A Little Princess
The video
A Little Princess
I love this book by Frances Hodgson Burnett. I recently had the opportunity to see an old Shirley Temple version of this movie. There is a much more recent version, I know, but I haven't yet seen that one.
It was all wrong!
Sara's dad died! He died in India! The man next door was looking for her! The Indian guy had a monkey! Sara didn't mistreat people! Miss Minchin had a sister! Sara had a French maid! England wasn't at war! Sara didn't have a weird dream! Etc., etc., etc.!
Seriously, why did they change the storyline so much? When it was over I could hardly recognize the connection with the classic book.
Did they think it was too mature to have Sara's dad truly die? Is that why they concocted the story of him being in Mafeking instead of India being double-crossed by a partner (the guy living next door)? Why must little details like the Indian's monkey be changed to a parrot? Why did Miss Minchin suddenly have a shiftless brother instead of a hen-pecked sister? Why was there a pretty teacher instead of Miss Minchin teaching the classes (except French)? Why did the teacher also apparently double as Sara's maid? Did they specifically create scenes so they could show off Shirley Temple's ability to dance?
That dream really floored me. Who cooked up that idea? It was ridiculous and has not an ounce of validity in the book. My other major complaint was the handling of Sara's character. That wasn't the girl I've met in the book. This Sara had frequent outbursts at people, Miss Minchin included. In the books, she was always so quiet and forebearing. Also, Sara in the movie dumped ashes all over Lavinia's head. The girl in the book would never have done that.
*sighs*
If they want to make a Shirley Temple movie like that they can. I just wish they didn't have to call it "A Little Princess" almost in mockery of a classic book.
Oh, and has anyone ever noticed that the name Sara means "princess"?
It was all wrong!
Sara's dad died! He died in India! The man next door was looking for her! The Indian guy had a monkey! Sara didn't mistreat people! Miss Minchin had a sister! Sara had a French maid! England wasn't at war! Sara didn't have a weird dream! Etc., etc., etc.!
Seriously, why did they change the storyline so much? When it was over I could hardly recognize the connection with the classic book.
Did they think it was too mature to have Sara's dad truly die? Is that why they concocted the story of him being in Mafeking instead of India being double-crossed by a partner (the guy living next door)? Why must little details like the Indian's monkey be changed to a parrot? Why did Miss Minchin suddenly have a shiftless brother instead of a hen-pecked sister? Why was there a pretty teacher instead of Miss Minchin teaching the classes (except French)? Why did the teacher also apparently double as Sara's maid? Did they specifically create scenes so they could show off Shirley Temple's ability to dance?
That dream really floored me. Who cooked up that idea? It was ridiculous and has not an ounce of validity in the book. My other major complaint was the handling of Sara's character. That wasn't the girl I've met in the book. This Sara had frequent outbursts at people, Miss Minchin included. In the books, she was always so quiet and forebearing. Also, Sara in the movie dumped ashes all over Lavinia's head. The girl in the book would never have done that.
*sighs*
If they want to make a Shirley Temple movie like that they can. I just wish they didn't have to call it "A Little Princess" almost in mockery of a classic book.
Oh, and has anyone ever noticed that the name Sara means "princess"?
- Evil Chick
- Miss Whit's End
- Posts: 10052
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: I'm sitting on top of the world.
- Laura Ingalls
- Half Pint
- Posts: 11491
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Suburbia
I know, it's horrible isn't it??!!! *splutters in indignation*
I hate it when they change details in the book for no apparent reason! One video I've seen of The Little Princess that was actually pretty accurate for the most part, was a 3 hour long production put out by the BBC, I believe.
I have the Shirley Temple version, and I do watch it now and then, but I always am thinking about how it doesn't line up with the book.
And yes, I have noticed the princess connection with Sara's name.
I hate it when they change details in the book for no apparent reason! One video I've seen of The Little Princess that was actually pretty accurate for the most part, was a 3 hour long production put out by the BBC, I believe.
I have the Shirley Temple version, and I do watch it now and then, but I always am thinking about how it doesn't line up with the book.
And yes, I have noticed the princess connection with Sara's name.
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. ♡
- Laura Ingalls
- Half Pint
- Posts: 11491
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Suburbia
Okay, I've found what version I was talking about...here's some links to look at it online. Overstocks.com,Rotten Tomatoes.com, and Amazon.com
It says it's a BBC adaption put out by Wonderworks video. It really is a great version of A Little Princess - you should try to find it at your library. That's where I got it from.
It says it's a BBC adaption put out by Wonderworks video. It really is a great version of A Little Princess - you should try to find it at your library. That's where I got it from.
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. ♡
What role did Camilla play?Frank wrote:I liked the more recent version of "A Little Princess"...which incidently has Camilla Belle in it...(the early Aubrey Shepherd.) The Shirley Temple one did seem a little bit cheesy...
I didn't even see your post until now. I guess we posted about the same time.Laura Ingalls wrote:I know, it's horrible isn't it??!!! *splutters in indignation*
Yes, it is horrible. I can understand certain changes that might have to be made when adapting a book to the screen, just like the writers might have to do with AIO. But so many things are changed for no obvious reason...
It's not even the same story.Laura Ingalls wrote:I have the Shirley Temple version, and I do watch it now and then, but I always am thinking about how it doesn't line up with the book.
- Thursday Next
- Catspaw Rocks!
- Posts: 908
- Joined: April 2005
- Contact:
Catspaw wrote:I've seen the Shirley Temple version, but I never liked it. It seemed kind of dumb, but since I've never read the book, so I didn't have anything to compare it to. I might try to find the version that Laura mentioned, or read the book, if they're so much better than the Shirley Temple version.
i always loved that movie why did you hate it
Life is worth living, so live the best life that you can
- Rachael Blackgaard
- Dr Blackgaard's Girl
- Posts: 4807
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: IT!!!!!!!
- Contact:
I've seen both versions but have not read the book. (I did read The Secret Garden, though-- it's by the same author) The more recent version may have been based on the Shirley Temple version, but I'm not sure. I enjoyed the newer movie better, but it did have a bit of Indian mysticism/mythology. Not a lot, but enough for my mom to ban it after a couple of years. Other than that, it was a great movie.
To anyone who hasn't read the book, I highly recommend it. Dawningoftime... you'll find the book and the Shirley Temple version of the movie have very little resemblance.Rachael wrote:I've seen both versions but have not read the book. (I did read The Secret Garden, though-- it's by the same author) The more recent version may have been based on the Shirley Temple version, but I'm not sure. I enjoyed the newer movie better, but it did have a bit of Indian mysticism/mythology. Not a lot, but enough for my mom to ban it after a couple of years. Other than that, it was a great movie.
The author of "A Little Princess" and "The Secret Garden" apparently did have some strange beliefs but I don't think there's any Indian mysticism in "A Little Princess." "The Secret Garden" is more problematic with it's talk about magic being in us and and working (a pantheistic worldview). I own the Radio Theatre version of "The Secret Garden" and I'm happy to report that they left the offensive sections out.
- Rachael Blackgaard
- Dr Blackgaard's Girl
- Posts: 4807
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: IT!!!!!!!
- Contact:
I loved the Secret Garden, so I will probably put the Radio Theatre version of it on my Christmas wishlist. A lot of my less-developed fic, The Mistress of Blackgaard Manor, was inspired by the Secret Garden. As well as Victoria Holt, Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, and many others, but the Secret Garden was probably one of the most predominant ones.
- Linne
- Ignorance of the law is no excuse
- Posts: 4347
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: On the stage!
- Contact:
It's not even the same story. [/quote]Laura Ingalls wrote:I have the Shirley Temple version, and I do watch it now and then, but I always am thinking about how it doesn't line up with the book.
How true. I just recently borrowed it from a friends, and was APPALLED! The Little Princess is one of my favorite books, and it was completely changed. I've never been a big fan of Shirley Temple anyway, she's too.....cute or something. But after the first five minutes, nothing was the same!
Where was Ermengarde? And Lottie? And where was the imaginative little girl from the book? This Sara never seems to imagine things, or make up stories. I was relieved that they decided to keep Becky in the movie at least, and she was mostly true to the book.
And Miss Minchin wasn't mean enough. She wasn't really cruel, like the book Miss Minchin was.
And the romance between the two teachers....ugh! There's no romance in the book, and that's where it's good is. It's a stoy about a girl whose father...hem...dies....and what she goes through. I think they felt in wouldn't be in good taste for Shirley Temple to have to go through something like that.
- Laura Ingalls
- Half Pint
- Posts: 11491
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: Suburbia
That is one thing I don't like about the version that I recommended above....they mention "karma" and have this Indian goddess statue. Fast-forward time!Chandler wrote:To anyone who hasn't read the book, I highly recommend it. Dawningoftime... you'll find the book and the Shirley Temple version of the movie have very little resemblance.Rachael wrote:I've seen both versions but have not read the book. (I did read The Secret Garden, though-- it's by the same author) The more recent version may have been based on the Shirley Temple version, but I'm not sure. I enjoyed the newer movie better, but it did have a bit of Indian mysticism/mythology. Not a lot, but enough for my mom to ban it after a couple of years. Other than that, it was a great movie.
The author of "A Little Princess" and "The Secret Garden" apparently did have some strange beliefs but I don't think there's any Indian mysticism in "A Little Princess." "The Secret Garden" is more problematic with it's talk about magic being in us and and working (a pantheistic worldview). I own the Radio Theatre version of "The Secret Garden" and I'm happy to report that they left the offensive sections out.
I can't remember if anything like that is in the book, because I haven't read it in a couple years.
I second the recommendation to read the book!!! Nothing can be better than the real thing!
The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance. ♡
I don't hate it, I just don't really like it. It just seemed kind of fake and cheesy, like it was trying to be too cute. I haven't watched it in a long time, so I couldn't tell you anything specific.crazyforjared wrote:Catspaw wrote:I've seen the Shirley Temple version, but I never liked it. It seemed kind of dumb, but since I've never read the book, so I didn't have anything to compare it to. I might try to find the version that Laura mentioned, or read the book, if they're so much better than the Shirley Temple version.
i always loved that movie why did you hate it
- HarlowRoxMySox
- Smile for the camera
- Posts: 1125
- Joined: April 2005
- Location: United States
- Contact:
I adored the book. I haven't seen the Shirley Temple version. I've seen the new version, but in that version (there was a sister, the guy had a monkey) but her father didn't die. I liked the movie anyway though. I absolutely adored the book though, truly a great work.