedly).
Ted goes to the outskirts of town,
and finds no life for miles around.
When he stumbles into the broken old shack
the narrative of the book can finally unpack
with Ted getting history of a tree now endangered
and a cautionary tale from a well-hidden stranger…
Well, except that ambiguity is all thrown aside
and the Once-ler’s just a dude with guitar at his side,
which creates a bit of a problem, in that
the message of warning completely falls flat.
He’s just a normal guy, who’s normally nice,
and is willing to accept the Lorax’s advice,
but when his Thneed gains popularity,
he decides to call in his whole family,
who in turn bend his ear, and as such commence
to cut down the trees in a manner intense.
Good goes to bad, bad goes to worse,
the whole book is covered through a montage rehearsed.
When you solidify evils like Once-ler and O’Hare,
what are you asking the audience to beware?
Don’t consume without question, don’t endlessly take,
maybe think before throwing your junk in the lake?
Nah, you’re in the green, so long as you try
not to act like this jerk, or that business guy.
And if you went bad, it’s probably cause
your family raised you full of those flaws.
It’s also quite sad that the book has to hide
in this film as a story told in B-side,
while the Ted and Audrey stuff breaks the immersion
by jacking control of the time in this version.
And it’s only in the last moments of the movie
that the town gets to view an actual tree
and unanimously decide, with a musical number
that things should change, and we should be humbler.
No effort, no thought, no meaning caught,
Just a song, move along, all our problems are naught.
And with no ample challenge, the film started to fade,
but not without leaving a ditch in the shade.
It feels dirty to mention, in the larger strokes
that The Lorax was used by corporate folks
to promote more things they want us to need
like cars by Mazda, computers by HP,
maybe go to iHop when you’re urging to feed.
So we’re left with a legacy brutally tarnished,
”focus group tested”, and corporately garnished.
The Lorax stood as a strong moral fable
and now finds itself damaged by a badly placed label.
When I saw The Grinch (2018), it was good to see
that Illumination learned a lesson or three
on how to make a Seuss film proper…
or at least less bad than that earlier chopper.
The Grinch (2018): Completely missing the edge
How the Grinch stole Christmas is commonly known
as a holiday classic most families own.
Every year it’s either watched or its read
around December as a holiday thread.
Seuss wrote a great book and wrote a great song,
and Jones drew a great special that’s still going strong.
What makes it so great? I would suppose
that the Grinch around which the story’s composed
approaches Christmas spirit with subterfuge
in a similar manner to one Mister Scrooge.
He’s mean, he’s nasty, and he’s fed up with noise
that the entire town makes with their unneeded toys.
He hates Christmas so much, he’ll finally decide
to steal it all and dump it off a hillside.
And, just before shoving it into abyss
he waits to hear misery at things gone amiss,
a thing which, to him, would bring infinite bliss.
The story works though, despite this affair
because the Who’s down in Whoville don’t seem to care.
They still sing their songs, thankful for the day
and they make the Grinch realize in a wonderful way
that Christmas is about, not the stuff or the toys,
but the people we love and those we enjoy.
He gives back the tree, the gifts and roast beast,
and even gets invited to their community feast.
There’s little complication, not a lot else to tell,
Grinch starts off a grouch, and then ends up quite swell.
And similar to the Lorax, I think Seuss would intend
is an anti-consumerist thought to append;
every year how we’ll purchase some items of worth
instead of spreading goodwill or peace on Earth.
Now that story worked on the TV and page,
but now we live in the cinema age,
and what we got at the turn of the century
was a very strange movie starring one Jim Carrey.
Once again, the book is 69 pages long
with a paragraph a piece, the rest beautifully drawn,
and now we need a feature length scene
to put this classic up on in the big screen.
One of the funniest things that the story would word
was the Grinch’s motives couldn’t quite be observed:
“The Grinch hated Christmas! The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don’t ask why. No one quite knows the reason.”
But for the 2000 film, the reason is clear:
childhood brought about some Christmas fear
bullying was involved, and built into trauma
the kind that could run an hour worth of drama.
And for plenty of reasons (that I’m not going to say),
the film was quite bad, which was plain as day.
But it’s worth noting that despite it’s mishaps
it’s definitely memorable and nets a few laughs.
So bad it’s good? Well, not quite so,
”so bad it’s fascinating” I’d agree with though.
18 years later, Illumination’s back
to prove they can get this Seuss thing on track.
And what exactly do they do to get this thing right?
Well, first they decide to take out the bite.
I mean, it’s the Grinch, which you’re meant to see
with every member of your family,
but I guess Illumination thought it’d be bad
if the Grinch was offensive or something like that.
Instead of mean, he’s “passive aggressive” at best
the whole stealing Christmas thing is just him being a pest.
The reasons they say, came from long ago
when on most Christmas days, he was all alone.
(So anxiety is the crime which we all much atone?)
Also for both films, the role of Cindy Lou Who
is a character each movie tremendously grew
Not just a random Who the Grinch does encounter
but a sympathetic, goodhearted anti-downer
built from the ground up to be the Grinch’s foil,
purified water to go with his oil.
So now their collision is no random crash
but a needed moment for ideals to clash
(although, the convenience is a little slapdash).
And there’s a message that’s geared for society
to show that compassion really is key,
and while the sentiment works within the structure
the film lacks the weight really needed to puncture.
At least I’ll acknowledge it as a work of heart
with excellent motion and terrific art.
Still I digress, the film reeks of less.
Harmless, toothless, and largely useless.
It came without edge, and it came without flaw;
in fact, it came with practically nothing at all.
So which would it be, would I ask you to choose:
Lorax with no sense, or Grinch with no fuse?
Either way, I feel destined to lose
The problem with loose, at least for the Seuss
As mentioned in several paragraphs prior
The Lorax and Grinch gave 70 pages to the buyer
each a paragraph or less with pictures aplomb
and each storybook a powerful cultural bomb
but even their earliest televised takes
kept the story intact and upheld the stakes.
Dr. Seuss is iconic, of that there’s no doubt,
but his stories were small with little mucking about
and I think what makes his works stand up today
is the focus of content put on display.
They were never meant to be long, or especially thick,
rather brisk and certain, adroit and quick
with just enough flourish, just enough whimsy
and with simple ideas that refused to be busy.
Loose adaptation works for some books, it’s true,
but for the tact Dr. Seuss, it just won’t do.
Which presents quite a problem for the movie scout,
the brand is iconic but the stories are drought.
So you’re left with no choice, you pad the run time
and as long as its popular, you’ll end up just fine.
Every feature film made in the Seuss’s name
has left in its wake a crying shame:
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) is largely reviled,
The Cat in the Hat (2003) was likely made by a child,
and while Horton hears a Who (2008) was harmless enough,
it hits like The Grinch (2018): with hardly more than a puff,
and the largest contributor to the landfill trash
comes directly from The Lorax (2012) stash.
But despite being bad, they all make some cash.
Hollywood, please listen, I’ll be clear as can be:
No Dr. Seuss book works as a movie.
These stories are minor, but sharp as a tack
not meant as a meal, more as a snack.
But if you just can’t resist, as you’re prone not to do
maybe consider a short film or two.
Costs less money, films end up much stronger
than trying to force a Seuss story longer.
Still, I just know, once enough time goes,
Illumination will draft up another Seuss prose.
After all, they’re one Cat in the Hat away
from having all Seuss classics on display.
It will probably look great, and be animated nicely
Even if it completely fails to tell a story concisely.
And regarding that story, I think I’ll predict
the presence of smart phones and a selfie stick.
If you liked this article, please pass it on,
and don’t forget to support us on Patreon.
